BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tell Me what you would Say (evolutionists only)

Evidence supporting evolution described in good detail. Observations of micro evolution in bacteria in a laboratory. It is simple, a group of bacteria were grown in a lab and their genetic codes were analyzed. Although no significant mutation occurred such as changes in shape or function small alterations in the genetic codes of the colony as a whole were observed. Scientists, and anyone else with Internet access can learn that a collection of small mutations over time can lead to large changes. This proves evolution. The large collection of fossils in even one large museum can show the small changes occurring as a whole in one species leading to the transition into a new species. This proves evolution. An experiment and fossil evidence showed that organic materials (i.e proteins, sugars, lipids(fats)) can be made when a cloud containing the atoms needed to create these materials is struck by lightning. These circumstances were common on young Earth around the time we estimate the first cells were made. I stress that these first "cells" had no DNA or organelles. They were uniform bubbles enclosed by a phospholipid-bilayar. This proves the theory of evolution. Humans are evolving differently then they would "naturally" because of agricultural innovations. Looking at pre-historic skeletons we are able to tell that early humans had much harder, durable teeth than modern humans. We can thank highly processed soft foods and even the concept of cooking meat. This proves evolution. There is a certain species of moth that live in England. They used to be light-gray in color and dwelled on the sides of trees with light bark. During the industrial revolution much more smog and sut settled on surfaces. The moths over a few decades changed from mostly light-gray to dark-gray. This shows how a population adapted to their surroundings. This proves evolution. Unfortunately, there is no way prove evolution without offending your biblical god. I say biblical god because if your god existed the bible most likely would not represent him. The first holy books were written shortly after jesus's death and the first "correct" holy book was compiled centuries after his death. Not only that but the Roman church and Constantine changed Christianity's view from peacefulness to war.I've heard "god is good" time and time again. If he was good why would he want people to go to hell. Why doesn't he just tell the non-believers about him to save them from eternal torture.My questions:1)What evidence do you have that proves today's bible is proof of god?2)What evidence do you have for god?3)What evidence do you have that disproves evolution?
Tell Me what you would Say (evolutionists only)

NO no no. no evidence disproves him. He wasn't obligated to enlighten an arrogant person who pretended to be ignorant of their actions. He has explicitly provided evidence why he doesn't talk to unfaithful people. You had already established that he was real And he is mad; And you started to blame him. by not answering the question, but instead questioning him accusingly. The Question is, "WHAT evidence did you have to CONCLUDE evolution was real !?" Answer THAT question. As to PROVE you have logic. this is simple, and fun for everyone. Because you are providing evidence for evolution you would stand behind when being condemned even, because lying about it is blasphemy, PROVE evolution in a way that makes you sound innocent to GOD. here for me to hear it. 0% Bigotry tolerance. Nothing that is not 100% factually proven to be exactly true and accurate and unsubjective counts for anything except grounds for eternal migranes, torture and remorse. NO DODGING the question. Answer it. "NO no no. no evidence disproves him. He wasn't obligated to enlighten an arrogant person who pretended to be ignorant of their actions. He has explicitly provided evidence why he doesn't talk to unfaithful people. You had already established that he was real And he is mad; And you started to blame him. by not answering the question, but instead questioning him accusingly. The Question is, "WHAT evidence did you have to CONCLUDE evolution was real !?" Answer THAT question. As to PROVE you have logic. this is simple, and fun for everyone. Because you are providing evidence for evolution you would stand behind when being condemned even, because lying about it is blasphemy, ""WHAT evidence did you have to CONCLUDE evolution was real !?"" God said in Wrathful impatience.
Tell Me what you would Say (evolutionists only)

I would say: "Well I sure am suprised that you're real, I wasn't expecting that. But, if you wanted everyone to follow you why did you not show yourself to me. And on the topic of evolution, why did you create evidence like observed micro-evolution and the fossil that proves evolution and thus disproves yourself. If you are all powerful why did you not show yourself to non-believers and destroy any evidence that disproved you?"
Tell Me what you would Say (evolutionists only)

Alrighty THEORETICALLY: God IS in fact real (there is no stipulation; this is a theoretical situation.) ~ You died and went to your judgement, and God is pissed that you subliminally, passively and actively advocated atheism because it reinforced all selfishness, criminal behavioural, sloth, indulgence, negligence and inconsideration etc... as well as the social effects on the "status quo" that go along with it. ~ SO he says to you, "WHAT evidence did you have to CONCLUDE evolution was real !?" ~ #How would you answer that question? {now that you are not arguing with a man that You have decided is using less reasoning than yourself. {} Now that the Gig is up.[What Proof?*] } Tell me what you will tell God. Let's here the sensationable evidence**
terrorism is an unhelpful concept

My opponent is arguing that "Terrorism is an unhelpful concept because it carries within it the implication that non-state violence is always the same as terror-inducing violence." However, my opponent has not offered any evidence that this implication exists. In the last argument, my opponent tries to defend my accusation that his claim is baseless by transforming it into a completely different statement, removing the implication part of it to move his burden to me. Pro's BOP is not met. I win.
terrorism is an unhelpful concept

'Spouting' suggests resort to ad hominem approach. Is it a bare assertion that the term terrorism is always used to refer to the action of non-state actors? As this is a clearly falisifiable claim, BOP is with con. In plain words, we can only disprove this by finding an example of state-sponsored terror being called terrorism. (see the Wason selection test).. I will concede is that 'unhelpful' is a subjective word. 'Terrorism' is a very helpful concept for states - but not for citizens.
terrorism is an unhelpful concept

My opponent's second sentence is a bare assertion. Unless Pro can back this up, I maintain that it is false. The concept of terrorism refers to an act of terror, it implies nothing about the arguments that my opponent is spouting. The fact is, it is irrelevant whether terrorism is perceived incorrectly or not. Since Pro is making the assertion, he bears the BOP. This BOP is not being fulfilled, as he has not yet proved that the concept of terrorism is unhelpful in any way.
terrorism is an unhelpful concept

Thanks! Terrorism is an unhelpful concept because it carries within it the implication that non-state violence is always the same as terror-inducing violence. In reality these are two separate axes. Some non-state acts of violence are aimed at creating civilian terror, and some are not. Equally some state acts of violence of are aimed at creating civilian terror, and some are not. Thinking along these two axes discretely is essential. 'Terrorism' is an unhelpful term as it conflates the two.
terrorism is an unhelpful concept

Terrorism is any act designed to cause terror. http://bit.ly... My opponent is arguing that terrorism is an unhelpful concept, but I disagree. Pro contends that acts of violence by the state are more violent than any other cause of violence but this is completely irrelevant. When people feel the need to refer to acts of terror, they may use the term terrorism. I fail to see how this is unhelpful in any way. Note to readers: This debate is 500 characters maximum per argument.
terrorism is an unhelpful concept

'Terrorism' tends to refer to violent acts by non-state actors. In a world where states tend to have the monopoly on violence, the overwhelming majority of violence is actually state-sponsored. If you agree that violence is the problem, it follows that a great focus on terrorism is a red herring. This was exemplified before the First World War, when there was a great moral panic about terrorism, before states butchered hundreds of thousands of people. Discuss!
child curfew

I'm sorry but child curfews are not a good thing and should not be put in place. Children should not go to bed at a certain time. Children will end up staying up later than they are supposed to even if you give them a curfew. Since you are on the debate team why don't go and do some better research rather than trying to get someone to give you the answers. I wish good luck on the debate at your school. The instigator did not post an argument on why child curfew is a good thing. Vote For Me.
Vampires are better than Werewolves.

Well a vampire is a form myth itself is it not? and while showing off he proves it in the third movie by killing victoria and the other wanna be guy. Plus since when have vampires ever been sparkly thats just retarded. Would u kiss a vampire whos lips are as cold as snow on mount everest? Well all vampires are like that because they are dead. I have nothing against a vampire but i would prefer werewolves.
Vampires are better than Werewolves.

The fact below is his opinion. He says it to "Show off" "I dont like twilight but i watched and payed attention now Jacob is a warewolf and i quote he says " Yea well were faster and stronger" when she found out he was a werewolf." Next two the fact is those are just a form of "Myth" "And also a vampire is a parasite who needs to feed on others to survive, they live in coffins, and they are dead." "They can not live in the sun they will burn unlike werewolves."
Vampires are better than Werewolves.

I dont like twilight but i watched and payed attention now Jacob is a warewolf and i quote he says " Yea well were faster and stronger" when she found out he was a werewolf. And also a vampire is a parasite who needs to feed on others to survive, they live in coffins, and they are dead. If my twilight quote isn't good enough and you prefer the old school vampires. They can not live in the sun they will burn unlike werewolves.
Vampires are better than Werewolves.

Im am arguing the fact that Vampires (weather mythical or not) are better than Werewolves. The rules are as following Round 1: Do you accept the challenge? Round 2-4: Give facts and proof why your mythalogical creature is best. round 5: Why should you win? Good luck www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JFZ1Ecq_0c
Vampires are better than Werewolves.

Well in that case i hope you dont get frostbite on your tongue. Your right both parties being myth but if it didnt matter why even bring it up. Plus vampires are insecure look at ever twilight movie hes always insecure. And being a werewolf isnt permanent(well it is but they can change back into a human after a period of a few hours) a vampire is. A werewolf can lock him self in a cage on the night of his transformation therefore making himself less harmful to those they live around. A vampire can only isolate himself from the rest of the world and hope animal blood sustains them.
The probability argument falls flat when it comes to explaining the past

I am starting this debate because I've seen some famous fundamentalists and evangelical Christians mention this argument when trying to disprove abiogenesis. I would like to explain why this fails in a debate. Criterion for this debate is that my opponent has to have at least 10 debates finished. This is to prevent trolls and people unfamiliar with this site and topic to accept,although there are still some chances for that to happen (see what I did there? ).
Christianity

I agree that "love your neighbour as yourself" is a great commandment. But I don't agree that all of Christianity is moral. My opponent says, "The Catechism, which is a summary of Christian doctrine written by the Vatican, is a better representation of modern doctrine of Christianity. My opponent cannot refute the authority of the Catechism because it is the official doctrine of Christianity." But is it really "the official doctrine of Christianity"? In my opinion, no. The Bible is, because it's the very foundation of Christianity. My opponent also claims that the 7th Commandment forbids slavery. The 7th Commandment is "You shall not commit adultery." While I agree that this is a good commandment, what does adultery have to do with slavery? My opponent says, "Chirstinaity [sic] does believe homosexuality is unnatural because homosexuality does not lead to procreation. However, this is an opinion. Plus, Christianity does not intend to kill people because they are homosexuals anymore." However, there is actually scientific evidence that homosexuality is natural (youtube.com/watch?v=70I7Nag4Eu8). And even though the majority of Christians don't kill homosexuals, that doesn't change Christianity itself. The Bible, which is the foundational text of Christianity, says that homosexuals deserve death, and that's what makes Christianity immoral, in my opinion.
Christianity

My opponent is directly quoting the Bible and saying that such and such statements make Christianity immoral. Bible contains some controversial statements. Yes, but it was written thousands of years ago. We have to think this in the context of that time. Yes, Jesus did defend the law, However, he can also be quoted in saying this in Matthew 22:36: 36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37 Jesus replied: ""Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind."[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: "Love your neighbor as yourself."[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." https://www.biblegateway.com... The Catechism, which is a summary of Christian doctrine written by the Vatican, is a better representation of modern doctrine of Christianity. My opponent cannot refute the authority of the Catechism because it is the official doctrine of Christianity. The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason - selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian - lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit. St. Paul directed a Christian master to treat his Christian slave "no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, . . . both in the flesh and in the Lord."194 http://www.vatican.va... As seen from the Catechism, Christianity is against slavery. Chirstinaity does believe homosexuality is unnatural because homosexuality does not lead to procreation. However, this is an opinion. Plus, Christianity does not intend to kill people because they are homosexuals anymore. To summarize, my opponent is just taking things out of context to accuse Christianity of unreasonable charges.
Christianity

My opponent says, and I quote, "My opponent does not realize that the Bible was written in the context of thousand of years ago, where these things were accepted. Now, humans have changed their way of thinking, and these statements are nothing but obsolete." However, Jesus defended the Law in Matthew 5:18-19 and Luke 16:17. If Jesus (who was the Messiah according to the Bible) defended and upheld the Law, then why shouldn't modern-day Christians? If the answer to that question is that the Law is immoral, then modern-day Christians should admit that the Bible is not a moral guidebook.
Christianity

My opponent does not realize that the Bible was written in the context of thousand of years ago, where these things were accepted. Now, humans have changed their way of thinking, and these statements are nothing but obsolete. This is shown because most Christians do not follow these statements. Catechism is a better representation of Christianity. Of course, Christians can have different interpretation of these statements, but it still does not mean that Christianity is immoral. One has to read history in its context. The Bible was written by people who lived in that era and had the belief system of then. It is absurd to put the Bible out of context and call it immoral.
Christianity

In this debate, I am arguing against the religion of Christianity. My opponent will argue for the religion of Christianity. Note that this is not a debate about the factuality of Christianity, but rather a debate about the morality of Christianity. We are not debating about whether Christianity is true, but about whether it is moral. Here are some things in the Bible, the holy book of Christianity, that I think are immoral: Exodus 22:18: "Do not allow a sorceress to live. " Leviticus 15:19-33: Don't have sex with a menstruating woman. Anything that a menstruating woman touches is unclean and dirty. Stay away from a menstruating woman. Leviticus 20:13: If a man sleeps with a man, you should kill both of them. Leviticus 27:3-7: A woman isn't worth as much as a man is. Romans 1:26-27: Homosexuality is unnatural. 1 Timothy 2:11-12: A woman should not assume authority over a man. Instead, she should be quiet.
Christianity

Timothy and Romans were written not by Jesus, but by the followers of Christianity after his death. Of course, those people lived in the era where homosexuality was considered evil and women were deemed lesser. While Jesus do not explicitly state anything about sexism in the Bible, he does treat women equally. A prime example of this is Mary Magdalene, who is accepted as his disciple even though she was a woman. Jesus forgives a woman caught in adultery despite of the tradition in the society. He talks to a Samaritan woman without any disrespect. Jesus is not a portrayed as a sexist. Thinking about this, it should be no surprise that Christianity states : "Each of the two sexes is an image of the power and tenderness of God, with equal dignity though in a different way". http://www.vatican.va... Considering the treatment of woman by Jesus and the Catechism, it can be said that the passage in 1 Timothy is obsolete. Catholic church does believe that homosexuality cannot be approved, but they do state this in its Catechism: "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." http://www.marriageuniqueforareason.org... Yes, even I do not agree with Christianity's views on homosexuality. However, modern Christianity does not intend any harm for homosexual people. As long as they do not intend any harm, they cannot be called immoral.
Christianity

My opponent has made excellent arguments. My opponent has cited some examples of Jesus in the New Testament doing away with certain Old Testament laws as evidence that modern Christians aren't necessarily bound by Old Testament law, or at least not all of it. However, my opponent has not cited any passages where Jesus does away with the any of the passages that I mentioned in Round 1. If Jesus wanted to do away with those, then why didn't he mention those? Furthermore, 2 of the passages that I mentioned in Round 1 (Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12) are from the New Testament. So, even if Jesus wanted to do away with the Old Testament, he did not want to do away with those 2 passages.
Christianity

My opponent says, "Christians have the ability to distinguish what is right and wrong in the standard of modern society, and if the participants of Christianity is able to do that, Christianity is not immoral." It's true that the vast majority of Christians are good people. However, I am arguing that the Bible, which is the foundation of Christianity, is immoral. If the Bible is immoral, then so is Christianity, regardless of whether its followers are. My opponent also says, "Plus, Old testament is the base of Judaism, not Christianity. Christianity focuses on the New testament. And according to the action of Jesus, he would never allow people to kill based on their sexuality and whatnot." However, as I have stated, Jesus defended the law of the Old Testament in the New Testament (Matthew 5:18-19, Luke 16:17). Therefore, if Christianity accepts the New Testament, then it must accept the Old Testament, as well. And some of the passages from the Bible that I referenced in Round 1 are from the New Testament.
Christianity

Bible should not be taken for word by word. Not all Christians believe that Adam and Eve literary existed. Christians have the ability to distinguish what is right and wrong in the standard of modern society, and if the participants of Christianity is able to do that, Christianity is not immoral. Plus, Old testament is the base of Judaism, not Christianity. Christianity focuses on the New testament. And according to the action of Jesus, he would never allow people to kill based on their sexuality and whatnot.