BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The days in Genesis are 24-hour days

Refutation of opponent’s arguments The gap theory is specifically made to accommodate evolution into the creation story, which it fails to do for several reasons. However, the "gap" between the first two verses is illogical as well. The authors intentions were clearly to start at day one. If we are speaking of the first day, then there are no days prior to the first day. The whole idea is a bit far-fetched and day one apparently encompasses the first verse. Agreed. I just used that as a “theory” and another possible explanation. Not as a fact. As for the real reason why I think the universe looks the way it does, it is because the universe really is that old. Why couldn’t have Adam and Eve been in the garden that long. We never hear how long they were in the garden. Since this is the final round, I will give my reasoning. I believe that A) the universe is as old as science says. B) I believe that Genesis account is absurd—however, I still hold the viewpoint that the days in Genesis are literal. Yes, Adam was not created as an infant, yet as far as we know, he did not physically age, he was 0 years old. He wouldn't have had wrinkles and white hair. Straw-man argument. While he didn’t show signs of being old as you have put it, he may have appeared to be in his 20’s or 30’s, we simply do not know his physical appearance after Creation. Why vote pro? 1) I have shown that, biblically and historically, the Genesis account is literal 24-hours.2) I have refuted each of con’s claims that needed refuting.3) I have shown using Hebrew texts why it has to be literal. Let’s recap. 1) If a day is an era, why are an evening and a morning even mentioned? Actual days must be intended, otherwise, men who lived hundreds of years, e. g. , Seth and Noah, would really have lived millions of years. If a day is an era, then a year must be tremendously long, perhaps encompassing hundreds of millions of years. Again, anytime that you see yom+# it always means a literal 24-hour day (see source from previous argument. ) 2) If the first three days are not 24-hour period, how can we determine what the other days mean in the same passage? 3) The words evening (52 times) and morning (220 times) always refer to normal days where they are used elsewhere in the Old Testament. The Jewish day began in the evening (sunset) and ended with the start of the evening the following day. Thus it is appropriate that the sequence is evening-morning (of a normal day) rather than morning-evening (= start and finish). The literal Hebrew is even more pronounced: "There was evening and there was morning, day one. . . . There was evening and there was morning, day two," etc. . http://www.icr.org... 4) In Genesis 1:5, 14-18, the words day and night are used nine times in such a manner that they can refer only to the light and dark periods of a normal, 24-hour day.
This is not a frivolous debate

The definition of frivolous is "not serious". My opponent has said that this debate is serious. .. Correct? By definition, serious means, "acting or speaking sincerely and in earnest, rather than in a joking or halfhearted manner. " The point to be noted is, "rather than in a joking or halfhearted manner. " My opponent has decided to contradict himself when he jokingly states, "I could also be a professional zombie wrangler. " ONE DOES NOT JOKE ABOUT ZOMBIES IF THIS WAS A SERIOUS DEBATE! This is extremely ironic as in his previous argument he CLEARLY stated that he bothered to spell check himself as this is a serious debate. Now he jokes about a zombie horde that wants to eat brains, he states, "being overrun by a zombie horde that wants to eat our brains".
This is not a frivolous debate

Responses: "Let me start by saying that no debate is frivolous. We all have opinions that need to be respected. Do not risk your own credibility by stating that any debate at all can be frivolous, as one can easily imply that from the title of this debate, you are saying that some debates can be frivolous." I believe my opponent just conceded, but for the purposes of being thorough I will continue. "For your first point, one can take the time to list a source if he wants to. Nobody here knows how much time you have on your hands or what you have for a living" I disagree, I know how much time I have on my hands and I am somebody. " you state, "One would not take that time to list a source if this debate did not have profound implications.". By saying the above, you are conditioned to your opinion that one wouldn't take the time to list a source if this debate didn't have "profound implication". Let me just say that you should approach these absolute statements with an open mind for future debates, as you are WRONG" To quote the great Joe Abercrombie [2] "'An open mind is like to an open wound. Vulnerable to poison. Liable to fester. Apt to give its owner only pain.'" "You could very well be a stay at home person that has nothing to do. You could very well have all the time in the world, not saying you do... but you force me to refute your point by making that absolute statement." I could also be a professional zombie wrangler. "For your second point, you fail to recognize that there are many other topics that are important, just as philosophy is. You mention, "Clearly this is a deep and interesting debate that merits attention.", and by saying that you have implied that other topics may not be deep and interesting, and they may not merit attention. Sure, I don't disagree that this isn't an interesting topic, but maybe you should acknowledge that there are many other topics that are "deeper", "interesting", and "merit attention"" Sure other things could be serous as well. For example, zombie wrangling. However, we can still value philosophy while at the same time valuing not being overrun by a zombie horde that wants to eat our brains. "For your final point, can you prove that you bothered to spell check yourself? I think not, as you may very well be a great typer, and don't make many spelling errors. It is not clear at all why you wouldn't go through the effort to spell check. There are many tools to spell check that you can easily find. We also don't know your personality, so may just happen spell check because you like to be a presentable person. Also, in your first line, "To begin with Merriam Webster defines frivolous as " silly and not serious"[1].", there is a punctuation error as there should be a comma after "with"". My opponent merely supports my claim by bringing up the inherent fallibility of humanity. The fact that I as a human being am subject to failure is clearly a serous matter which we should all ponder. 2) http://www.goodreads.com...
This is not a frivolous debate

Let me start by saying that no debate is frivolous. We all have opinions that need to be respected. Do not risk your own credibility by stating that any debate at all can be frivolous, as one can easily imply that from the title of this debate, you are saying that some debates can be frivolous. For your first point, one can take the time to list a source if he wants to. Nobody here knows how much time you have on your hands or what you have for a living, you state, "One would not take that time to list a source if this debate did not have profound implications.". By saying the above, you are conditioned to your opinion that one wouldn't take the time to list a source if this debate didn't have "profound implication". Let me just say that you should approach these absolute statements with an open mind for future debates, as you are WRONG. You could very well be a stay at home person that has nothing to do. You could very well have all the time in the world, not saying you do... but you force me to refute your point by making that absolute statement. For your second point, you fail to recognize that there are many other topics that are important, just as philosophy is. You mention, "Clearly this is a deep and interesting debate that merits attention.", and by saying that you have implied that other topics may not be deep and interesting, and they may not merit attention. Sure, I don't disagree that this isn't an interesting topic, but maybe you should acknowledge that there are many other topics that are "deeper", "interesting", and "merit attention" For your final point, can you prove that you bothered to spell check yourself? I think not, as you may very well be a great typer, and don't make many spelling errors. It is not clear at all why you wouldn't go through the effort to spell check. There are many tools to spell check that you can easily find. We also don't know your personality, so may just happen spell check because you like to be a presentable person. Also, in your first line, "To begin with Merriam Webster defines frivolous as " silly and not serious"[1].", there is a punctuation error as there should be a comma after "with".
This is not a frivolous debate

My opponent makes the claim that I should not "beat around the bush" but rather "post my arguments". As you can see has clear expectations of me. One would not rationally expect anything of ones opponent if this were not indeed a serous debate. Also not my opponent did not respond to my three very well thought out and deep points of contention in round two and thus you can extend those. Also note that I have bothered to extend my previous arguments, and am thus attempting to 'win' this debate. Something which I would not do if it were simply a waste of time.
This is not a frivolous debate

To begin with Merriam Webster defines frivolous as " silly and not serious"[1]. As one can see I listed a source for this definition. One would not take that time to list a source if this debate did not have profound implications. Also, this debate is listed under philosophy, and thus touches upon the existential nature of the human condition. Clearly this is a deep and interesting debate that merits attention. Lastly, I bothered to spell check myself. Clearly I would not not go through such lavish effort if this debate did not indeed have serous ramifications. 1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Fracking is our best method of obtaining energy.

For this debate, I will be arguing that fracking is our best method of obtaining energy. By accepting the debate, you are saying that fracking is not a good method of obtaining energy and that it needs to be regulated/banned and that alternative methods should be put into place. For those of you who don't know what fracking is: Fracking - The process of injecting liquid at a high pressure into subterranean rocks, boreholes, etc., so as to force open existing fissures and extract natural gas. Also called hydraulic fracturing. First round is acceptance, and following rounds are arguments. Good luck to whoever first accepts the challenge, and may the best debater win!
Free Will Exists.

Thanks for accepting R_R. I have to say that if you felt this wasn't a good debate topic you shouldn't have accepted it, yet i am glad you did none the less. Now, if you'll oblige me, i would like to throw out our egos. So much of debate is wrapped up in people's egos they loose sight of truth just to defend themselves. You hold logic higher than others. I say lets use logic to discern truth and forget about who's right/wrong. That's suppose to be the goal isn't it? I have a few arguments against free will we will address later, both a priori and a posteriori. -To begin; excuse me if I'm wrong but it seems as though you're simply stating that you *feel* as though you have free will. I'm sure you know your feeling has no bearing on the truth or falsity of the matter. Your feelings can just be wrong, feelings commonly are. (some claim to *feel* god, for example) You claim to notice many possible actions before you. But this premise hasn't been established as true. The fact is you *feel* like there are many possible actions before you, you do not know. -Stating that your biology/environment remains the same is irrelevant because it was never claimed that they would necessarily change. Being the cause of your thoughts/actions doesn't require that they change. -There are many things that caused me to create this debate. I can get into the specifics in the comment section if you'd like since its far too complicated for 1 round. -------------------------- ~A Priori~ The process of Human BEING: <>1. Thoughts > 2. Decisions > 3. Actions<> -1. a)Every thought that exists was either caused to exist or it wasn't. b.)If a thought was caused it hasn't arisen according to free will. c.)If it wasn't caused it also hasn't arisen according to free will. -2. and 3. follow accordingly. -Since these are all the processes of human action. Free Will doesn't exist. (if you can think of any other processes let me know bc they'll fit into the algorithm too)
Free Will Exists.

There are many situations in which I notice many possible actions before me. As I test each option, my biology remains in all relevant respects the same-therefore no cause fundamental to biology. My environment remains in all relevant respects the same- therefore no cause in environment. I can consistently order these tests on a logical structure- to the point where the odds of random chance coming up with that are statistically insignificant. And then I can do it again. The only altered variable- is which action I choose to take next. The choice is perceived, a result of direct introspection. As such, this is a terrible debate topic, because the core evidence is inalterably private. Which is why I don't much care for debating it, debate is fundamentally unable to resolve it, though I'll leave this one thing in the form of a debate to stand on the record... But by the way, when you discussed the possibility of this debate... notice I gave you a bit of a cold shoulder. I did not environmentally act to encourage you to this debate. So what do you claim caused you to bring this debate? Your biology, which is 98% similar to the chimpanzee who wouldn't dream of debating? Or something more fundamental- did your mind choose it? If you are incapable of choice, of course, you can't really answer this question- a mindless robot, a being incapable of original thought, of uncaused focus, of the use of reason, cannot discuss such matters. Nothing exists in the environment which would encourage such attention to such a minor stimulus, such ignorance of so many more evolutionarily pressing stimuli, like all the porn sites which are just a click away, that the more primitive instincts in man have not really learned to differentiate from the real thing, as evidenced by responding to them the same way.
Free Will Exists.

My goal is to convert R_R to the dark side, Muh ha ha. I could careless about actually winning this debate. R_R I know your deep emotional attachment to arguing semantics, plz refrain from this if you can. Lets play with some logical reasoning shall we? I am against the resolution that free will exists. Definitions: 'Free Will' refers to the ability of an individual to govern her/his own actions. It should be distinguished from 'freedom'. An individual exercising freedom has the ability to act according to what he feels to be his desire. An individual who does not have freedom does not have said ability. For example: An individual who's hands aren't tied behind his back has the freedom to scratch his nose. In the fact that if the condition arises such that he desires to scratch his nose, he can. He (according to my position) however, does not govern this action because he does not govern the desire or the execution. They arise because of biological and environmental causes. I hope that clears up the distinction. ><><><><><<><><><><><><><><<><><><><><><><><><><><><> I don't have anything to refute until my opponent establishes an argument so I will wait for him to do so.
Free Will Exists.

"This is simply not true. Science has fairly well established that most of what you see is in fact a hallucination." I think you are confusing the terms "Hallucination," i.e. that which you see that is certainly not there, and "Perceptual set", i.e. that which you see as a result of seeing other associated criteria (much like your computer caches images). The trouble is, very rarely is this stuff not actually there. Or are you speaking of something else? "bc some hallucinations may actually be necessary for survival no matter how often you experience them." Such as? "I will challenge you again Ragnar in the next few days." Don't. I won't be back for at least a week, I'm writing this a few hours before leaving. If ya have more, just keep adding to comments :d. " There is not inductive proof. " Yes, there is. Every moment of my life I experience options. That is the highest possible amount of inductive proof for someone I have lived as :D. "Besides inductive proof is constantly disproven" How so? Would not all knowledge then be disproven? And therefore human life, since human life depends on use of the mind? "ere is only a sensation and you cannot know that this sensation actually describes what is taking place. If this sensation does not correlate to reality you would not be insane." Yes, I would. If a sensation I have 100% of the time is mistaken, I am insane, so insane that it is impossible for me to survive without people constantly pumping things into me through an IV. "If morality in fact, does not exist then that sensation does not make those ppl insane, merely mistaken. " Morality consists of nothing more than facts about which actions enhance human life and which harm it. These exist whether your brain notices or not. out of characters, continued.
Free Will Exists.

"Every proof only addresses a specific definition of a term. " indeed, proofs you do not have. "Because I still have no evidence for :D." Exactly my point, lol :P :D "If I were hallucinating 100% of the time in a manner that did not allow me to distinguish between hallucination and reality, it would not be possible for me to survive, let alone debate with you." This is simply not true. Science has fairly well established that most of what you see is in fact a hallucination. (well over half anyway.) But regardless of that fact it doesn't matter. bc some hallucinations may actually be necessary for survival no matter how often you experience them.
Free Will Exists.

"That proof only addresses one specific kind of God" Every proof only addresses a specific definition of a term. Note, that typically definitions not including omnipotence do not capitalize "God." "You claim not to believe in them, yet you have no proof." Because I still have no evidence for :D. "You could argue that this vision is 'proof' of the teapot." No, I really couldn't. My actual visual perceptions do not extend that far, unless I used a telescope. I do not own a telescope. Thus, I would have reason to believe it was a hallucination :D. "It doesn't necessarily correlate to anything happening outside of your own brain. My point is that TO believe something should require proof. Free will doesn't have proof bc your experience may only be an experience." Here's the thing. I experience free will 100% of time, even if not in relation to 100% of things I'd like to. A teapot hallucination is a one-time thing. If I were hallucinating 100% of the time in a manner that did not allow me to distinguish between hallucination and reality, it would not be possible for me to survive, let alone debate with you. If I am not hallucinating, the experience is necessarily an experience of reality.
Free Will Exists.

Ok I'd just like to restate what Ragnar and my goal is. Together we are trying to use logic to understand reality. When debating, hubris tends to get in the way so we're scraping our egos away for this pursuit. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong. Re: your disproof of God. A.) That proof only addresses one specific kind of God. There are hundreds of ways to define God. What about all the other possible gods who aren't omnipotent? You claim not to believe in them, yet you have no proof. What about the teapot orbiting Jupiter? You cannot disprove that, so do you believe? What if you had a vision of a teapot orbiting Jupiter? You could argue that this vision is 'proof' of the teapot. But that vision is just an experience. It doesn't necessarily correlate to anything happening outside of your own brain. My point is that TO believe something should require proof. Free will doesn't have proof bc your experience may only be an experience. I don't have time to finish the rest of this now... i willl cont. it in the comments section a little latter.... give me a little while.
Free Will Exists.

"You don't believe in God bc you have no proof for God." I don't believe in God because I can directly disprove the idea: An OMNIPOTENT being has all powers imaginable, and can perform any ACTION. CREATING something more powerful than omnipotent is an action, and therefore possible if one can perform any ACTION. It is not possible to CREATE something more powerful than omnipotent. Therefore, contradiction. 1. O->A (assumption, definition of omnipotent) 2. A->C (Assumption, dare you to defy it.) 3. ~C (assumption, definition of omnipotent) 4. O (Assumption of the existence of God) 5. A (4,1 by arrow out rule of logic. 6. C (5,2 by arrow out rule). 7. C & ~C (6,3, by ampersand in rule, CONTRADICTION, check premises). "Why then do you believe in Free Will when you have no proof for it." I already explained my evidence. The fact that I am unable to show you the evidence in question (obviously, you cannot introspect upon me), does not alter it's existence. "The truth is that the concept of god is more substantiated than the concept of Free Will." God, there is no evidence for, and and deductive proof against. Free will, there is repeatedly substantiated inductive proof for (subject only to the objection "But you are completely insane 100% of the time", which is not worth contemplating, as it is highly unlikely and there is no course of action I can take to any purpose if true.) Therefore, the truth is not as you say. :d out of characters, continued in comments...
Free Will Exists.

Thanks for providing me the opportunity :) 1. -"You wish to change my mind, this requires proof :D."- I would expect nothing less Ragnar and I seek to provide it. With that being said however, shouldn't you ask yourself what proof you have for Free Will's existence. You don't believe in God bc you have no proof for God. Why then do you believe in Free Will when you have no proof for it. The truth is that the concept of god is more substantiated than the concept of Free Will. 2. - Feeling does not require emotion, stop playing. Def: http://dictionary.reference.com... I am referring to the sensation of free will. ('sensation' not necessarily referring to sensing. Spare me the semantic nit picking if you will. see Def 4 and 5 Def:http://dictionary.reference.com...) -"No, I perceive it directly."- To 'perceive' something means that your sensation of it correlates to something that actually exists. My whole point is that you cannot know that this feeling is in fact a perception because you cannot know whether said possibilities actually exist. You can only take one path and you cannot reverse time. Even if you experience the same options again, the experience is still different bc you have already experienced it once. Hallucinations aren't perceptions, the sensation of free will may be analogous. 3. the fact that a cause exists does not mean the effect must change the cause. 4. c. If there is no cause the action is completely random. If a ball flies through the air but nothing caused it to. It's occurrence was random. b. If I kick a ball, the ball is suddenly undergoing a particular action: flying through the air. The ball is not flying through the air according to its own volition. It was caused to fly through the air by me kicking it. Every thought that exists, every decision we make, and every action we take obeys the same. (that if it has been caused. If it hasn't then see c.) I can explain further next round