BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Creation makes the most sense

Thank you for your response. Well, let us point out what it means to believe in Creationism: "...[A] Creationist is someone who believes in a god who is absolute creator of heaven and earth, out of nothing, by an act of free will." [1] Hence, believing in Creationism implies that one believes in a God. The burden of proof is on the theist when it comes to the existence of God (as I explained in the earlier round), and the foundation of Creationism rests on the notion that God exists. Walking through a garden and saying that a gardener is exists is not analogous to walking through a given location in the world and saying that a God exists. What is a garden? A garden is "A plot of land used for the cultivation of flowers, vegetables, herbs, or fruit." [2] Imbedded in the word is the act of cultivation, an act that requires a cultivator. And a cultivator, in the case of a garden, is called a gardener. In simpler terms, the word “garden” implies the existence of a “gardener,” due to the definition that we ascribed to it; a garden (or, by definition, “a cultivated plot of vegetation”) without a gardener (or, by definition, “a person who cultivates plots of vegetation”) cannot exist, due to the very nature of these words’ meaning.However, the word “universe” means “[a]ll matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.” [3] This definition, unlike that of garden, does not imply a Creator. This word was not conveniently created with an implied action, like “garden” was; rather, it was created to describe a natural entity. Until the burden of proof of a theist is met, the existence of a “Creator” or “God” will not be embedded in the definition of “universe.”Why is it illogical to believe in Creationism? Because the burden of proof rests on the Creationist, and it has not been met through the provision of evidence. Believing in something without being able to fulfill its burden of proof (when it rests solely on you) is irrational. As I said in the prior round, imagine a world in which we believed in everything until it is proven false; indeed, this would be a twisted, irrational way of thinking. ---[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Creation makes the most sense

Thank you for taking up the challenge on this debate.However, I'm not asking you to provide evidence against God, I'm asking you to provide evidence against creation. Whenever an atheist is asked to give evidence against God, the atheist will always reply by saying that it's impossible to disprove Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy, and thus the atheist thinks he is off the hook and has no burden of proof. This is why I'm asking for evidence, not against God, but creation. Let me elaborate:If I were to walk into a beautiful garden and say, "I believe in leprechauns," I may very well be deluded. I would have to prove that leprechauns exist. However, if I were to walk into a garden and say, "I believe in a gardener," I would no longer have the burden of proof. In the same way, even though I cannot prove God exists, the fact that we have the universe and intelligent life is evidence that there is a creator. So, if atheists are going to argue against creation, they need to provide evidence as to why belief in creation is irrational. Remember, I'm not asking for any arguments or evidence against God, I'm asking for evidence that shows why creation is foolish and illogical. What evidence do atheists have that the universe and life on earth came into existence without a creator? And if the atheist cannot provide any evidence, then why do so many atheists accuse creationists of being stupid? I think this is sheer arrogance, but if atheists can provide the evidence, I'll be happy to change my beliefs.Thanks
Creation makes the most sense

Thank you for initiating this debate, warrior_for_truth. I will gladly address the matter at hand from an atheist perspective. Now let me address your issue regarding burden of proof. Atheism is not a belief; rather it is a disbelief. An atheist's disbelief in God is of the same nature as your disbelief in an invisible hobbit living on planet Neptune. (Let us note that the number of disbeliefs you have far surpasses that of your beliefs.) Do you have to pose arguments to prove all of your disbeliefs? Do you have to prove that an invisible hobbit does not live on Neptune? Of course not, because of burden of proof. Imagine a world in which we choose to believe in everything until it is proven false; it would be illogical, impractical, and absurd. (Imagine having to believe in the hobbit on Neptune until a scientist proves that this is inaccurate.) That is why, in our actual situation, we choose to believe in nothing — and then we develop and accept beliefs based on presented evidence in the world around us. Until you are given evidence, you will not believe in the invisible hobbit living on Neptune; in the same way, an atheist will not believe in a god until sufficient evidence is established for its existence from theists, on whom the burden of proof rests.Atheists are not "afraid" of a burden of proof, in the same way that you are not "afraid" of a burden of proof when it comes to the hobbit on Neptune. However, atheists tend to recognize that the burden of proof does not rest of them, which, as I just explained, is indeed the case. Thank you. Let me know if you would like me to provide some clarifications or address any further points.
Creation makes the most sense

I would like to debate an atheist on why creation makes the most sense. I've never had an atheist give me any good arguments why believing in creation is foolish and irrational, yet this is what many atheists are saying. The atheists are always asking theists to provide evidence for their beliefs, yet many atheists are unwilling to provide evidence for what they believe. If the beliefs of atheists are based on science and not faith, then why are atheists so afraid to bear some burden of proof when it comes to the origin of life? If any atheist has the courage to take me up on this debate then please do so.
Noah's Ark, as described by the Bible, is preposterous

Since it would seem that this debate is over, I'll just say...well, something. This new version of the site bugs me. Not that it's not nice, but it's going to take ages of getting used-to. And I have like 500 notifications. I liked the site in its simplicity, before this change. Ah well, must make way for progress. Wonder if I should reinstate this debate, to see if I can get a legitimate one out of it.
Noah's Ark, as described by the Bible, is preposterous

You know, I don't really enjoy forfeiture. The win by default. See, now I'll never get to do something with that enormous thing I wrote. Well, while we're here I might as well provide something entertaining. Here are some other things I hate: http://images.lazygamer.net... http://www.lolbrary.com... http://data.whicdn.com... http://25.media.tumblr.com... http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net... http://26.media.tumblr.com... http://cdn.lolhappens.com...
Noah's Ark, as described by the Bible, is preposterous

The idea of a flood-like event occurring at some time in our early history is included in many religious texts. Unless the idea of a flood happening at some point in time is naturally ingrained in humanity something must have happened to make these civilizations put this down in their holy scriptures. These civiliztions are also spread out to many regions of the planet, implying that this was a world-wide event. http://www.academia.edu...
Noah's Ark, as described by the Bible, is preposterous

The story of Noah's Ark, as described by the Bible, is, in my position, a strong case against the reliability of the Bible. It is scientifically and logistically ludicrous. Base assumptions for the debate: 1. The events of the story of Noah's Ark are described accurately by the Bible. 2. The Bible functions as a whole, therefore, if one component is unreliable, the whole is unreliable. The Con's role in this debate will be to defend the story of Noah's Ark, and the reliability of the Bible in connection with it.
The name of fans of "1D" should be changed to "Signposts" to reflect their intelligence.

"I think that it's perfectly okay to insult signposts because they can't hear you or feel pain. I know this because sometimes I spend whole days just jumping up and down next to a signpost dishing out insults to it"You live a very weird life sir...."Although incredibly subtle, there are signs that Democrats feel pain. I spent a whole day just jumping up and down angrily dishing out insults to it and after 23 hours and 59 minutes, it said 'Potato' in a slightly sad tone. "That certainly sounds like something a Democrat would say so I cant really dispute this..... "Surprisingly enough, a Directioner can be used to provide information to people also, and not just their 'I heart 1D' shirts. Just write some information on their clothing or forehead or something and provided you doing that doesn't take longer than 5 hours, their reaction time will be too slow for them to prevent you from doing it."You cant just walk up to a 1D fan and write something on their forhead! 1D fans are like cats, they'll bite you. " According to the most reliable website in the history of forever [1] the IQ of Directioners and signposts is the same, at 0. However, the IQ of a Democrat is -6."The source doesnt work, which means it probably isnt the most reliable website in the history of forever considering that it doesnt work...."Directioners have a vocabulary composing of 6 words, those 6 words being "What", "I'm", "Just", "A", "Friendly" and "Potato"."But democrats can only say "OBAMA 2012", while sign posts say things like "At the next intersection, I must warn you that the lane on the far right hand side of the street is only for right handed turns onto the intersecting street"Democrats can say 1 word and 1 number, 1D fans can only say 6 words,Signposts can say multiple words,therefore its better to refer to them as 'Democrats' rather then 'signposts' "Democrats have a special dumbness about them meaning that they're the only substance in the entire history of forever that has a negative IQ."You forget about Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, George Bush, and any other Republican who republican voters are ashamed to be affiliated with.... ============================================================My point is, 1D fans should not be referred to as 'signposts' since it is an insult to the intelligence of signposts to compare them to 1D fans.... Thanks for reading, hope I didnt kill too many of your brain cells :D
The name of fans of "1D" should be changed to "Signposts" to reflect their intelligence.

I believe that 1D fans should not be known as 'signposts' simply because that would be an insult to the intelligence of signposts...... Signposts are able to provide important information to people as quickly and efficiently as possible, which makes them infinitely smarter then 1D fans. If you want to give a name to 1D fans that better reflects their intelligence, then it would be more accurate to call them 'Democrats' ;D
The name of fans of "1D" should be changed to "Signposts" to reflect their intelligence.

Full Resolution: The name of fans of the band 'One Direction' should be changed from 'Directioners' to 'Signposts' to reflect their intelligence.The thought is quite clever really, as Signposts have directions on them (One Direction) and these 'Directioners' are in fact the intellectual equivalent to signposts [1]. What is the actual purpose of a Directioner? It's to do really dumb things like sit in a tent for three weeks just waiting to buy the new One Direction key ring for £599.95 or even listen to One Direction's music [Gasp!].Normal people like me just cannot understand how a 'Directioner' can listen to music worse than this [2] for more than 0.00000000001 nanoseconds.Sources[1] http://jacob-gibbs.blogspot.co.uk...;[2] http://www.youtube.com...;(the video)
The New American Gladiators is better than the Old american Gladiators

Once again it has been a great debate and I have really enjoyed it. I must admit that I do enjoy the New Gladiators it has brought me back to some of my childhood memories. I truly feel that I can watch this season through. I also read that NBC plans on carrying Gladiators into at least another season after this. You have made a hypocritical stance stating that I should give Militia the benefit of the doubt for his injury and with further thought I will but you eluded to another injury to a contender so either you have it one way or the other. You have clearly studied up on your old gladiators and have noted a number of injuries to gladiators. I must remind you that those injuries spanned a number of years versus the injury of Militia in the second event of the first episode. I have seen another example of the lack luster performances of gladiators Siren looked pathetic in joust again and my personal favorite for the new series Titan look like a baby giraffe trying to keep balance and composure on the joust. I have notice that Justice and Helga as big as they are the only events they do are Assault, Gauntlet and Hit and Run, events that are stationary. This shows a lot less versatility that was seen in the previous show. I want to conclude this great debate this is a very entertaining show for today's day and age. It provides a get away from the lack of quality reality shows surfacing. Although I enjoy this show now it is using predominantly the same events and rules with as much flash as possible. Their are no original ideas behind the new show and for that reason this new breed of American Gladiators simply falls short. Good luck to you on your future debates and hope to hear from you again. Much respect Fred. Cheers!!!
The New American Gladiators is better than the Old american Gladiators

Yes, I am 13 years old but i have seen the original American Gladiators. on ESPN Classic the yhave aired reruns of the original gladiators but recently they have stopped...don't kno if its b/c its being aired on NBC new or what ever, but b4 they stopped I did grow to appreciate and love the show American Gladiators. Now this sow first of all with out the new fireworks, announcers, costumes, is as i see it the same as the old...gladiator vs. contender...fairly the same contests...eliminator decides results...and the new stuff makes it o so much better ands exciting than the old. Now i beg to differ about the dominance of the Gladiators...as it sounds you have watched all the episodes of the New Gladiators so far so you will probably understand what im explaining...on the series premiere on literally the first event, power ball,...the lady injures her leg right off the bat...so you could all that a fluke or a coincedence but no...a couple nights ago on the third gladiators another guy injures his leg...in 4 shows already 2 contenders were injured...that is pretty dominating... Now about Militias injury...you can't say that an injury makes a gladiator or any athlete infact not tough...if Ladainian Tomlinson injured his wrist stiff arming Junior Seau in his next game on a run to the out side is he not good or dominating...everyone gets injured...it shouldn't take away from greatness if they get injured or not...in the old gladiator tons of there gleadiators got hurt: Sunny in the first season Malibu in first season Gold in season three Turbo in season three Cyclone in season four Elektra in season four Now evidently injuries are common in both so Militias injury shouldn't be used to take away toughness from anyone. Now i agree Mayhems mistake was ridiculous...same mistake twice...really the only thing i can come up with to defend it is his aggressiveness wanting to take out the other guy...ehh Now i apoligize for my delay on a response...but the new Gladiators i still argue is better than the first...Don't get me wrong I LOVE the original but the new one is greater...
The New American Gladiators is better than the Old american Gladiators

I would like to appologize too all for the lengthy wait before response, I am in the army and I had some business to take care of. According to my opponents profile he is 13 years old. If that information is correct then that makes my opponent too young to have watch and remember American Gladiators when it was originally on. He sees the hype of this brand new show with nice costumes and fireworks. Now to him this "fresh new show", with "best announcers" is simply re-heated left-overs. The events if you truly watched the shows where exactly the same as before. Simply put without the large advertising campaign across the networks and the large success of the previous show the present day American Gladiators would be just another one season reality show. The dominance of the gladiators is something that is exclusive in your mind because I have yet to see an overwhelming dominance from the gladiators. Infact besides the fact that I do see a bit more individualism from gladiators I find the new gladiators to be nothing but models. One example of the lack of dominance was on the season premier on Sunday when Militia the ex Marine (could tell by his little ooh-raa before the event started messed up his rist letting a contender blast by him with no difficulties. So how can I call Militia dominant when the guy hurt his rist prior to even touching anyone. He had only crossed 4 rings before he hurt his wrist. Another example of this so-called dominance comes from Mayham. In the joust event that seems to be the highest winning percentage for all gladiators past or present. He was going against the 155 asian guy and crossed over on the wrong side withouut really hurting the asian guy. Very sad that a gladiator who is heavy by 100 pounds cannot cruise to victory and is disqualified. If being disqualified to a man that is as heavy as the female contender wasn't bad enough you then see the same gladiator lose in mere seconds after losing by being DQed again. Now you may say that is only two instances of short comings by the gladiators but I need to spread out all the mistakes of only two episodes into another round of debate. It is nice too see that the new show takes the time to show the personality of the gladiators, but if there primary interest is ratings then this show is not for me but I cannot see how my opponent says the Newer version is better than the original with the emphasis on dominance still eludes me. Thank you to all involved and I will patiently await your response. Cheers!
The New American Gladiators is better than the Old american Gladiators

I would like to first thank everyone for taking their time to observe the debate and I would like to give thanks for the topic that my opponent has brought up it is a pleasant change of speed. Wish you the best and good luck! Who would stake the claim for the fact that the vintage classic Mustangs where bested by its fresher redesigned new models. The Corvette of old pales in comparison to the more modern decedent, it would be completely foolish to toss those historical automobiles to the curb for the newer more efficient models. Because of historical relevance, tradition and sentimental value that they conjure. For the same reason we must also look to the Original American Gladiators as a trend setting show that combined athletic competition with entertainment similar to World Wrestling Entertainment but without the plotted storyline. I know it is your personal opinion and I really mean no disrespect but I find your argument very vague lacking very much evidence and I find it difficult for one to state that a throw back of a show that was widely popular for many years can even hold a match to a show like they Original American Gladiators. I have notice that the show is much better with the Cinema photography and Pyrotechnics but besides the fact that the announcers are simply well known does not make them better. I really do enjoy the new American Gladiators do not get me wrong but with the less articulate announcers and the corny lines from every contender it is taking away from the point of the show athletic dominance. The gladiators in the show although they are more attractive in the females case (with the exception of the delicious Helga) and more muscular in appearance for the males they do not show the same dominance over the contenders as they did in the predecessor of the show. Maybe it is because of the fact that they are still new but we must wait and see that. I do not like the fact that it is in a Reality Show format but got to take the good with the bad. The new American Gladiators is refreshing to see with all the other crap they are force feeding us with the writer strike we have going on, but please it can not be compared to the original show which is the foundation for 90% of the show.
The New American Gladiators is better than the Old american Gladiators

I really thought that this was only 3 rounds that is why I was already giving you thanks for this debate. I have had a very fun time with this and you have been a very gracious and hospitable host. You have brought up a number of good points, at the same time you have brought up a few that I disagree with and a number that just flat made me laugh. I will come to the same conclusion that injuries cannot make or break an entire show and I will leave it to the quality of the athletes. I just want you to understand by eluding to your age I am not trying to marginalize you by any means or discredit you in anyway. I just feel that you where to young to be around when the hype of American Gladiators existed. It is different watching it now then when it first came out. I am sure that in 10 years this show or something similar to what you enjoyed as a child will come out and you will find yourself arguing over the classic version to another guy. I thought your attempt to convince me of a modern car being as being a Resurrection of an old vehicle by using the Magnum was relatively funny. It was a good point but you should have used a Dodge Charger or a Chevy Camaro but it did make the debate. I will continue watching like I said I prefer having the Gladiators alternate so they can get better and even the playing ground with the contenders. One last point is the fact that I really dislike the idea like you stated of having the winner from the previous season being a gladiator all I want is to see that little asian guy win and see him on as a gladiator Sincerely, Fred R.