BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christians cannot *rationally* believe in creationism and evolution simultaneously

Evolution is simply the change in heritable characteristics of a population over time. The theory of evolution is not broken into separate theories for micro and macro scales. You cannot believe a subset of evolution and deny another subset. It's either wholly true or it's not. You said "For example, There might have been a typical dog during creation week and through the process of micro-evolution, We get the many species of dogs we see today. " A "kind", As referred to Biblically, By definition, Cannot have ancestors. It's the highest archetype for it's group. So the "kind" of "dog" would not have an ancestral lineage, For example. It would not have a fossil record beyond it's highest archetype. It's genome could not be sequenced beyond the original archetype. It would be found in the same geological strata as all other species since they all coexisted simultaneously leaving no chronology. Morphology would be impossible since nothing transitioned from one thing to another. This is just simply NOT how things work. If this is what you believe, It is NOT evolution. All clades share a common ancestor as they network back throughout the figurative tree. This is demonstrable using genomic sequencing, Morphology, Geology and many forms of radio metric dating. So back to my original assertion. A Christian cannot believe in both evolution and creationism and be considered rational. These two views are incompatible.
Christians cannot *rationally* believe in creationism and evolution simultaneously

Christians can believe in micro-evolution. This is the belief that there is in fact variation and natural selection, But it is changes within the genetic code. For example, A dog can change into different species of dog overtime but will always fundamentally be a dog. For Christians, It is very simple. When God created all the animals, He created their genetic code with a great amount of variability. As time went on, That probability then began manifesting itself. For example, There might have been a typical dog during creation week and through the process of micro-evolution, We get the many species of dogs we see today. Evolution does have limits however. A dog cannot evolve to a fish or anything ridiculous like that.
Christians cannot *rationally* believe in creationism and evolution simultaneously

Christian creationism is centered around the book of Genesis. This fable and it's obviously false assertions are incompatible with core facts of evolution. There are many reasons I could list, But to keep this debate concise and direct, I'll start with one reason - there were never only two humans on earth. The general definition of rational is - based on or in accordance with reason or logic https://www. Google. Com/search? Q=rational Because evolution and creationism are incompatible views, Believing in both is irrational by definition. To be clear - This debate is whether a Christian can believe in evolution AND creationism and simultaneously be considered rational.
Mandatory Summer Camps for Jews & Indians

I believe there should be mandatory summer camps for christians and white people. In those mandatory summer camps, they will do strenuous labor each and every day. Likewise, the christians will be sent to work in the sewage systems, however we can not put them in the gold mines because the last time christians had control in that area without proper legal supervision, we already know they committed mass genocide and rape of native americans & children 😂 . The whites aren"t really good workers as they are genetically inferior when it comes to strength and intelligence, however they will help the cause by creating more incestuous children. The more incestuous white people there are, the more mass stupidity will spread amongst them. Take a look at OP for example, there is a high likelihood he was conceived out of incest. Placing these two intellectual minorities together will solve a lot of our world issues. Their combined hatred of people who don"t look like them or believe like them will be so strong that I truly think their small minds will not be able to adapt to life without directly insulting people who are different, based on their own insecurities. I mean, if they insult one white person or christian, they are essentially insulting their own blood line. -btw i was born and raised in a christian household and my father is white. just using OP"s logic for debate. If his bloodline were tested, I"m nearly certain we would confirm his mother is also his aunt. I know all white people aren"t like this, but he is definitely one of them 😂
Mandatory Summer Camps for Jews & Indians

Okay. I believe that there should be mandatory summer camps for Jews and Indians. In those mandatory summer camps, they will do strenuous labor each and every day. The Jews will be sent to work in gold mines and sewage systems, and the Indians will be sent to the underground coal mines. The gold, of course, will be used for the KKK and Nazis. I'm pro, and you have 3 rounds, 3 days to prepare your counter-argument, and a max of 8000 characters. Let's begin!
Jen (the girl out of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) would beat Jesus in a fight

//"Okay, I've got no problem with Jesus creating the sharks, or with Jen being eaten by one of them – he was good at doing magic tricks with fish, but that Jen could be bread when fed to the sharks just isn't plausible."// My opponent has cited only one problem with my argument. He claims that Jen being turned into bread and being fed sharks is implausible. However wouldn't the very existence of Jesus and him having magical powers be implausible? When dealing with matters of Jesus and his daddy-o god plausibility has to be thrown out the window. Plausibility does not apply to Jesus! My opponent says that it doesn't make sense that sharks would eat a lady made of bread but remember, through god, all things are possible. My opponent's claim that my argument does not make sense or that it's implausible all fall into god's higher plan. The fact that Jesus is an underdog will just mean that when he wins, more people will realise how almighty and powerful god is. The fact that my scenario occuring is so implasible merelt demonstrates that it is all part of god's higher plan to attract followers. Everything makes sense in god's plan. My opponent next provides a list of miracles which Jesus performed and reasons that because turning people into bread and feeding them to sharks is not on it, Jesus must not be able to do it. However, I will ask my opponent how Jesus performed these miracles. That's right, god gave him the ability to do so. Through god all things are posible. And let me tell you, if Jesus was in danger of getting his @ss kicked, then of course god is going to step in. How many people are going to follow god is he can't even protect his own son? I have clerly shown that Jesus would be able to ber en as god would back him up. If god's own son gets his @ss kicked by some Asian chick then we are going to see mass conversions to Islam. God isn't going to have that and thus he'll give Jesus the power to send that ldy back to wherever the h3ll she's from. Voe Con
Jen (the girl out of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) would beat Jesus in a fight

I concede to my very able opponent that Jesus and all of his magical powers are works of fiction as is Jen and all of her skills. Now my opponent has set up this debate very well and has only made one mistake. However it will be this one mistake which will be his(and Jen's) undoing. Refer if you will to my opponent's R1 opening argument. //"In fact, the only thing that she(Jen) can't do that Jesus can is to make loaves and fishes appear as if from nowhere, but what use is that sort of trick in a fight?"// Now whatever Jen can do, incuding all of her skills, Jesus can also do as he is super special magic as is written in the Bible(I concede that it is entirely fiction but that point is moot in this debate). So whatever Jen can do, Jesus can simply stop by using his powers including but not limited to: Flying, breathing underwater, coming back to life, miracles, being born of a virgin, heat vision, super strength, web slinging powers, super intelligence, need I go on? Besides all of these as I pointed out earlier my opponent has already conceded that Jen does not possess the ability to makes loaves of bread and fish appear out of nowhere. So Jesus can simply block all of Jen's powers, abilities, and skills with his powers which we may assume can be completely equal to her own, and then while countering all of her abilities, Jesus creates massive land breathing sharks to eat Jen up and as she attempts to evade the sharks, Jesus turns her into a large piece of bread and subsequently feeds her to the sharks. As we can see while Jen may be a very powerful opponent, non compare to the awesome strength of our heavenly father.
Marches are not effective in combatting governmental abuse of power

I agree that marches with additional agendas or actions can have a limited effect. I don't think we really have a premise on which to debate. However, recent marches have proven to be unsuccessful, largely due to the short attention span of society and a general sense of apathy regarding the political environment on the part of the masses, mistrust of the government, and a general disgust with the political machinery of the United States. Also the censorship, spin, and lopsidedness of the news coverage presented by the media that paints a skewed image of the marches and the events surrounding them. Movements like occupy wall street and the Mike Brown march were said to be sabotaged by agent provocateurs. Here are some articles that comments on the ineffectiveness of modern marches. http://qz.com... http://www.effectivism.net... Not to mention the effect that lobbying has had on the general public's ability to have a voice in the political process. Many have argued that the United States is more of a corporatocracy that only represents the interests of 'big business'.
Marches are not effective in combatting governmental abuse of power

Well, perhaps the best way to determine whether this is an issue we could actually debate would be for you to identify some specific marches that you believe were not effective in combating governmental abuse of power. I can propose a few marches that did combat governmental abuse of power: 1. The veteran's marches circa 1932. 2. The Selma march on Montgomery. 3. The March on Washington. 4. Ghandi's march. 5. Pride marches. Notably, it is of course the case that these marches had agendas and were part of overarching movements that also involved other actions. As a general rule, marches are parts of overarching movements that have agendas, so restricting debate to marches that lack normal characteristics is not a fair test of the resolution. If you could propose some examples of marches that you would like to consider, perhaps this could be debated. But if we're simply in agreement that only a march that is defined arbitrarily to support your resolution can support your resolution, I'll accept your concession. ;)
Marches are not effective in combatting governmental abuse of power

If need be...we can begin a new debate after reaching agreement on the terms. However, we may generally be in accord as the intent of my argument was to prove the marches with no agenda are meaningless. If we were to include other forms or methods of non-violent protests such as group representations, sit-ins, public assemblies, withdrawals, strikes, boycotts, etc. - there would be no debate as I agree these actions can be effective in combating governmental abuse of power. My point was that marches with no purpose or additional activity are less protests and more pedestrian activity. At most good exercise ; )
Marches are not effective in combatting governmental abuse of power

Although dictionaries are useful for the basics of definition, they are frequently inadequate to capture the sense in which a word is used in context. My definitions are the ones that I will use, but I don't think that they should be controversial. What I am trying to do is avoid a strategy of denying evidence or relevance by redefining words more narrowly. We might come up with some agreed definition for the word "march." Again, the issue here is that I don't want to end up in situation where "march" is being arbitrarily narrowed to avoid the relevance of evidence. Certainly the recent die-ins (whether or not they are effective) could be considered "marches," just as Selma could be considered a "march," because both involve processions, even if one is punctuated by a non-processional element. Again, I don't want to end up in a debate about whether the "effective" part of a "march" was really the processional aspect. This has to be a debate about whether the "march" as a whole, not parsing out any of its arguably non-march aspects, was effective or could be effective. If we agree to that, I can agree to eliminate barricade protest strategies that don't involve some kind of procession. I'm happy to muddle out any differences we have on definitions, in the arguments, as there's enough space.
Marches are not effective in combatting governmental abuse of power

The following are definitions taken from Dictionary.com march verb (used without object) 1. to walk with regular and measured tread, as soldiers on parade; advance in step in an organized body. noun 6.the distance covered in a single period of marching. effective adjective 1. adequate to accomplish a purpose; producing the intended or expected result: 2. actually in operation or in force; functioning: combat verb (used with object), combated, combating or (especially British) combatted, combatting. 1. to fight or contend against; oppose vigorously: abuse verb (used with object), abused, abusing. 1. to use wrongly or improperly; misuse: to abuse one's authority. 2. to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way: 3. to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly to or about; revile; malign. 4. to commit sexual assault upon. 5. (Obsolete.) to deceive or mislead. Power noun 7. delegated authority; authority granted to a person or persons in a particular office or capacity: I would be willing to participate in this debate if we can agree on the terms. The main disagreement we may have is in the way you 'broadly' define march as to include demonstrations to occupy public spaces. Actions such as sit-ins or other methods of non-violent protest are not inherently a part of marches. Marches consists of the procession of an individual or a group. I defer to you in round 3 to make your case. If so, Good luck to you as well
Marches are not effective in combatting governmental abuse of power

I accept your challenge. It appears that you do not intend the first round to involve much more than a statement of your resolution and my denial of it, so I will oblige. However, in all fairness, I will state a few assumptions/definitions that I will make/use: 1. A "march" is defined broadly to include a variety of demonstrations in which a reasonably large group of people, given the circumstances, occupy a public space. 2. "Effective" includes "having an effect," and does not demand that the effect is instant, direct, or the only factor. "Effective" does not include a judgment about whether some other act might have been more effective. 3. To "combat" means to counter, reduce, resist, draw attention to, or any other means intended to have an effect. 4. "Governmental" includes local, state, and federal, as well as the similar classifications of foreign levels of government in foreign countries. This debate is not limited to claims about what is or is not effective in the U.S. 5. "Abuse" means a use that violates due process, equal protection, human rights, is arbitrary, cruel, unusual, oppressive, or any other sense of the word "abuse" in this context. 6. "Power" includes the ostensibly legitimate power of the state, actions taken under the color of law, and plainly illegal action--the gamut of force or power over life, liberty, or property exercised by some government actor (regardless of the actor's precise employment or agency relationship with the state). Finally, I will observe that, although it has been declared that the burden of persuasion is shared, the nature of the Pro's resolution is universal. Even on the idea that I must persuade the reader that the resolution is more likely false than true, my only burden is to persuade the reader that marches are sometimes (technically, even once) effective in combating governmental abuse of power OR that it is reasonable to believe that, in some circumstances, they might be. The most serious part of my burden is, in evaluating the past, persuading the reader that an "effect" was likely caused by a march rather than some other factor; here, it will be evident to the reader whether I have failed to establish that likelihood, or on the other hand whether my opponent has failed to credibly undermine the evidence. In any case, a suitable alternative is to persuade the reader that marches could, in some circumstances, be effective in combating governmental abuse of power, without regard to whether they have been effective to date. The burden of persuasion is shared as a recital only. Good luck.
hello

I accept your challenge.My opponent has aserted "fffffffffff"This assertion is neither true nor falseThis assertion cannot be true or false.Thus The assertion is not true.Due to the undeniable lack of truth demonstrated by my opponent I conclude I that to defeat my opponent I must simply assert one true claim.Any claims made by opponent after this round are not relevant to the original topic unless the later claims are "fffffffffff" My assertion is: My opponent has aserted "fffffffffff"My assertion is undeniably true, only I have provide a true claim thus far, and only I have presented any form of argument. My opponent forfeits the debate if he does not respond with a proper argument.
Without The Christian God Science is "not possible"

You can assert things but this dose not make them true. where dose god state the opposite? in the book which you use your senses to read. don't straw man me i Am arguing against your god. "Through nature", you interact with nature using your senses. "Through the spiritual" is quite remarkable that you ask me, no you tell me to "prove it" yet you then basically tell me i cannot understand how YOU get your information because I am "dead to the spiritual" that is major hypocrisy and again a personal attack which you are fast becoming known for on this site I dare say. okay you just "know" because god told you so. with that logic i just know your wrong because budda told me so, your argument is nonsensical and ridiculous. I have shown that god makes no difference to the proof of our senses and therefore that god has no bearing on science. I rebutted every claim you made and you dodged my points and claim me being ignorant. Game over, feel free to say what you wish you have lost this debate. I wonder how the voting will play out.
Without The Christian God Science is "not possible"

1. If you wish to assert that you are no longer arguing against the Christian God who states the opposite. Do you wish to argue against a non-Christian god, fine, but then you lose the debate against me. 2, Is that true? Prove it? And you err. God communites His truth through nature and spiritual means. The fact that you are dead to the spiritual things does not mean they do not exist. 3. No, I know because God revealed this spiritually to His children. But you have departed the debate. Assume God does not exist. You cannot raationally know if your senses are trustworthy and that nature is unform.
Without The Christian God Science is "not possible"

Okay well. 1 - You where NOT born believing in god, this much is certain, you learned of god at some point in your life, whether it be through reading the bible, going to church, learning of god from your parents etc. the thing is Vince that you learned of god THROUGH your senses. (sight) if you read the bible, (hearing) if your parents talked to you about god, (sense of touch and feeling) if you "felt" or "discovered" god. This means that your whole argument has turned back on itself, you cannot say that your knowledge of god isn't a completely solipsist view. therefore you cannot say with impunity that "god" can tell you that your senses are true and accurate. 2 - "Because the Creator has made nature uniform" Which you can only say after consulting your senses which i have just shown cannot be relied upon (based on your original argument) god or no god. 3 - You know about your gods description of creation because you consulted your sense of sight and read this information (i would presume) in the bible. again your argument falls to pieces. Somebody who believes in god is just as able to be buying into solipsism. believing in god dosnt diss include you and make your senses any more valid, because you discovered god through those senses in the first place. I have successfully rebutted your claim and await you reply.
Pokemon is better than Yu-Gi-Oh

In Pokemon you defeat opponets by making animals fight each other till they can't fight anymore. In what way is that fun or teach you good lessons?In Yu-Gi-Oh you can defeat your opponets without having to worry if its ethical or not. All you do is fight with holograms generated off of cards. It doesn't hurt any animals during duels. Goals? Goals you say. You want a goal? Try defeating a strong opponet or collecting the five pieces of Exodius.
Pokemon is better than Yu-Gi-Oh

My opponet's opening arguments are all opinions based on what he likes. They are opinions because he has not stated any scources/facts to back up his claims.Yu-Gi-Oh is a way better manga/card game/anime. One example of this is, Exodius, no other card(s) has been wanted in a game/show/manga as much as Exodius. Another is no animals are harmed in the show. If you think about it Pokemon are the animals in the show, people then enslave the animals, keep them in tiny cages and force them to fight.