BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"God" or a supreme intelligent being exists

1) My opponent has made several inaccurate claims. a. Irreducible complexity – Many people, Including Richard Dawkins, Have tackled this very example, The eye. They have shown how it can come about by natural selection and simple origins with cells sensing light & shadows to avoid danger; furthermore, They demonstrate how it is not perfectly designed, Further demonstrating evolutionary theory. b. The fossil record does support evolution, There are tens of thousands of fossils clearly demonstrating morphology transitions. Within our species alone, We have numerous skulls from ancestors demonstrating the various changes in brain size. Prior to the Cambrian explosion, Most deaths did not result in fossilization because the cells decayed too quickly. c. Speciation does not take millions of years. Speciation can happen rather quickly, And it’s been observed and documented thoroughly. One example are the Galapagos islands. 2) In order to calculate the probability of life/God you would need to have other universes to compare it to. We don’t, So the probability approach is wrong. Also, Anthropic principle. 3) Black holes are still a newer concept in scientific study. For a long time, They were only theoretical. Many people have studied and written extensively about them to the extent of our current scientific understanding. The laws of physics break down inside a black hole, But the black hole itself does not defy the laws of physics. Their existence is entirely natural.
"God" or a supreme intelligent being exists

1) When you look around and observe nature the one thing that should strike you is the fact that there is complex design everywhere: Take for example the human eye, It has a various parts and mechanisms ranging from the retina which has a primary focus of receiving light photons and then converting the photons into neural signals. This clearly shows a very elaborate design and when compared to the atheistic theory that 'all life evolved from a simple celled organism it seems absurd. Especially considering that the fossil records don't support Darwinian theory (which he admitted himself). Because for a species to literally evolve and change into another so called species it takes millions of years of adaption, But according to the fossil records it shows that it went from nothing to tonnes of different organisms. 2) Since many scientist reject the possibility of a God or supreme being they try to create other possibilities which seem even more absurd, For example, That the universe and all life came into existence by chance. Now if we take a step back and actually calculate the probability of this event occurring it is probably hovering somewhere around the 1-0% mark where as the probability that God exists is 67% according to Dr Stephen Unwin (here is the link for all you sceptics, Https://www. Theguardian. Com/education/2004/mar/08/highereducation. Uk1) which is significantly higher. So your probably wondering why do they still choose to accept a more extreme possibility, This can simply be boiled down to the fact that they don't want to be held accountable to their actions. Because with the existence of God there are set laws that have repercussions if disobeyed but your atheists want to be able to what ever the hell they want without having to pay the price. 3) And finally there are many unexplained phenomenons that occur in the universe, For example MOST (emphasis on most) things abide by the laws of physics but the few exceptions like black holes which have a huge mass in an infinitely small space, Where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, And where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate. And say if all the universe according to atheists are dictated by these laws then why are there exceptions and for bonus points how do these phenomenons continue to exist.
Welfare

Again you can’t depend on the good people donating to private charity. Of course it’s very generous for them to do so, but we can’t just rely on them. A national welfare system is necessary because it makes sure that those who are in need get helped. Private charity and public welfare have two different meanings. Private charity is just charity. Public welfare is grand. We should care about and help each other because we are fellows living in the same country. It gives a sense of duty. It promotes compassion. Anyone who value compassion should support public welfare, whether or not you are going to donate to private charity. The following expresses my point exactly: “The worst thing Ronald Reagan did was to make the denial of compassion respectable. He said you’ve worked hard, you’ve made your money, you shouldn’t have to feel guilty about refusing to throw it away on people who choose to be homeless and who choose not to work. That’s what he said. He said it with an elegance and kind of a benign aspect that disguised it’s harshness.” –Mario Cuomo, governor, New York 1982-95, from The Century of The Self Let’s put aside this ideal and ideology and talk about the practical side. Public welfare has its practical benefit. By economically helping people in hardship, you make the society more stable, thus reducing risk factors and crime rate and other possible complications. Even though there are “crackheads who shouldn’t have children in the first place,” the fact is that the children are already there. It does help to blame the parents. The more important thing is securing the children, who are innocent. Feeding them, putting them to school, and all that will help preventing them loitering on the street and using drugs and preventing them from becoming the next generation of crackheads. It’s true that welfare is not always that effective, but it reduces the risk. Of course we hate those who stick to welfare forever but all these problems can be solved by modifying the system, but we should not eliminate welfare
Welfare

I see what you are saying when you say that "I don't believe in taxation in general". Well my point was giving it to a person or non government organization like what Obamas doing with Big Bird. Well I do because the taxes you pay contribute to things you may need in the community. I also see what you are saying when you talk about single moms with menial jobs. I feel the same. I come from a Catholic school and we would donate money to those types of people. But don't forget some are Crackheads who shouldn't have children in the first place.
Welfare

I do not believe in welfare because it is not up to the government to tell people who they have to give their money to. I would prefer all the money go to the military then what would go to welfare. Welfare is like feeding wild animals you keep giving them money they wont go working for it. Some people on welfare don't deserve free money. My dad used to say nothing in life is free except welfare and hate. That is true. Bottom line its not the governments job to give people money and take it from others. There are good people who will give to charities. Also on average more Republicans Donate money then Democrats.
Welfare

If you think it is not up to the government to tell people who they have to give their money to, than you are against tax in general, not just welfare. You have to pay tax no matter how the government is going to use the money. And by having welfare as part of the budget, you also make sure that not all the money goes into the military. The government is cutting other parts of the federal budget to feed the military, and I would rather have the money going into welfare, education, transportation, etc. that benefit the people more than the military. Welfare has a good intention by nature. It is one of the most important things we have to keep in modern societies where everyone is responsible for his well-being. Its sounds contradictory here but in fact welfare is the excellent complement to this belief in self-reliance. While we are encouraged to be responsible for ourselves, unfortunately our society doesn't work in the ideal way that if one works hard he will succeed. There are always limitations to our success that we have no control over. We need welfare to help people who have tried their best but still get stuck in poverty. At this point it is meaningless to blame the individual because it"s not his fault and it's about survival and basic needs. Welfare is the convenient way to solve these problems before we have a good way to fix the system. Good welfare guarantees a basic life-style for everyone, which also stabilizes the society and reduces risk factors. One of the benefits is reduction of crime rate. If there is any problem with welfare, it's not because welfare is bad, but because of the poor way it is arranged and conducted.
Theistic Evolution doesnt work with the bible.

1. I can accept this rebuttal. Although all things mean all things. It doesn't mean he created a hyena and it naturally evolved into a whale. You're saying that he created the Hyena then he made it evolve but then naturally it evolved more. If that verse were proved true, it would mean God intentionally evolved the hyena into the whale by making each adaptation. But that would just be a waste because he could have just created the whale. I don't see a purpose, please provide a verse that he would have a purpose to do a thing over time instead of doing it right now? 2. "You might be asking, "Well, if God is so smart and perfect, then why didn't he reveal the truth to the divinely inspired authors of the Bible?" While this is possible for God, I think he simply didn't WANT to do it, because that's not the purpose of the Bible. If God explained how everything works, such as DNA, evolution, and other stuff, then humans wouldn't get the chance to find these things out themselves. So in a way, God is giving us a chance to make great discovereies by not revealing everything." Give me a verse that states God wants us to do things by ourselves? 3. You're changing the argument. I'm saying based on the theory of evolution, Adam couldn't exist because he could have been created from the dust of the ground as said in Genesis 2:7. With evolution, it's very hard to say defines a human. If you go far back enough, the theory of evolution actually states that the first human was a woman. All I'm saying is that Theistic Evolution doesn't agree with what the bible says. 4. Again, you're changing the argument. I'm not saying that Jesus didn't exist. I'm saying that if Evolution says Adam doesn't exist, then, using Logic and reasoning, Jesus doesn't exist. 5. Whats the purpose than if God knew Animals needed adaptations, why wouldn't God put them there when he created them in the first place? Whats the whole purpose of Evolution if God had the power to completely bypass it? As you said in 2 Timothy 3:16, there are also translations that the word inspired in 2 Timothy is replaced with God-Breathed. The Greek word for inspired means God-breathed and inspired. Which means God meant every word in the bible. Then if you think Genesis is a myth, you would say God lied. In Conclusion, If you choose to believe certain parts of the bible and not believe other parts. That is up to you. The people that canonized the Bible, decided that the books that are in the bible belong in the bible. You disagree with this canonization. The only reason that the salvation parts of the bible are in the Bible, is due to this canonization that you disagree with. Did you know there are other books that are not in the bible that are in account of Jesus and salvation?
Theistic Evolution doesnt work with the bible.

1. If people were to follow it for salvation, why would there be factual errors? If the whole bible is meant to tell us how to be saved, why would God let there be factual errors in the bible? 2. I do agree with the first part that the bible shouldn't be used a science textbook. But when your debating science and creationism, you're bound to look at the bible for evidence. 3. Some parts of the bible are a myth. 2 Samuel 7:28: "Now, O Lord GOD, You are God, and Your words are truth." John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth. Luke 20:21 They questioned Him, saying, "Teacher, we know that You speak and teach correctly, and You are not partial to any, but teach the way of God in truth." 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; Here are just 4 of the many verses that prove in the bible that whats in the bible is truth. So if you believe that Genesis 1 is a myth, you would think that all these other verses are false, making you not believe the bible is truth. https://bible.knowing-jesus.com... 4. "but keep in mind there's actually two Genesis stories in the Bible that contradict each other. " Give me the proof and verses. 5. If the message is true, why would God tell it through myth? 6. Fossil Evidence stuff. https://www.gotquestions.org... http://www.genesispark.com... Let's see what you got.
Theistic Evolution doesnt work with the bible.

Science and religion are thought to be enemies of each other, especially in the field of creationism or evolution, but the fact is that both compliment each other, as is the case with theistic evolution. First off, many people make the mistake of using the Bible as a science textbook. No, the Bible is the word of God, and it reveals everything needed in order to be saved. 2 Peter 1:3 reads "His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness." This is why the Bible doesn't exactly explain science that well and sometimes falsely. Because that's not what the Bible is meant for. It is meant to be read for salvation, not knowledge of the natural world (aka science). With this in mind, theistic evolution works perfectly with the Bible. Because I wasn't there, I can't say whether the creation story is true or myth. Looking at scientific evidence, I would most likely come upon the conclusion that it is primarily myth. However, this is OK! What the creation story DOES give us is that God is the ultimate creator of the universe and the objects within it. Genesis was inspired by God, but written by man after all, so their may be some factual error within it. But the message, which is the main point, not the science, is truth. So did God create everything in 7 days? Fossil evidence says no. Evolution is the most likely cause for the origin of species. However, we can attribute natural selection as an instrument of God's to create new species. This may contradict the stories of the Earth's creation in the Bible, but keep in mind there's actually two Genesis stories in the Bible that contradict each other. Clearly, the stories are most likely narratives who two different human authors who had different ideas of how the Earth started. Nevertheless, both of them make the assertion that the primary cause is God, and so while they may be wrong with the details, the overall matter that the universe's creation was brought on by God is considered by theistic evolutionists to be true, and so thus the Bible succeeds in its ordained roll: revelation needed for salvation. Thank you for reading, I will refute your first argument in my next round.
Theistic Evolution doesnt work with the bible.

Theistic evolution doesn't work with the bible. 1. The Bible states that God is the Prime Cause of all things. "But to us, there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things . . . and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him" (1 Corinthians 8:6). With theistic evolution, the events, in the beginning, were naturally caused. 2. Creation order doesn't make sense. According to Genesis, the order of animals is Birds and fish, Land animals, then Humans. But according to the evolution, the first animal to roam on land was around 530 million years ago, and the first birds were in the Triassic period which is 251-199 million years ago. So evolution and Genesis don't line up because Genesis says birds can first then land animals, but Evolution says that land animals are first, then birds. 3. Theistic evolution does not acknowledge Adam as the first man, nor that he was created directly from "the dust of the ground" by God (Genesis 2:7). 4. So if Adam didn't exist, Jesus doesn't exist. How? In Romans 5:16-18, it says that the Savior Jesus and the Sinner Adam are linked together, so if you don't believe Adam existed, Jesus didn't exist either. 5. In no other historical book do we find so many and such valuable statements of purpose for man, as in the Bible. Man is God"s purpose in creation (Genesis 1:27-28). Man is the purpose of God"s plan of redemption (Isaiah 53:5). Man is the purpose of the mission of God"s Son (1 John 4:9). We are the purpose of God"s inheritance (Titus 3:7). Heaven is our destination (1 Peter 1:4). However, the very thought of purposefulness is anathema to evolutionists. "Evolutionary adaptations never follow a purposeful program, they thus cannot be regarded as teleonomical."5 Thus a belief system such as theistic evolution that marries purposefulness with non-purposefulness is a contradiction in terms. So why would God "write" the bible if its lies and he says to follow it?
Theistic Evolution doesnt work with the bible.

I believe that Theistic evolution does not line up with Genesis, Con will argue that theistic evolution does work out with Genesis. How this debate will go down. Round 1: Con's Arguments Round 2: Pro's Rebuttal and arguments Con's rebuttal Round 3: Rebuttal of Rebuttals Round 4: Final Rebuttals and Conclusion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ MUST READ RULES: 1. Only accept if your a theistic evolutionist or have been a theistic evolutionist. 2. We are not talking scientifically about what, only biblically. 3. Must back up statements with evidence.
"Where there's a will, there's a way" is factually incorrect

The example Pro offered holds no contradictions on my case. It's just that Hitler obviously didn't have a strong enough will, even though it may appear so, for had he had a strong enough will he would of succeeded, by figuring out some way, some how. Hitler just didn't have enough will, had he had enough, there would of been a way. My case is upheld. The resolution remains negated.
"Where there's a will, there's a way" is factually incorrect

I give the same advice as my worthy opponent did, namely: “voters keep an open mind…” "If there’s a will, there’s a way." I reiterate my first point from a previous round: Adolf Hitler-“At the risk of appearing to talk nonsense I tell you that the National Socialist movement will go on for 1,000 years! ---Time, 1934 “If the " Will" reaches the necessary sufficient threshold, to figure out a successful way, whatever that way may be, then the will becomes a way, that is it becomes a reality.”—CON The saying is a blanket statement that hypothetically includes all forms and ways of life. It is an undisputable fact that Hitler had an untiring and determined will. His will reached an arguably unprecedented threshold, and it was impossible to “figure out a successful way”. I highly recommend an in-depth study of the history, life and accomplishments of our determined victim. Conclusion: Our example, Hitler, had sufficient will to accomplish his designs of a National Socialist movement remaining for 1,000 years, but with an abundance of will, ways were lacking. Thus, according to the above-written information, the blanket saying is factually incorrect. Sources: 1. Logic 2. https://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.britannica.com...
"Where there's a will, there's a way" is factually incorrect

"where there's a will, there's a way"Quite simple resolution. Voters keep an open mind...If there is a will there is a way...Read below for a simple efficient argument. 1. I had sufficient will to accept this debate.2. The "way" was by clicking on accept.3. Since, I had the necessary sufficient will to grab and maneuver my mouse and click accept, which was the way fueled by my will. I did so.Conclusion. If the " Will" reaches the necessary sufficient threshold, to figure out a successful way, whatever that way may be, then the will becomes a way, that is it becomes a reality.Thus if anyone fails in making their will into a reality, that is a way, then we arrive at the conclusion that they simply lacked the necessary and sufficient WILL to devise a way to achieve that.Sources.1. LogicVote Con. The resolution is negated.
"Where there's a will, there's a way" is factually incorrect

Where there’s a will, there’s a way is factually incorrect. A: Adolf Hitler. “At the risk of appearing to talk nonsense I tell you that the National Socialist movement will go on for 1,000 years! ---Time, 1934. Hitler had had the will to extend his National Socialist movement for 1,000 years. He had the will, but there was no way. http://www.britannica.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... B: Bonaparte Napoleon Bonaparte had the will to be emperor over all Europe and Asia for a long period of time. He had the will, but there was no way. https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.britannica.com... C: Citroen Citroen had the will to rebuilt his factory and conduct large extensive marketing efforts. He had the will, but there was no way. https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.britannica.com... R: Romney Mitt Romney had the will to be elected in 2012. He had the will, but there was no way. http://www.britannica.com... As demonstrated by the previous examples, more than “a will” is necessary. They had the will, but there was no way.
Miley Cyrus is a horrible role model.

As far as I am aware, there a no rules such a those on Debate.org. Only the terms of service. Please tell me where exactly on this website you found your information.-- You need proof that my cousin idolizes Miley Cyrus? Would you like to meet her, mate? Is that what you're asking? I can't show any other proof. I could take a picture, but you might suggest that she just put on the Miley Cyrus T-shirt because I asked her to. But suppose you did meet her in person. She could tell you about how much she loves Hannah Montana, but who knows; she could be lying, right? When it gets down to it, how can anyone believe anything is fact unless you trust the source. Or the source's source. Where do facts come from? When does it end? Suppose I did supply you with statistics: 1 out of 3 children died in car crashes, because after seeing Miley Cyrus disreagarding the seatbelt law, the felt it was no longer necessary. That was fake, quite obviously, but what if it wasn't? Though if I had found it on the internet, how am I to prove it wasn't made up by someone else. Even if I did, you are to ignorant to accept you are wrong! Though on the other hand, how are you to prove it's false? And if you came up with the "facts", I could refuse to believe you, for how could you provide facts that your facts are real. And that those facts are real, and that those one's are real, and so on. How sir, can you say anything is fact, if you refuse to trust, to believe?