BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Science vs. God/Religion

Thank you for the opportunity to debate evolution v creationism with you. I will answer your statements in the following responses: "The similarities between humans and primates are too great." No one can logically argue that some primates have striking resemblances to us as humans. However I would argue that observation alone is not good science and saying that because something looks right doesn't mean it is. "Primates are also one of the most smartest mammals on the planet." This is also a true statement however it really isn't evidence for evolution or for that matter creationism on its own. This is another observation that on its own doesn't produce good science "If you look at a chart on evolution, it is undeniable." This is presuming the chart in question is completely accurate, I would ask that you present this chart so that we may debate it because as we may see, some charts have in fact falsely represented an evolutionary process. (1. Haekel's Embryo's) I think regardless of position anyone involved in either Science, Theology or both could not accept this argument for Evolution over Creationism. I believe in God in the Christian sense and I do believe in the infallibility of the Bible. However I do not believe in a literal translation of the Bible in its entirety. I am what is called a "Day-Age" Theorist. "Day-Age Creationism, a type of Old Earth Creationism, is an effort to reconcile the literal Genesis account of Creation with modern scientific theories on the age of the Universe, the Earth, life, and humans. It holds that the six days referred to in the Genesis account of creation are not ordinary 24-hour days, but rather are much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years). The Genesis account is then interpreted as an account of the process of cosmic evolution, providing a broad base on which any number of theories and interpretations are built."(2) Where you see evolution as more likely than Creation I see micro-evolution as a part of creationism. The real argument when dealing with evolution vs creationism really boils down to one thing. Did a God exist before the beginning and start the process or did the process start on its own. Thank you for your time, I yield the floor 1.) Science 5 September 1997: Vol. 277 no. 5331 p. 1435 DOI: 10.1126/science.277.5331.1435a 2.) http://christianity.wikia.com...
Science vs. God/Religion

I want to get straight into the debate. In this debate, I'm for Science. I ask the contender to not call me an atheist, for I believe in God as much as the next guy. The first round: Evolution vs. Creationism. I believe that Evolution is the more plausible outcome for humanity. The similarities between humans and primates are too great. Primates are also one of the most smartest mammals on the planet. If you look at a chart on evolution, it is undeniable. Therefore, Evolution is more likely than Creationism.
the Are You Dumb Challenge

Pro- "This is a challenge to prove that you are not dumb. I am here to prove you are dumb and you are trying to prove you're not dumb." I proved I am not dumb. I can speak. Pro did not define terms. Nevertheless, I'm game. * I played the piano at age 3. I was born in Libya. I came to America at age 13, and I graduated from the Massachusettes Institute of Technology. At age 16 I was recruited by the U.S. government for certain disclosed employment because of certain "abnormal abilities". I worked for the government, fulfilled my duties and became self employed. I became a multi millionaire at age 32. I retired, and now I travel the world.
the Are You Dumb Challenge

The first way I shall prove that my opponent is dumb is by the fact that he/she used the wrong definition of dumb. My opponent used the definition of dumb as in referring to someone who is deaf and as my opponent so kindly stated "I am able to speak" which proves that you are not deaf. The definition of dumb in this context is "stupid". Now, the definition of stupid is "lacking intelligence or common sense". Therefore the fact that my opponent lacked the intelligence to know which definition to use for "dumb" proves he/she is stupid. And since the definition of dumb is "stupid", therefore my opponent is dumb. The second way is through reverse physiology. I asked are you dumb? The real question is are you smart? But my opponent fell into the trap as soon as he accepted this challenge. To accept the challenge was to accept the fact that you are dumb and are trying to prove that you are not. Since my opponent has not proven that he is smart, he therefore is still dumb. The third way that I will prove that my opponent is dumb is through the definition of stupidity. Stupid-"lacking intelligence or common sense." My opponent lacked common sense when he accepted this challenge. The truth is, everyone is dumb. Now my opponent lacked common sense in failing to realize that. We all lack intelligence otherwise there would be no point in going to school. Being dumb is not a bad thing unless you're obnoxiously dumb. My fourth way in proving that my opponent is dumb is through ranking. Through my opponents profile I have found that he is a 46 year old American who is an artist. Being an artist is not really an intelligent (as in mathematics, science, etc.) field but a very skillful one. Unfortunately dumb is measured by intelligence and common sense. He is a 46 year old who probably does not remember much about fields in science or math. A 46 year olds brain is not as quick as a child's brain and since intelligence is the factor being measure, therefore every student in any university or college taking maths or sciences is therefore smarter than my opponent. Also those in the fields of maths, sciences, languages, etc, are smarter than him too. That is a lot of people in the world that are smarter than you. At least one person is smarter than my opponent, therefore when compared, my opponent is more dumb. I proven four ways that my opponent is dumb. Now I will let my opponent prove why he's not.
the Are You Dumb Challenge

Pro is the instigater in this debate. Pro has the burden of proof of proving I am either stupid or deaf, per the American legal system of justice. In this debate we have what is called a presumption of innocence. This is based off of the legal term "innocent until proven guilty". https://www.law.cornell.edu... -The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Pro has the burden of proof. Pro did not prove me to be anything. Besides, Pro is a panda, and pandas cannot type, thus Pro's character is in question now. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... * (Bronto scampers off into the weeds)
the Are You Dumb Challenge

I have preposed that con is dumb. The conclusion is that con is dumb. So far con has not shifted the conclusion over to pro, therefore con is still dumb in terms of "stupidity" and in terms of "deafness". I have proved that con is dumb in round three. Therefore the conclusion has stayed as it is. Con is dumb in both "stupidity" and "deafness" unless con proves otherwise in his last round. Con claims that he plays the piano but has no evidence to back the claim up. Therefore, bringing up the fact that piano is linked to intelligence is useless. Con claims that he worked for the government but has nothing to back that up. Con also claims he can speak but has no proof of it. Therefore all cons points are useless and he is still dumb in terms of "stupidity" and "deafness".
the Are You Dumb Challenge

Pro: "Playing the piano at the age of three does not have anything to do with your intelligence." Playing the piano at a young age makes you more successful in life. http://www.flowkey.com... Playing piano at a young age is a sign of high intelligence. http://www.forbes.com... http://www.raisesmartkid.com... Maybe this should be a "Pro is dumb" debate. Ahem... I digress... * Pro- "It's extremely far fetched that a government agent who is a multi-millionaire who travels the world is debating whether or not he is dumb on debate.org." Why not? It's fun. Pro is on here. Is Pro dumb? I never said I was any type of agent. High intelligence is used in diffrrent ways such as mathematics, science, etc etc. * Legal burden of proof The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the duty of a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will shift the conclusion away from the default position to that party's own position. The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, a translation of which in this context is: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges." https://en.m.wikipedia.org... * Philosophical Burden of proof- When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim. * Pro bares the burden of proof to prove that I am dumb. Sure, I could be, but Pro has not proven so. Maybe I cannot speak. Prove it. Maybe I have the brains of a chimpanzee. Prove it. Maybe I'm a unicorn. Maybe I'm a treasure troll. Probably not. Prove me to be a unicorn Pro.
the Are You Dumb Challenge

Fine we can use both definitions. Either way I still proved by one definition that you are dumb, so technically you are still dumb in the the sense of "stupidity". Playing the piano at the age of three does not have anything to do with your intelligence. Neither does boasting about being in a secret government agency and becoming a multi-millionaire. None of the evidence you have could be supported. It's extremely far fetched that a government agent who is a multi-millionaire who travels the world is debating whether or not he is dumb on debate.org. And since we include dumb in all aspects, he has still not proven whether he's dumb or not. Also technically my opponent has still not proven whether he can speak or not. So he actually may as well be dumb in both aspects. Therefore my opponent has not refute any of my points nor has he proved that he is not dumb in both aspects.
That Civil Disobediance is appropriate in the fight for justice.

CD is never appropriate in any form 1. Justice is a mind set, it varies from person to person. Any thing therefore could be considered justice like me assassinating the president, vice president and the secretary of state. 2. CD is not appropriate because it destroys societies rules and laws which are there to govern appropriately. If we break one rule who's to say that we cannot break another. 3. There are alternatives to CD that would get the job done, like writing to YOUR representatives to ask for a change or something of that nature. Ill get to more in my next post but I kinda want to see how these are returned
To be the greatest debater on this website, is to be able to win a debate against me.

My opponent has changed the current topic of "Possibility of me being divine" nor has he refuted my points concerning round 2 and arguably round 1. Normally I would respond just for fun but now I'm too busy to waste my time. I am sorry for this short reply but just because you added a lot of effort, I don't have to do the same. Indeed your post was irrelevant. Sorry for this but you're the one who gave me the power to choose the topic hence unless there's no way for me to be divine, I win.
To be the greatest debater on this website, is to be able to win a debate against me.

It seems that my opponent is running away from the debate: Title:To be the greatest debater on this website, is to be able to win a debate against me. The title suggests that only the best debater may win. Description: You name the topic This is what I'm supposed to do, and so I have Conclusion: Because of the description its obvious that the challenger was arrogant (or careless) enough to accept any topic. Hence the position of my opponent changes significantly from: You don't have to be the best debater to win against me to: Only the greatest debater may win against me and Ill prove it by arguing against anything you present! Rebuttals: 1."rant" The word rant implies wildness and disorganization, my post contained none of the both. I am left to assume that my opponent simply doesn't respect me. If you had anything to back up this statement I wouldn't be offended even if it was something easy to disprove. 2."I was merely listing a few facts about myself" Lets test that: a."Challange at your own peril" One could say that this conveys condescension or confidence but I assert that this is more about me not being as good as he is. b."you name the topic" This has everything to do with me c."theres nothing i don't understand and have a strong opinion on" This is an impossibility because a finite mind can't understand everything. d."BRING IT!" Read Nr.2 Conclusion: You never gave a single fact about yourself and one could argue that it had more to do with the opponent. 3."the resolution in a debate is fixed in stone" Indeed, now prove to me that its impossible for me to be divine. 4."I was merely asking my opponent for an interesting topic" The topic is what the debate is about hence the resolution is Only the greatest debater may win against me and Ill prove it by arguing against anything you present! You told me to name the topic and I have. The only way your argument can work is if I didn't have the power to choose the topic. The topic changed what this debate is about, I guess we will end up arguing on that but I cant imagine what arguments you could make. In case you decide to keep on arguing: " the name of a book, composition, or other artistic work: the author and title of the book a caption or credit in a film or broadcast a book, magazine, or newspaper considered as a publication: the company publishes 400 titles a year 2 a name that describes someone's position or job" http://oxforddictionaries.com...
To be the greatest debater on this website, is to be able to win a debate against me.

Unfortunately, it appears my opponent is at a gross misapprehesion as to the actual resolution. He has done nothing to support the affirmative for the resolution 'To be the greatest debater on this website, is to be able to win a debate against me'. Indeed, I find such a proposition manifestly absurd. I am not in any way, shape or form the best debator on this site, and even if I were, defeating me could be a mere anomaly. There is no logical support for such a position, and much reason to believe it is false. Pro has instead elected to go on a random rant about how he could be divine. I do not see how this has any bearing whatsoever on this debate. Perhaps my first round confused my opponent. I was merely listing a few facts about myself in preparation for the debate. I said he could name the topic of the debate - however, the resolution in a debate is fixed in stone and cannot be randomly altered at will. I was merely asking my opponent for an interesting topic to add interest to the debate. It is clear at this point that Pro has done nothing to support the resolution, and the resolution is clearly false.
To be the greatest debater on this website, is to be able to win a debate against me.

Topic: There is a possibility that Vardas0Antras is divine. Definition:When I say that I'm divine, I mean that I am above humans (note:This doesn't mean I've created the world) Arguments 1. Anything is possible. 2. I am not bound by logic and I don't have to be moral to be divine meaning I can contradict myself and I can lie. 3. Hence I might be divine. 1. This is common knowledge and if refuted there still is a possibility that the rebuke was incorrect hence anything is possible. 2. Here I describe who I might be. This is obviously undebatable. 3. The natural conclusion follows I cant await my opponents response and I hope I'll see what he meant by "your own peril"
Once Saved, Always Saved

To make everything clear, my opponent responded his side of round 2 in the comment section because of problems with the website letting him respond. So, I will begin responding to his argument here.In Hebrews 6 after it talks about moving on from elementary teachings to being taken forward to maturity it also says "...not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment." Then it goes on to say how it is impossible for one to return to God after falling away without repentance. To me Paul (or whoever wrote Hebrews) is simply saying that okay, we've repented and baptized and its time to move on to new understandings instead of staying in the same elementary teachings. If it is not talking about salvation, then what is it talking about? There are many instances in the Bible where it talks about feeling absent from the presence of the LORD, including in Song on Solomon 5. Hebrews 10:29 states "29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?"1Timothy 4:1 says " Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;" and goes on to say that characteristics of the ones who have lost the faith.You mentioned John 10 as He refers to no one taking His sheep away. But if we become no longer after Him and lose salvation, we are no longer His sheep. In verse 26 Jesus says "But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you."And then continues the statement. To me this statement is about the elect who in the end will remain faithful and true to God and will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. In His eyes He knows who will chose Him and who are His sheep.John 2:19 which you also referred to also talks about the elect. Before I go on to make things clear I believe in free will (I am not sure if you do) and I believe in Gods eyes He knows who will belong to Him. In our eyes, we do not know though.Back to the subject, like I said, it refers to the ones who will stay with Jesus and continue to believe in Him.Before I end my side of this I would like to say I believe the Bible as 100% undeniable truth and that His ways are far beyond our understandings. I do believe once you are saved you should always be saved but I don't believe in the once saved, always saved mentality of accepting Jesus once then doing anything you want the rest of you're life thinking its okay.
Once Saved, Always Saved

Thanks for the welcome! And for taking it easy :)You make a very good point, and I agree that once you are saved you are a completely new person. I'm not taking anything away from the power of salvation. But it is possible for one to fall away as stated in Hebrews chapter 6 where it says " 4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame"I believe God is a merciful God and if one does fall short of what we are made for (which we all do) He bestows mercy and grace. As stated above though, it is possible for one to fall away completely and to deny God, but impossible for them to be brought back to repentance if it happens.
Once Saved, Always Saved

First off, I want to welcome my opponent to DDO. I hope he enjoys it here. Normally, since my opponent did offer an argument I would make a full case here. But since this is his first debate, I will only make a rebuttal for his argument and allow him the first full case. And off we go..You say that if you are "saved and continue to do the same things you've done before" than you are going against 2 Cor. 5:17. That's right. But if you continue in your sin constantly you were never truly saved. Just remember "By their fruits ye shall know them"- Matt. 7:20 Now I will allow you the first full argument.
Once Saved, Always Saved

This is my first debate (ever) so i wanted to start out with something i don't hear much about. Not saying it's not talked about, just saying to me it's not as popular. The topic of "if you are a saved Christian can you lose your salvation?" I for one believe yes, you can lose it. A believer is changed when they accept salvation and no longer desire the same things they did before. It's very easy to "lose track" of God and to fall away from our salvation. I'm not sure how this whole thing works but before I continue I'll leave some questions to make common ground for someone who believes you can be saved and do the same thing sinners do or basically do whatever they want and still be saved and make it to heaven. If you are saved and continue to do the same things you've done before isn't that going against the teachings of 2Corinthians 5:17? If it is true that you are once saved, always saved believer couldn't it be possible for someone to accept Christ into their heart then later on to completely lose faith in Him and deny Him? Would they still go to heaven for turning their back on God and not returning to Him?
Vampires better than Werewolves

FINAL ROUND "When you Google Werewolf all you get are pictures of scary looking wolves with their teeth bared. Not attractive at all. "It's because they're scary, they're considered handsome in the werewolf fashion. Just because we don't find them attractive doesn't mean werewolves won't find each other attractive. In the face of death, nothing is attractive, not even the vampires. My opponent offers no justification for vampires being nocturnal. What sources prove this? There are of course tons of animals availible. But soon, human hunting, trapping, and killing may leae the species very close to extintion. Also, note that most of the species are fishes. Vampires are like bats, which don't swim, so they have that massive amount of species right there, inedible. Also, cattle are domesticated and heaily herded by humans, just so you know. And humans themseles, well, technology has made us almost unbeatable next to vampires. Vampires stand no chance competing against humans. They'll have to be extroardinaryly difficult in their jobs while keeping away, staying in the wild to avoid humans. While vampires have controllable lust indeed, their control can only reach so far. I don't think any human antidote will be able to reverse the vampirism. Vampires will be very unwilling to stop being vampires, based on the evidence my opponent provided. On the other hand, all the humans have to do to werewolves is to control their lust for human flesh or contain the werewolves during a full moon. Werewolves would be able to much more easily co-exist among humans than vampire. "It says in werewolf folklore that they do not live forever so my argument to Vampires living longer still stands. " And thus my morality/philosophy argument of being bored and unable to die still stands as well.