BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The creation story of any one religion is no more or less probable than that of another religion.

"Specificity - I'd need you to be more specific (no pun intended) on a story that you're thinking of which applies to this criteria so that I can address it. Otherwise you're just saying something with no proof to back it up." Ok as I explained a non specific creation story is a creation story which can be applied to many separate circumstances. For instance some of the Roman accounts of creation are almost deistic and could apply to more or less any theistic creation rendering them more likely than the very specific creation myths of the Abrahamic religions. It simply follows that by having more circumstances that a creation story could apply to it becomes more likely. "Accuracy - I don't see how the "what" of a creation story makes the story any more probable due to similarity with mainstream scientific theories if the "why" and "how" are different. For example, if a religion held that humans came from animals, as you say (I know this doesn't have to do with creation stories, but it's just a logical counterexample), but, instead of coming from them via a Darwinian model of evolution, they came from them because a god decided that animals were too boring and used magic to change animals to humans, that's not really similar to prevailing scientific theory, is it?" I merely used that as an example of a specific celtic creation myth (btw my source is the Edinburgh Museum hence not posting it) of which a certain part of it is not necessarily counter factual and easily reconcilable with evidence. And yes there are religions that are more scientifically accurate than others. For instance some creation myths (from China, north America and India [1]) say that the world was (or is) balanced on the back of a turtle which is obviously false. However some myths (for instance the Sikh creation myth) can be interpreted in such a way that they seem to be speaking of a "big bang" type event making them seem more scientifically accurate. There are also new age religions (and yes these are legitimate religions) which have creation stories that are easily reconcilable with modern scientific theories (mainly the "big bang" theory). "Obvious Fraudulence - Again, the "what," "how," and "why." I don't see how the motives behind a religion make its stories any more or less probable. " Basically a lie is very unlikely to be true. Creation myths do not exist in a vacuum but as part of a larger religion (usually) and the truth or falsehood of the religion will effect the truth or falsehood of the creation myth. Post Script: Sorry for the mention of the Celtic creation myth stating something that could be reconciled with modern evolutionary theory, I got that a bit wrong). Also I would ask my opponent to make an argument rather than just refuting mine. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
The creation story of any one religion is no more or less probable than that of another religion.

Right, so, firstly, I'd like to address something before making direct counterarguments. I was talking about creation stories in the rules of the debate. Specifically, how everything was created (the universe, Earth , stars, etc. ). Anything within any religion that takes place after that is irrelevant. An example would be the seven days/periods of time (depending on whether or not you interpret the Bible/Torah literally) it took the Judeo-Christian God to create the universe and Earth and everything else. Adam and Eve after creation, Noah, Jesus, and everything else are completely irrelevant. Therefore, parts of your argument are irrelevant. Statements such as "humans came from animals," have to do with what happened AFTER creation, and so do not really hold sway here. Specificity - I'd need you to be more specific (no pun intended) on a story that you're thinking of which applies to this criteria so that I can address it. Otherwise you're just saying something with no proof to back it up. Accuracy - I don't see how the "what" of a creation story makes the story any more probable due to similarity with mainstream scientific theories if the "why" and "how" are different. For example, if a religion held that humans came from animals, as you say (I know this doesn't have to do with creation stories, but it's just a logical counterexample), but, instead of coming from them via a Darwinian model of evolution, they came from them because a god decided that animals were too boring and used magic to change animals to humans, that's not really similar to prevailing scientific theory, is it? Obvious Fraudulence - Again, the "what," "how," and "why. " I don't see how the motives behind a religion make its stories any more or less probable. Because I barred out any mainstream scientific religious creation stories (such as the Big Bang theory), none of the religious stories agree with mainstream science. Therefore, in the eyes of science, all of them are equally wrong, and thus equally improbable, and thus equally probable.
The creation story of any one religion is no more or less probable than that of another religion.

My main point is that there are three factors by which we can tell if a creation story is more or less probable and that these can applied to the creation stories of major religions. These are:1. Specificity 2. Accuracy3. Obvious fraudulenceSpecificitySpecificity is how specific the claims of a particular creation story are. A creation story which is less specific (for instance some Roman pagan creation stories) could apply to many different circumstances than a very specific creation story (such as the judeo christian creation story) meaning it is more likely to to correct.Accuracy Here I using accuracy to refer to how well a creation story fits with the best currently available evidence. A creation story that is either easily reconcilable with the current available evidence or fits well with it is more likely to be correct than one that is irreconcilable with or contradictory to the currently available evidence. The best examples of easily reconcilable creation stories usually come from the new age religions however there are plenty of other examples of reconcilable creation stories for instance one of the creation stories for ancient britonic paganism stated that humans came from animals, a view easily reconcilable with the theory of evolution. Obvious FraudulenceThere are many religions the origin of which is obviously fraudulent or politically motivated, examples of this include Mormonism, Scientology, Inca polytheism and far too many more to list. These should be considered so improbable as to be virtually impossible and discounted entirely rendering them less probable.I hope to have shown here that it's more than possible to evaluate the probability of creation stories meaning that not all are equally probable.
The creation story of any one religion is no more or less probable than that of another religion.

Hello. This is a debate on a thought that occurred to me: is the creation story of a given religion any more or less probable than the creation story of any other religion? I'm not entirely decided on the subject as of yet, and so I hosted this debate in the hope that its outcome would either convince me that, indeed, all creation stories are equally probable (which is the direction in which I slightly lean), or show me that not all creation stories are equally probable. These creation stories are to be strictly religious ones. It is true that the Big Bang theory was originally hypothesized by a Catholic priest in support of Christianity, but because it is widely adopted by the scientific community as well, the Big Bang theory should not be one of the creation stories involved in this debate. This applies to any other theory widely accepted to be fact by the scientific community. I'm not trying to discredit religion here; I simply want this to be purely cerebral. I prefer (on an enjoyment level) solving problems with pure thinking, rather than bringing in studies and formulas and whatnot. Furthermore, Pastafarianism does not count as a legitimate religion (even though I think it's hilarious, c'mon guys, let's be real for a second and admit that it's not a religion). I'll be arguing that all religious creation stories are equally probable, and my opponent will be arguing that they are not all equally probable. Burden of proof is shared equally. No semantics, no excessive pedanticism (I leave it up to common sense to determine what "excessive" entails), and no trolling. The debate should be argued on the merit of the stories involved, and not on technicalities that I may not have noticed in writing the rules for this debate. Round 1- Rules, Con argument. Round 2- Pro argument, Con argument Round 3- Pro argument, Con argumentRound 4- Pro argument, Con forfeits or says something not related to the debate for the purpose of skipping the time required for forfeiture. Con should not be penalized for forfeiting the last round. They do so because they get the first argument in round one. Con may also say something completely unrelated to the content of the debate if they wish, in order to expedite the whole process. If Con says something related to the content of the debate in this section, this will result in automatic forfeiture of the entire debate on Con's part. Finally, I would like to say that my position on this debate does not necessarily correspond with or go against my beliefs on religion or the lack thereof. I choose to keep said beliefs private at this time.
Jesus as a historical figure.

Thanks again for this opportunity 1) Let me first explain the tie in with Alexander the Great, the history of Alexander was kept verbally for hundreds of years and then written down with the most complete work written by Arrian 500 years later. (1) CON cites contemporary ties to his life with the statement from Babylonian Royal Diary however there are questions to the authenticity of this document (2) that is why historians rely on other documents such as that written by Arrian but remember that was 500 years later. So why is it that writings 500 years after someone"s death are accepted as fact, but those written within 20 years of a death are not. 2)The question of Josephus: Josephus wrote of Jesus twice as I posted there is some question about one phrase in the, "He was the Christ" is in question.(3) However with Josephus" other statement the phrase, "He was the Christ" makes good sense and seems to fit. The evidence I cited is kind of long and I apologize, yet it is the most complete discussion on this as I could find. 3)CON would prefer I do not mention the Bible which is odd because the Gospels, where in fact written by Jesus" followers, he feels may be written in to deceive people. The problem is this discussion is not the authenticity of Bible, but to prove if Jesus was and actual person. He points to some supposed contradictions in the Bible but again this is not a discussion on the Bible. I would point out that archeologist still use the Bible to assist them in locating places of ancient times and to date has not been proven wrong archeologically.(4) Having said that has everything been discovered no not yet but nothing has been shown to be wrong. 4)The Ossuary CON states that "was deemed fraudulent in 2003 by The Israeli Antiquities Authority" that is not entirely true. What was stated was "Israeli authorities have indicted the owner of the "James Ossuary" as a serial forger" he was indicted for forging something else some use this to question the box, however many other things point to this be the real thing. (5) Had CON bothered to investigate the historians that I listed he would have run into the evidence they used for the proof of Jesus existence. By any standard the existence of Jesus has been well proven and thought thru, to just simply brush off the leading historians of several decades as opinions is false and very misleading. It seems as if CON is saying he knows more then these accepted scholars even those who are anti-Christian like Will Durant. Jesus existed the proof is here vote PRO 1.http://www.1stmuse.com... 2.http://www.livius.org... 3.http://www.bede.org.uk... 4.http://www.ucg.org... 5.http://www.thenazareneway.com...
Jesus as a historical figure.

[If my opponent posts evidence I can not refute and convinces me to concede the debate please consider giving Pro full marks when you vote. Thank you.] Pro does not use Round 1 to post arguments giving me nothing to refute, but I suppose I can start out with some common arguments for the existence of Jesus, and explain why they do not work. The first and most common source is Josephus Flavius. It should be pointed out at the start that Josephus wasn't even born until 37 CE, well after the alleged death of Jesus. The source that people draw this "evidence" from (Antiquities) wasn't even written until 93 CE, almost a century after the life of Jesus and after the writing of the gospels. Therefore, this is not a contemporary source and amounts merely to hearsay. There is also some debate as to the authenticity of certain passages, questions of doctoring by zealous priests, but this is really neither here nor there. The evidence from Flavius is sufficiently discounted as being a non-contemporary hearsay account. Every other source that Pro can site (as far as I know, feel free to surprise me!) Is written AFTER Josephus (except for the gospels, but those still came well after the supposed life of Jesus and I've already dismissed them in my opening statement so no need to get into that nonsense.) None of these sources are contemporary, and this is as close to a positive claim as I can make, being Con. The argument from silence. Where is the contemporary evidence? Where are the artifacts? Is Jesus not described in the bible as being well known all over? Wasn't he followed by disciples, did he not speak with scribes and challenge the dominate social order? Did no one write of him at all? During the entirety of his alleged life, we have NOTHING. Not one wood carving, not one John Hancock, not one bar bill, not one word, not one mention of him. No one, Jew, Greek or Roman has anything to say about "Jesus" until almost a century after his "death". The argument from silence is compelling, and the closest I can come to a positive claim that can be tested by Pro. I want to clarify that Pro still has the burden of proof, but here we find the outline for what is acceptable in a piece of historical evidence. Many an apologist will accept hearsay and rumors as evidence and say "we must lower our standards because of the quality of ancient historical evidence" but this is wrong. We must simply lower our expectations of what can actually be known, and if in fact, hearsay and rumor are good enough for you to establish the existence of a person, allow me to introduce you to your new lord and savior, Hercules! There is just as much "evidence" for the existence of Hercules (widely regarded to be myth) as there is for Jesus (contrary to the ridiculously bold claim by some that there is "more evidence for Jesus than there is for Caesar"). I await my opponent on the other side of Round 2. Sources: http://www.nobeliefs.com... http://www.ex-christadelphians.com...
Jesus as a historical figure.

I find no good evidence for the actual historical existence of Jesus. Pro will have the burden of proof to provide evidence showing Jesus existed. I shall merely have to refute his evidence. The bible may not be used as a source of evidence as it is not contemporary and is clearly biased on the subject of Jesus' existence (for obvious reasons). Pro may use round 1 to provide an opening argument. If he does so, he must post "No Arguments as Agreed" in round 3.
Cathy Boyler should be banned from iFunny.

There is still no rock hard evidence that tells us it is the same person. Even if it was the same person, the ban is on the account not the individual (as I stated in my previous argument). Pertaining to the comments, no comments were reference or even exampled by the Pro. These offensive comments that have been reported are going through the iFunny staff and haven't resulted in another ban so far. Thank you for everyone looking at this debate, especailly the pro. I would like to remind everyone that the way you vote is not on personal opinion. The person who you think wins is the person that debated the topic better and made better arguments. Thank you all!
Cathy Boyler should be banned from iFunny.

You make a good point there. It is true that her current account does not violate the user agreement, unless there are offensive posts that I do not know about. But this only includes posts. There are still offensive comments. As for evidence that the accounts are all from the same person, there is some inconclusive evidence available to the users, as well as private information only available to the iFunny team itself. Evidence available to users: As I mentioned before, this evidence is inconclusive. All of Cathy's previous accounts, with the exception of the past one or two, have had the same profile picture, the same background picture, the same bio, the same views on all of the original account's "evil sinner" groups, and even the same grammar. Evidence available only to the iFunny team: Given the size of iFunny's servers (I'm assuming they have fairly large servers, because of how popular the app is), there is probably a record somewhere about the i.p. address used to create a new account, log into an account, etc. I can not be totally certain of this, as I do not work for iFunny and I do not have access to their data and records, but this seems like a logical assumption. I would like to thank Con once again for participating in this debate. You have made some very good points and it was a pleasure debating you.
Cathy Boyler should be banned from iFunny.

So Cathy had previous accounts that have been banned. This bans the ACCOUNT not the person. So far, as you say, she has corrected her behaviors and has not posted anything that violates the iFunny user agreement. iFunny has no reason to ban this account. They have no evidence to say that all these accounts are from the same person. The new account, Cathy_Le_Feminist, has not broken the agreement.
Cathy Boyler should be banned from iFunny.

I concede that Cathy's current account (Cathy_Le_Feminist) does not have any "hate-related material. " However, her previous ones have had it. All her previous accounts have been "lost," as the app would say, due to the disrespect, hate, and discrimination coming from them. Here is a complete list of her "lost" profiles: Cathy_The_Holy_Feminist Cathy_The_Great_Feminist Cathy_The_Feminist Cathy_ Cathy_The_Divine_Feminist Cathy_The_Godly_Feminist I agree that she is probably doing this for publicity and attention, but she may genuinely be trying to offend people. And besides, do you really think that thousands of users will simply ignore her, especially when many of them are very offended by what she posts? That notion is ridiculously unlikely. I now hand over the virtual podium to Con.
Cathy Boyler should be banned from iFunny.

I too am a user of the app "iFunny ;)". RESOLVED: Cathy Boyler (Cathy_Le_Feminist) should not be banned from iFunny. Cathy has every right to "attack" groups. While the majority of people using the app, including me, do not agree with her views they have no right to kick her/him of the FREE site. The users do not pay for this site and there is no reason for iFunny providers to ban her/his account. The following is the list of untolerated things on iFunny: Illegal activities or materials, including but not limited to materials, including but not limited to materials that may violate another's intellectual property rights. Promoting pornographic, sexually explicit, violent, lewd or obscene materials. Anything that constitutes promotion of SPAM. Anything whose intended use or purpose is the promotion of products or services through advertisements. This includes, but is not limited to, email spam and banner advertisements. Warez or Hacker related. Pirated software. MP3s. IRC Bots. Attempts to undermine or cause harm to other Clients of Provider. Any hate related material. Any other reason that is deemed by Provider to be unsuitable. Cathy_Le_Feminist has not violated any of the above. When it comes to "Any hate related material" she does not show that activity either. While I do not know her activities on the site, I can deem by what you have provided is that she is not committing any harm to the groups, she isn't violating any laws, she is just merely posting her opinion. Furthermore, from a non-legal/technical standpoint, it is extremely easy to simply ignore the posts and to ignore any comments. Just down vote them if you please or just swipe to the next post/comment. Also, this Cathy person is most likely doing this for publicity and attention. If the people just completely ignore her, then she will go away!
Cathy Boyler should be banned from iFunny.

This debate is meant only for users of the app iFunny :). My resolution is that Cathy Boyler (currently known on iFunny as Cathy_Le_Feminist) should be banned from iFunny. She is only 13 years old (the app is rated 17+); she constantly attacks groups such as gays, mentally disabled children, cancer patients, even our own military; she believes the military is evil solely because she read Divergent; and her posts are not funny at all - iFunny is a humor app. The burden of proof falls on me to prove why she should be banned, while Con must only refute my arguments.
The Red Skins have nothing to do with Aboriginals, but everything between the Brits and the Other...

All good points, but think about what you might want...I`m a Canadian and I pay Lots of taxes...and I look and ride the roads...We have paid hospitalization and we have allot of great stuff, but for some damn reason my taxes don`t go up, because we have less money for taxes, because of taxes and such, including fines and penalties and what ever else they send your way to rob you... Taxes can be fair in all justification and they can be a community effort supplied by the community...managed by the community...and be directly responsible too community... And just maybe someone who argues for taxes must...most certainly gain for taxes...unfortunately I don`t and under our present system...do you...
The Red Skins have nothing to do with Aboriginals, but everything between the Brits and the Other...

Taxes help the economy, and run the services the Government provides for us, including the roads, healthcare, aged care, mental health support, schools and hospitals. I do understand what you portend, that independents will have a tough time with taxes, but it is still possible, it contributes to the community. Evidence #1: http://www.wheredidmytaxdollarsgo.com... This is an American website that portrays where your tax dollars go to. For example, For your income of $50,000, most of your tax payments go to National Defense at 17%, Medicare at 16%, Income Security at 16% and Social Security at 16%. As you can see in the website, the government is contributing to you and the people around you. As shown in the first round, taxes are inexpensive, especially in America. I conclude that as an individual, you can still survive still paying taxes and it also supports the community.
The Red Skins have nothing to do with Aboriginals, but everything between the Brits and the Other...

The question we are debating is Can we survive without taxes? Your statement, 'they even have us believing it's a good thing...' makes me assume you are against taxes, so I will argue that taxes benefit the country and we can survive on taxes. Source 1: http://en.wikipedia.org... In Source 1 is a list of countries by tax rates in alphabetical order. I am assuming you are debating the topic on America, so I am basing this debate off it. Source 2: http://www.dailyfinance.com... In Source 2 is a list of the 5 highest income taxes, comparing it to the United States, being in the top 55's. To answer the debating question, defining the key words is the most important. Survive: To get along or remain healthy, happy, and unaffected in spite of some occurrence http://dictionary.reference.com... Of course you can survive without taxes in any country!