BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Collisions are unnecessary.

Collisions are an occasionally necessary part of the game.  When two professional athletes are involved in a dramatic, exciting play that could change the direction of a game (or decide the outcome of the entire season), they will do whatever they can to ensure the play turns out favourably for their team.  That means that collisions will occur.  To try to remove this aspect of baseball is to ask the players to do something that is completely at odds with their objective: to score, or to prevent the run from scoring. Though home-plate collisions are prohibited in amateur leagues, the stakes are different.  MLB players are paid millions of dollars to score—or prevent—runs.  They should be permitted to do what they’re handsomely paid to do.
Collisions heighten antagonisms.

A clean hit will not heighten tensions between teams.  Players recognize when a collision is “dirty” and when it is entirely within the rules and spirit of the game.  After the Posey hit, a baseball columnist summed up “the consensus viewpoint” of baseball professionals and journalists: “It was a clean play.”[1] In the 2011 playoffs, Texas Rangers Mike Napoli was barrelled over by Sean Rodriguez of the Los Angeles Angels.  Napoli said afterward, “It was a fine, clean play.  He was trying to score.  I’m going to try to do the same thing if I’m trying to score and a guy is blocking the plate in that moment.”[2]  As long as a player is not intending to hurt another and does not use unnecessary force, players on both teams are unlikely to hold grudges. The threat of retaliation for “dirty” hits is actually a useful deterrent to gratuitous force.  Players are much less likely to hurt each other if they know that there will be consequences for that behaviour. [1] Bruce Jenkins, “Buster Posey’s injury provokes anger, reflection,” San Francisco Chronicle, May 27, 2011, http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-05-27/news/29589365_1_buster-posey-nate-schierholtz-manager-bruce-bochy. [2] Richard Durrett, “Catcher Mike Napoli fine after collision,” ESPN.com, October 5, 2011, http://espn.go.com/blog/dallas/texas-rangers/post/_/id/4873153/catcher-mike-napoli-fine-after-collision.
Collisions are exciting and fun to watch.

Baseball is a form of entertainment, and few plays are as entertaining as bang-bang plays (a close call on whether the runner is thrown out) at the plate.  As a sport that’s often criticized for being too slow and boring—“baseball has no clock,” the saying goes[1]—it’s important that it hold onto perhaps the most dramatic, vivid play it has to offer.  One columnist described it this way: “When [collisions] do occur, they’re exciting.  We watch to see how well the catcher blocks the plate, how hard the runner slides, and whether the catcher can hold the ball.  As dangerous as that play may be, it’s exciting to watch.”[2] Other sports—like American football, ice hockey, and rugby—feature plenty of violent hits.  Baseball has so few of them that when they do happen, they are doubly entertaining.  It is just not necessary for baseball to prohibit a small dose of something that is extremely common in other sports. [1] William Deresiewicz, “Metaphors We Play By,” American Scholar, June 6, 2011, http://theamericanscholar.org/metaphors-we-play-by/. [2] Nick Cafardo, “Let’s keep rule change off our plate, please,” Boston Globe, May 29, 2011, http://articles.boston.com/2011-05-29/sports/29601720_1_catchers-plate-rule-change.
Collisions are a part of the game.

First, collisions are part of the tradition of baseball.  They have been part of the game for a very long time.  Fans, players, and managers all expect home plate hits to occur from time to time.  “Some things are part of the game.  There’s not a whole lot you can do,” said Red Sox catcher Jason Varitek, who has been on the receiving end of numerous crashes in his career.[1]  Varitek’s manager at the time, Terry Francona, agreed: “Nobody wants to see anybody get hurt, but you got to play the game.”[2]  And former catcher Brad Ausmus, who had also been hit multiple times in his career, echoed the sentiment: “[I]t's part of the game.…  When you put on the shin guards and chest protector, you know that if there’s a play at the plate and you’re blocking the plate, you could take a hit at any moment.”[3]  As the Associated Press put it, many people believe “home plate collisions are as much a part of baseball tradition as peanuts and Cracker Jacks and the seventh-inning stretch.”[4] Second, home plate hits are an essential element of playing the game hard.  Without them, baseball would be much less deserving of its nickname “hardball.”  One commentator notes, “[An injury is] extremely unfortunate, but it's the result of a hard-nosed play that is as old as the game itself.  To take away the potential for a high-intensity, physical play in an otherwise non-physical sport would be a mistake.”[5]  In that vein, collisions are also part of the dynamic between the offense and defense that, once removed, will make the game much poorer: “A baserunner wants to get there at all costs, whereas a catcher wants to protect it at all costs.  The mutual discomfort that's evoked in both the catcher and the baserunner as a play at the plate develops is one of the intriguing peculiarities that makes the game of baseball so great.”[6] [1] Antonio Gonzalez, “Posey’s injury stirs debate on baseball collisions,” Associated Press, May 27, 2011, http://articles.boston.com/2011-05-27/sports/29600593_1_angels-catcher-bobby-wilson-collisions-flagrant-hits. [2] Ibid. [3] Jayson Stark, “On a collision course,” ESPN.com (Rumblings & Grumblings blog), May 28, 2011, http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&page=rumblings110527. [4] Ibid. [5] Ricky Doyle, “Buster Posey’s Injury Unfortunate, But Home-Plate Collisions Still Have Place in Baseball,” NESN, May 29, 2011, http://www.nesn.com/2011/05/buster-poseys-injury-unfortunate-but-home-plate-collisions-still-have-place-in-baseball.html. [6] Ibid.
Collisions are not as dangerous as they’re feared to be.

Some hits lead to injury, but the vast majority do not.  One commentator challenged proponents of a rule change “to name as many as five MLB catchers in the last 30 years who have had their careers ended or shortened as a result of a home plate collision.  Personally, I can’t think of one.”[1]  In posing some—though not a substantial—risk, home plate collisions are very much like other aspects of the sport.  Every time a pitcher throws a pitch, the batter could get struck and hurt.  Every time two outfielders converge on a fly ball, there’s a risk of injury.  Baseball, as with many other sports, inherently involves the risk of injury.  It makes little sense to focus on this play, which doesn’t often result in significant injury. Moreover, catchers are trained to position their bodies in ways that minimize the injury risk from crashes.[2]  If catchers do as they’re trained, they’re very unlikely to get hurt. [1] Joe Janish, “Buster Posey Aftermath: What Should Be Done?,” On Baseball, May 30, 2011, http://www.onbaseball.com/catching/buster-posey-aftermath-what-should-be-done/ (internal quotation marks omitted). [2] See, for example, “Relays, Cutoffs, and Plays at Home,” Baseball-Catcher.com, http://www.baseball-catcher.com/guide/relays-cutoffs.htm.
There is no empirical evidence supporting Creationism, whereas all evidence supports abiogenesis and evolution.

Evolutionists point to all kinds of evidence "proving" their case, yet they still fail to offer a practical demonstration of their theory that would prove that all life could have evolved from a common ancestor. That still requires a great deal of faith on the part of the scientists. As to positive proof for Creationism, there are many co-dependent species relationships, as well as irreducibly complex biological structures which evolutionists have consistently been at a loss to explain. Creationism offers the explanation evolution cannot. improve this
Scientific opinion often changes; evolution may be accepted in the scientific community now, but it could well be rejected in future.

The opinion of the scientific community with regard to facts and theories has a great propensity to change with time. Once scientists adamantly maintained that the Earth was flat. For centuries it also maintained that there were two kinds of blood flowing through the human body. Science is not infallible and the prevailing theory is no more than the opinion currently in vogue among scholars. In light of new evidence, theories can change over time, giving way to better explanations[1]. For this reason, the evolutionists' dogmatic adherence to their position in spite of contrary evidence provided by Creationists is hard to understand. However, it becomes clear why the scientific establishment takes such a confrontational position toward Creationism when one considers that many eminent scientists and researchers have built their careers within the paradigm of evolution, and their research often depends wholly on its acceptance. These scientists would lose their exalted position in the light of a paradigm-shift in scientific understanding away from evolution. It is for this reason that scientists who adhere to established norms so often fight things like Creationism, even though they provide explanations where evolution cannot. For science to progress, these conservative impulses must be fought against, which is why it is essential that when science is taught, so are all the prevailing theories concerning branches of the sciences, including Creationism. [1] Understanding Science. 2011. “Science Aims to Explain and Understand”. University of California Berkeley.
Creationism is as valid a scientific theory as those of evolution and abiogenesis, and should therefore be given equal time in the classroom.

Creationism can be drawn as an entirely reasonable scientific hypothesis, and it forms a coherent theory of the origin and development of life that opposes the naturalist theories of abiogenesis and evolution. Abiogenesis describes the development of life from nonliving materials and evolution seeks to explain the development and diversity of life through a gradual process of mutation and natural selection, yet no one has ever demonstrated either process sufficiently in the laboratory. In the case of abiogenesis, all experiments to create an environment similar to the supposed prebiotic soup whence life first sprang have resulted in no new life forming. In the case of evolution, evolutionists consistently fail to show the development of new kinds of organisms[1]. While there is no doubt that some change occurs within species, such as the breeding of wolves into dogs, it appears to happen only within certain limited bounds. Certainly no experiment or study has shown evolution to be capable of explaining such huge diversity in the world of living things. Creationism, on the other hand, offers the explanation that abiogenesis and evolution cannot. The diversity of life and its origin are rationally explicable as the product of intelligent agency. This is not a statement of religious belief, but of scientific observation. Describing the nature of the designer, however, is another question all together, one that need not be answered in order to accept that there is such a designer. [1] Wells, Jonathan. 2009. “Why Darwinism is False”. Discovery Institute.   improve this
The scientific community as a whole overwhelmingly rejects Creationism.

95% of all scientists accept evolution, and only a fraction of those that do not accept Creationism.[1] The numbers are even smaller among biologists, the people most qualified to discuss the relative merits of Creationism and evolution, as the study of life and biological processes are their specialty. There is, in fact, greater consensus in biology than in virtually any other discipline. Evolution is often called one of the most thoroughly proven theories, more so even than such things as the observable laws of physics, which break down at the subatomic level. Evolution is a constant, which is why it has survived as a theory for 150 years.[2] The scientific community always fights any effort to institute Creationism in schools through the political process.[3] This is why, when court cases are brought on the issue of teaching Creationism, the panel of scientists is always on the side of evolution. Only a few discredited cranks support Creationism, and they invariably break down under cross-examination when they can offer no positive evidence for their claims. Furthermore, many scientists have religious faith and accept evolution. They simply see no reason to reject observable reality just to serve faith[4]. Creationists try to portray evolution as contrary to religion, which forms one of the main planks of their political campaigns against it, but such claims are fallacious. Science and faith can be compatible, so long as people are willing to accept observable reality as well as belief. The scientific community rejects creationism because it is not true and is not science. [1] Robinson, B. 1995. “Public Beliefs About Education and Creation”.  [2] Lenski, Richard. 2011. “Evolution: Fact and Theory”. Action Bioscience. [3] Irons, Peter. 2007. “Disaster in Dover: The Trials (and Tribulations) of Intelligent Design”. University of Montana Law Review 68(1). [4] Gould, Stephen. 2002. Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. New York: Ballantine Books.
There is no empirical evidence supporting Creationism, whereas all evidence supports abiogenesis and evolution.

Creationists have never once offered a positive evidence for their claims. When challenged, they respond with vitriolic, and often deliberately false, criticisms of evolution and abiogenesis. They behave as if delegitimizing an alternative theory necessarily gives credence to their own. Unfortunately for Creationism, that is not how science works. Positive claims require positive evidence. Even if the Creationists were able to provide evidence that actually refutes evolution it would do nothing to support a theory that intelligent agency is behind the existence and development of life. For Creationism to be true, there would need to be demonstration of living organisms that are unambiguously designed, and not the product of evolution by means of mutation and natural selection. Proponents of Creationism have consistently failed to do so. When they point to things they claim to be irreducibly complex they are invariably forced to back off as soon as scientists appear on the scene to test their claims.[1] The truth is there are no examples of organisms that could not have evolved. Abiogensis and evolution, on the other hand are thoroughly proven by observation and data.[2] In the case of abiogenesis, self-assembling molecules have been observed that are akin to the first proto-life, and hopes have never been higher that they will be able to observe the development under laboratory conditions of fully-formed new life. Evolution likewise is extensively demonstrated. Speciation, phylogenetic mapping, a more and more complete fossil record, structural atavisms, junk DNA, and embryology provide just some of the proofs of evolution.[3] All of these disciples are in agreement with evolution. In fact, only in light of evolution does anything in biology make any sense at all. Clearly, Creationism has no basis in science and thus no place in the classroom. [1] Miller, Kenneth. 2004. “The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of ‘Irreducible Complexity’” in Ruse, Michael and William Dembski (ed.). Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [2] Lenski, Richard. 2011. “Evolution: Fact and Theory”. Action Bioscience. [3] Colby, Chris. 1997. “Evidence for Evolution: An Eclectic Survey”. TalkOrigins Archive.
There is a very real controversy regarding the origin and development of life, and children deserve to hear both sides.

There is no controversy. It is not even a matter of most scientists agreeing with evolution, but virtually all of them. This is demonstrated very clearly in the scientific literature, as thousands of papers are submitted for peer review every year on the topic of evolution, all bolstering and upholding the theory. On the other hand, on average zero are submitted supporting Creationism, because such papers would not meet the necessary criteria of being scientific research at all.[1] Some papers at best question evolution, but attacks on one theory are not supports of another. Furthermore, the reason there are public debates and court cases is that Creationists seek to capitalize on the relative scientific illiteracy of the general public, knowing they can only win by spreading disinformation, rather than facing off against real scientists in the academic realm. [1] Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.   improve this
Much of the complexity of life cannot be explained by evolution, but is perfectly explained by Creationism.

There is no design in biology. People tend to anthropomorphize their environment, trying to assign human-like qualities to animals and nature. All of the complexity of life on Earth can be attributed to natural processes; life, diversity, and complexity are all the product of physical and chemical interactions and biological processes. There is no mystery in the basic process. Also, complexity is not at all indicative of design. In fact, evolution has been observed to occur from simple single-celled organisms into multi-cellular organisms under laboratory conditions. That degree of evolution completely refutes any claims about complexity requiring design. Furthermore, there are no irreducibly complex organisms. Every example offered by theists of irreducible complexity has been found inaccurate. The bacterial flagellum, for example, when several key components are removed loses its functionality as a motor, but becomes a form of secretory system that has a separate function.[1] Clearly, complexity is not indicative of a creator. [1] Miller, Kenneth. 2004. “The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of ‘Irreducible Complexity’” in Ruse, Michael and William Dembski (ed.). Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   improve this
Communities should have a say in what is taught in schools, and many communities want to teach creationism.

Schools should teach what is true. Evolution is one of the most robust theories in contemporary science; it is not the place of communities to propagate lies, even if they are more in keeping with their religious beliefs. Indoctrinating children and denying them access to real science, which happens even if Creationism and evolution are given "equal time", is to fundamentally compromise the value of education[1]. It is an inculcation of false belief to suit a communal goal of maintaining a set of beliefs that may not stand up to scientific scrutiny. The Creationists cannot win in the scientific arena because they are not scientists so they have decided to try to subvert the political system. Their goal is to undermine science and reason, and they must be stopped. [1] Rooney, Brian and Melia Patria. 2008. “Because the Bible Tells Me So?”. ABC News.
Education should be about truth and facts, not dogma and faith.

Truth is a complex thing. Scientists claim to know what is true and that schools should only teach their truth. But their truth changes with time. Communities can hold, and desire to hold, beliefs with more constancy. States everywhere recognize the value of communities and often give them special rights and exemptions for the sake of those beliefs. The Amish in America, for example do not need to attend education past the primary level, because the communities do not desire it. Communities give structure and lend stability to broader society, so they should be allowed to behave with a degree of leeway in terms of issues like education. Creationism is a truth for those who adhere to it and see that evidence fits that paradigm more than does evolution. Until irrefutable proof of evolution is given, as the scientific community has yet to do, both paradigms are equally valid and should be available to students in the classroom.
Creationism is a religious, not a scientific, explanation of reality.

Creationism is a legitimate scientific endeavor. Researchers struck by the apparent design in organisms look for evidence of that design. There is nothing pseudoscientific in that. There are many issues that evolution cannot explain, but which Creationism can (Behe 1996). Evolutionists can say the gaps in their theory will be filled over time, but that is not a scientific proposition either. improve this
There is a very real controversy regarding the origin and development of life, and children deserve to hear both sides.

Many scientists do not accept the conclusions of the evolutionists. People like Dr. Michael Behe have dedicated themselves to exposing the flaws in evolution and showing that there is very real disagreement within the scientific community. This controversy is highlighted in the many court cases, books, and televised debates occurring in countries all over the world[1]. Children deserve to hear about the controversy, and not to simply be fed one story set for them by the prevailing majority in the scientific community, even if that community cannot claim anything near consensus. Until consensus is reached and indisputable proof of one theory or the other given, both sides should be taught in schools. [1] Linder, Doug, 2011. “The Evolution Controversy”. University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law.
Much of the complexity of life cannot be explained by evolution, but is perfectly explained by Creationism.

Nature is marked by clear design. The complexity of the human body, of ecosystems, and even of bacteria, attests to the existence of creative agency. It is impossible that such things as, for example, interdependent species could come to exist without the guidance of a designer. Likewise, certain organisms can be shown to be irreducibly complex, meaning that if one were to remove any part of it, it would lose all functionality. This refutes the gradualist argument of evolution, since there is no selective pressure on the organism to change when it is functionless. For example, the bacterial flagellum, the "motor" that powers bacterial cells, loses all functionality if a single component is removed.[1] Besides design, the only explanation of its development is blind chance, which is nonsensical. Creationism serves to explain the various mysteries of biology currently absent from the evolutionary biologists' picture of the world. The existence of complexity of the order found in the natural world is too great to envisage an origin other than complex design. [1] Behe, Michael. 1996. Darwin’s Black Box. Glencoe: Free Press.   improve this