BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The belief in evolution is not always a belief in atheism

Well, searches for evolutionist creationism haven't yielded much information. Those few sites I have been able to view seem to operate under the deist concept of a pre-organized world. http://www.ualberta.ca... http://en.wikipedia.org... The first site admits that evolutionary creationism is not evolution under the popular use of that term. The term used for the purposes of this debate, however, is that provided by Wikipedia. Wikipedia cites theistic evolution as a reconciliation of theistic belief with evolution. Theistic evolution further cites evolutionary creationism as functionally the same thing and a valid offshoot of evolutionary theory. I can not argue that evolutionary creationism, if assumed to mean theistic evolution, would be unacceptable under Wikipedia's definition of evolution. However, theistic evolution may be unacceptable under the definition posited for this debate as 'theism.' Remember that theism requires that God be personal and active in every aspect of creation for the belief to be theistic. Theistic evolution and evolutionary creationism both state that God uses evolution as "a tool to bring about his plan." Now we need to understand what is meant by personally active. Are the men who built a canning factory personally active in the process of canning by virtue of having built the factory, or must they literally conduct the canning themselves? My opponent may argue that God runs the canning machines after he's built it, in which case, I must wonder still if that is personal enough. Is one personally active when using a screwdriver on a screw, or must one use one's hand to turn the screw to the proper position? Common sense would seem to indicate that it is enough that you use the tool ... there is little need to BE the tool. Cursed be my devotion to truth. I concede. Well done.
The belief in evolution is not always a belief in atheism

"God's establishment of this process and unwillingness to intercede in it amounts to God developing a pre-conceived plan..." However, these evolutionist creationists don't think that God just let evolution happen. They claim that God actually created the mutations in DNA. God just came in metaphysically and mutated a little bunny rabbit's DNA so that it would be a different species of bunny rabbit. So, the life is altered by god intervening in the affairs of life, and eventually human life, which isn't deism, but theism, which is not atheism. Nature itself wouldn't be enough for evolution. God made evolution more efficient by driving it himself. This is God "as personal and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe," which is theism, not atheism. That is the belief that is the exception necessary to affirm the resolution.
The belief in evolution is not always a belief in atheism

My opponent has cited a belief amongst some evolutionists that he argues amounts to theistic intervention in the natural world by allowance of a natural process. Specifically, my opponent argues that some evolutionists believe that the process of speciation was established by God to create diversity in life forms. To this extent, my opponent would argue that evolution is not always atheism, as some evolutionists see God's involvement within it. This is not true, however. Because the possibility of speciation is a fact of life, including human life, within the belief that is evolution, God's establishment of this process and unwillingness to intercede in it amounts to God developing a pre-conceived plan "not altered either by God intervening in the affairs of human life or by suspending the natural laws of the universe. ". http://en.wikipedia.org... According to Wikipedia, this is a deistic, rather than a theistic statement. Because Deism does not "conceive of God as personal and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe," it too amounts to the rejection of theism. Because deism amounts to the rejection of theism it is, by definition, atheism. As a consequence, even those who believe that speciation is the consequence of a natural order designed by God harbor an atheistic belief. Therefore, belief in evolution, even if it includes belief in God, remains a form of atheism.
The belief in evolution is not always a belief in atheism

My opponent has a fairly solid argument about how evolution is part atheism. However, who is to say that speciation is not without divine intervention? According to "The Bible, Barney, and Beyond," by Phil Phillips, there are those who believe that evolution was used by God to attain a great multitude of species on Earth in a natural-seeming way. So, you say that speciation is without divine intervention, but there are those who disagree with you. They believe otherwise. They believe that evolution was part of God's plan. So, their belief in evolution is a belief in theism.
The Exodus as Described in the Torah Did Not Historically Occur

You have successfully broken almost every single rule after being given a second chance. You simply said you skimmed over the rules. They are not "rigged" in my favor, and the fact you were writing a rebuttal at around 2 shows you didn't read the rules. Your name calling is immatureYour lack of skill with debate is not surprising based on your immaturityAnd this qualifies, very much so, as a forfeit for not following the rules
The Exodus as Described in the Torah Did Not Historically Occur

No, I didn't see very many rules by skimming over it, but when I read it in writing my rebuttal, I noticed that your rules are ridiculous and rigged in your favor. Also, this doesn't constitute a forfeit because I disproved your whole argument, you didn't respond to anything that I posted, so- YOU forfeited. Also, why is everyone so stupid as to think that google docs are bad conduct- idiots, get a brain guys. Anyway, I wish I never accepted this challenge because you really aren't interested in a debate, only rules and idiocy, if you want to have a DEBATE on this subject, I would be more than happy to accept.
The Exodus as Described in the Torah Did Not Historically Occur

Well, despite saying he would follow the rules after having broken the rules, my opponent decided my rules were "nonsense" and proceeded to break more without any positive arguments, only rebuttals on a google doc.I think it's safe to call this one a forfeit on your part. You had the choice not to accept. If you don't like these rules, make your own, they've worked quite well for me in the past.
The Exodus as Described in the Torah Did Not Historically Occur

This is the third time attempting to create this debate properly in 12 hours thanks to trolls and people who refuse to read directions. A historical Exodus, as defined, contains the following elements:1) The existence of Moses as a historical character2) The Enslavement of the Hebrews as a historical period in history3) The historical occurrence of the ten plagues and the crossing of the Red Sea4) The actual emigration from Egypt by the Israeli people was historicalFor this debate, Con must argue that these 4 elements are historical and factual. Pro must argue that these elements are not historical or factual. To keep things flowing, we will deal with specific issues in specific rounds. Round one is acceptanceRound two is only argument pertaining to issues 1 and 2 in the section above No rebuttals. Round three is only arguments pertaining to 3 and 4 no rebuttals. Round four is exclusively rebuttals, no new argumentsRound five is concluding statements and counter-rebuttals. Counter rebuttals can only pertain to what was in round four. There can be NO counter-counter rebuttals from what Pro said in round five. A few ground rules:i) Use Yahweh or Elohim as they are used in the original text for source clarification. ii) No personal attacks. Period. This includes discussion of one's salvation or eternal destination. Personal religious affiliation is a non-issue. Referring to each other as "Conservative" or "Liberal" as a descriptor is acceptable, but not as an insult. iii) All interactions should be in accord with the teachings of James 3Discuss accepting this debate with me in the comments. Not discussing acceptance and accepting anyways is an automatic forfeit.
The Iphone 7 have no headjack for AUX cords

First- Round 2 to state facts and arguments and Round 3 to counter the other's point in round 2. Right now, the headphone jack is the largest hole on the Iphone. It takes up space that could be potentially used for more hard drive or battery increasing battery life, memory, or whatever else they decide to do. Also, Matt Galligan, Iphone designer, says that taking the head jack away will increase the screen size; the headphone jack is too large to extend the Iphone and by removing it, they could completely remove the home-button and make the phone even more modern! Finally, removing the headphone jack will make the Iphone one step closer to waterproof, a goal Apple has been striving for. http://bgr.com... I am interested to here what you have to say. Good Luck.
The Iphone 7 have no headjack for AUX cords

Pro has failed to rebut any of my argued points and, unfortunately, has forfeited the last round. I have nothing left to argue against, as I've responded to each of pro's points and made all of my own. Therefore, due to Pro's failure to rebut my points, as well as forfeit the last round, it should count as an auto-loss for Pro, and thus, con should win.Vote for conI still had fun, despite it having to end this way :/
You Don't Have to Burn in Hell, You Can Be Saved From It Now.

Summary!) My opponent repeatedly ignoring the agreement he subscribed to by accepting the challenge to argue from the position of "I have to burn in Hell"2) My opponent trying to put many words in my mouth to change my position and argue the pro position instead of taking the con Poseidon.My opponent has completely failed to refute the assertion of the debate which I uphold, "You don't have to burn in Hell, you can be saved from it" The reason you do not have to burn in Hell is that you can be saved from it. If you are not saved from it, you will have to burn in Hell. My opponent continues to put many words in my mouth implying I said things I never said, then uses my own arguments which would support my own position so I cannot disagree with his statements on the penalty of Hell attached to sin and the Bible references supporting the doctrine. Until your death is finalized, it is possible for you to be saved from burning in Hell.My opponent never argued from the Con position in this debate. My opponent never refuted any of my statements, but rather tried to change the meaning of my statements to put me in a position contrary to the pro position while he used arguments supporting my resolution. You have to burn in Hell if you are not saved from it. You don't have to burn in Hell, you can be saved from it.My opponent deserves no points in this debate as he made no arguments against the resolution other than trying to change the meaning of words and put words in my mouth as he usurped the pro position in the debate. The only thing good I hope comes out of this is that at least one person will consider the importance of knowing that your sins are forgiven and you are going to heaven, and they get the matter settled with God. Binding Contract:I, God, do hereby swear by the blood of my Son, Jesus, to overlook all of your violations of my Holy Law (sin) and grant you full pardon and entrance into eternal life by the resurrection of my Son from the dead if you will agree to the following terms:1) You must acknowledge that you are the one who deserved to die and my Son did not deserve to die.2) You must believe that I love you so much that I died in your place in the form of Jesus Christ my Son, and you must believe that I raised Him from the dead and can do the same for you.3) You must ask me to accept you on these terms, asking for my mercy to forgive you and believe that I am willing to forgive you. You must receive my Son, Jesus, as your Saviour by asking me in His name to save you.This contract is written by me in the blood of my Son whom I gave to be the satisfaction for payment for your sins against me. If you honestly agree to the terms above, and will receive my Son as your Saviour, sign below.It's not too good to be true, , I always honor my Word, and I have committed all Judgement into the hands of My Son, Jesus, who paid the price to secure this contract for you.Sign here ___________________________
You Don't Have to Burn in Hell, You Can Be Saved From It Now.

Extend all my arguments. My opponent seems to have the impression that Hell is a choice, one does not willingly decide to go to hell. You are condemned to it. 2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil. Now, the nature of this debate is burning in hell. Whether we Have to|Are obligated to|Should|Need to|Are required to. We all have to go to hell unless we accept the love of jesus christ. That is clearly written in the bible. Furthermore, my opponent has not offered a single argument for why one "Doesn't have to" Unless we are saved from it. Because his resolution implies that we can do something to avoid the fire of hell when clearly we cannot. My opponent has clearly tried to weasel his way around a faulty resolution by claiming my argument as his own. He hasn't offered one single positive contention and at this point it is too late.
You Don't Have to Burn in Hell, You Can Be Saved From It Now.

Have to does not mean should. My opponent's definitions are wacky, If you have to perform bodily functions to eliminate waste, you have to do it. You should do it in the bathroom, but you don't have to. What you should do and what you have to do are two different things. This debate is not about the definition of "have to". The debate assertion was clearly stated in the challenge and opening arguments and remains totally unrefuted by my opponent. He is refusing to argue in the debate as agreed to upon acceptance, and doing nothing but trying to change the debate by taking my position and claiming it as your own. My opponent should lose all conduct points and get zero points for argument since he has argued only what would have been my position and posted no argument for the Con position. My opponent has totally ignored his agreement, by accepting this challenge, to argue from the position of "I have to burn in Hell". My opponent deserves no points for arguing a position he has refused to take.
You Don't Have to Burn in Hell, You Can Be Saved From It Now.

Definition of have to: Must; need to; to be required to. Indicates obligation; Must (logical conclusion)Definition of Must: be obliged to; should (expressing necessity).My opponent insists that I take his position, I will add that my arguments are 100% valid under his resolution. My opponent has failed to awknowledge this and insists I am not a worthy opponent. I ask that conduct would be taken from him for failing to awknowledge how my definitions are not valid as well as failing to present a positive case. Which I have done.
You Don't Have to Burn in Hell, You Can Be Saved From It Now.

Again, my opponent is putting words in my mouth. My opponent has posted no new argument in round 2 because he hijacked my position as pro and claims it as his own position. My opponent in round 1 claimed my position is different from his position and then argued from my position claiming that I have to argue the opposing position. It was clear in the opening statements of the resolution that I wanted an opponent who would argue that they have to burn in Hell. I stated this clearly in the following quotes from the resolution: 1) The Con position for this debate is "I have to burn in Hell" Upon acceptance of this challenge, Con agrees to debate from the position directly opposite of Pro, which is "I have to burn in Hell".2) Is there anybody who believes they have to burn in Hell so I can try to show them why they do not have to burn in Hell and how they can be saved from it?This opponent should not have accepted this challenge as by accepting he was supposed to be agreeing to argue from a defined position with no need to change my position or his by twisting definitions. My opponent has hijacked my position and that is why I agree with his Bible quotes and applications of those quotes. Because he is using what would have been my arguments in support of my position, all points for arguments should be tied. All points for conduct should go to me since my opponent never should have accepted this challenge to start with as he apparently had no intention of arguing from the con position of "I have to burn in Hell". This debate was not about everybody else. This debate was intended to be between me and an opponent who would argue "I have to burn in Hell" My opponent did not drop the ball in this debate, he never picked it up to start with. This debate is unable to function because my opponent is not arguing the Con position, rather, he is trying to change my position and trying to argue the Pro position as his own position.I will attempt a repeat of this debate with more careful selection of an opponent so I can be sure my opponent will argue the Con position and not try to usurp my position and fraudulently claim victory by doing so.The positive contention I made from the beginning remains unchallenged in this debate because my opponent is not arguing the Con position. Pro was "you don't have to burn in Hell......" Con was supposed to be "I have to burn in Hell"Again, my positive opening statement of "you don't have to burn in Hell" remains unrefuted while my opponent claims I have made no positive argument statement. My opponent has completely failed to even begin arguing the con position and until he does, we have nothing to debate. Even the argument points should be awarded to me since my positives statement in the resolution has remained unrefuted and I have stood by it throughout this non-debate.
You Don't Have to Burn in Hell, You Can Be Saved From It Now.

My opponent has asserted that I've mis-quoted him and that I've taken a faulty stance on this debate. I shall clarify the misunderstanding here so my opponent can begin to argue. So far My opponent has not presented us with a single positive contention, and has also conceded to parts of my argument. "I agree with all of the Bible quotes and applications used by my oppenent in his argument, but he is taking my postion and claiming it as his own."My opponent has also said the following Again, my opponent is putting words in my mouth. When my opponent claims that I said something, he should be able to show the qoute. I never said we don't deserve hell, I cannot argue from that standpoint; we do deserve Hell. Alright so my opponent agrees that we all in fact, do deserve hell. And then goes on to say that the following is his stance The main position of this debae is "you do not have to burn in Hell."I shall define this resolution to edify my opponent. Since he has failed to present definitions and clarifications, I have the right to do so otherwise this debate would be unable to function. Definition of have to: Must; need to; to be required to. Indicates obligation; Must (logical conclusion)Definition of Must: be obliged to; should (expressing necessity)So have to, means Must. Must means we should be obliged to or should. And my opponent is arguing we Should not have to. So he is arguing that We should not all go to hell, And I am arguing that we SHOULD all go to hell. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ask my opponent to please present a case to support his resolution as so far, he has completely failed to do so and has questioned the legitimacy of my position. Furthermore, I ask all readers to consider the following statement made by my opponent"Thank you Con for what looks like a debate wihere you are putting up arguments worthy of my time to read" A statement where he suggests that my arguments could in fact be not worthy of his time Which is conceited and baseless. I ask judges to consider this when voting. Over to Pro,
You Don't Have to Burn in Hell, You Can Be Saved From It Now.

Thank you Con for what looks like a debate wihere you are putting up arguments worthy of my time to read. First, I want to clarify some things my opponent says I said when I have not said them in this debate.It's not fair for my opponent to be putting words in my mouth, even though I may agree with him in some of the things he says I said. If my opponent is going to say I said something, he should quote it without adding words to it. My opponent says, and I will quote him exactly, that I said the following things I never said in this debate:1) "My opponent has stated so himself, that the main position in this debate is whether or not we deserve to burn in hell! And whether or not we can be saved from it." The main position of this debae is "you do not have to burn in Hell." I made it clear in the opening argument that my opponent was supposed to debate from the position of "I have to burn in Hell". This debate was not intended to be about "you", the readers. It seems my opponent is trying to win this debate by taking my postion and not arguing the Con postion as in my opening statement; quoted with no words added or taken away, which he was supposed to be agreeing to upon acceptance of the challenge."The Con position for this debate is "I have to burn in Hell" Upon acceptance of this challenge, Con agrees to debate from the position directly opposite of Pro, which is "I have to burn in Hell".2) "Alright, So I will be arguing that we should infact all go to hell, but can be saved from it. While my opponent will be arguing that We don't deserve hell and can be saved from it."Again, my opponent is putting words in my mouth. When my opponent claims that I said something, he should be able to show the qoute. I never said we don't deserve hell, I cannot argue from that standpoint; we do deserve Hell. I fully agree with my opponent in this statement of his which I qoute without putting words in his mouth: ".....we should infact all go to hell, but can be saved from it." My opponent in this statment is taking my postion for this debate and is not arguing as he implicitly agreed to do by accepting this challenge. My opponent is supposed to be arguing from the standpoint of "I have to burn in Hell". My opponent has dropped the argument before taking it up, put words in my mouth, and is now arguing from my postion implying that my position was different from what was clearly stated in the resolution and my opening argument. My opponent is trying to change the debate resolution into "we should infact all go to hell, but can be saved from it", and trying to change my postion into "We don't deserve hell and can be saved from it." My opponent should lose conduct points for this kind of misleading and fraudulent attempts to put words in my mouth and change the entire debate. My opponent should not have taken this challenge. I agree with all of the Bible quotes and applications used by my oppenent in his argument, but he is taking my postion and claiming it as his own.