BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Creationism is true

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1 The universe was created. Who or what created it? Answer: God. This is the most logical explanation. Who or what do you think created it?Pro had the burden of proof, as said in the beginning of this debate. However, he did not put much reasoning into WHY it was the most logical explanation. I think that the big bang created it. "But how did the big bang come out of nowhere?" You ask.Actually, it is possible for things to come out of nowhere. Quantum fluctuations means that a positron and a photon can appear effectively out of nowhere. [1] In fact, vaccums have a lot of activity going on, with particles appearing and antiparticles destroying them. [2]Thus, because the first law of thermodynamics can be violated, the big bang can come out of nowhere. [1]http://www.talkorigins.org...[2]http://machineslikeus.com...
Creationism is true

In this debate, Pro (FritzStammberger) should provide evidence that creationism is true. Burden of Proof is on Pro. I have the Burden of Rejoinder to refute his claims.Voting notes:FritzStammberger has complained about athiests vote bombing against him for no reason, so I would like to ask to please do not vote bomb on this debate.Pro can start this round. He should not post new arguments in the last round, because I wll not be able to refute new arguments if he did. Let the debate begin.
Creationism is true

"If my theory holds true, as will most certainly be indicated by copious findings in the years to come, then who knows what breathtaking an array of fanciful species we may uncover? It is not unreasonable - yea, it is fair certain - that the archeologists of tomorrow will uncover the winged horse, the underwater pachyderm, the crocoduck, the serpentine ape, and a host of other incredible creatures, hitherto regarded as impossible by the rigid, Christian-driven dogma of modern day science."Charles Darwin"On The Origin of Species"chapter 7 "Congratulations on your belated discovery. Indeed 'God IS Dead' for you see, I have killed Him." Charles Darwin in a letter to Friedrich Nietzsche "If we are to rid the world of the burdensome moral requirements imposed by christianity me must create a religion of our own. Fear not gentlemen for I have already done the groundwork for us. The name of our new religion shall hereafter be THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION."Charles Darwin at an 1868 meeting of naturalistsEvolution is a false religious system. In the name of Jesus Christ open your heart to the true word of the living God John 1 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. 15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. 16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. 18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Creationism is true

Your argument in this round was based on the assumptions that:1. Genesis is true2. Evolution is alseAnd you also dropped the fine tuning argument. Now let's imagine a being with infinite power and knowledge. If that being wanted to create a universe with humans in it, how long would it take? The answer is simple. No time at all. The bible say's that God created the heaven and the earth in 6 days and on the seventh day he rested. We still follow this 7 day pattern today. God knew exactly what He was doing and did not need to wait billions of years until he could finally get on with the business of Man.So 6 days is no time at all. No time at all technically means no time not a few days. God wanted to create children in his image and likeness. The bible says that God CREATED the heaven and the earth about 6000 years ago according to the generations from Adam to Jesus. God came to earth as Jesus and authenticated the books of Moses in which the creation account exists.This is not evidence at all as Pro has not put any evidence that the bible is true.People believe in an earth that is billions of years old for 1 reason only, because the false theory of evolution requires these vast ages. (and these vast ages are not even enough for evolution to be correct). What difference does it make to you whether the earth is 6000 or 6 billion? it makes 0 difference except for the fact that if it is 6000 years old then evolution can not be true.Evolution is true. In fact, there are many known speciation events. [1]Thus All scientific AND biblical data points to an earth that was created about 6000 years ago. The theory of Darwinian evolution is perhaps the most evil idea of all time. It leads more people away from God than almost anything else.You have given no scientific evidence, no evidence that the bible is true, and then you say that you have got evidence. Your evidence is like the king's clothes, which is nonexistent. I have debated this topic many times and I am yet to see a convincing argument for evolution.Now I know why you never refute evolutionist arguments. You never read them! You probably should read microsuck's arguments. I defer the rest of my case to Kent Hovind. He has dealt sufficiently with this topic, I encourage anyone who is interested creation science to check out Kent Hovind on youtube.I defer the rest of my case to thunderf00t and doubtingdave.http://www.youtube.com...[1]http://www.talkorigins.org...
Creationism is true

I am limited in power and knowledge. - If I were to try and build a nice car it would probably take me the rest of my adult life. (if I could even do it in one life time.) But the Lexus car company with vastly greater knowledge and power can probably build a car in about 3 hours. Now let's imagine a being with infinite power and knowledge. If that being wanted to create a universe with humans in it, how long would it take? The answer is simple. No time at all. The bible say's that God created the heaven and the earth in 6 days and on the seventh day he rested. We still follow this 7 day pattern today. God knew exactly what He was doing and did not need to wait billions of years until he could finally get on with the business of Man. God wanted to create children in his image and likeness. The bible says that God CREATED the heaven and the earth about 6000 years ago according to the generations from Adam to Jesus. God came to earth as Jesus and authenticated the books of Moses in which the creation account exists. The more that modern science advances into the realms of quantum physics, the more comfortable Genesis 1 reads. Everything is energy vibrating. what is vibrating it? God is. God is the transcendent, all powerful, all knowing, all loving, personal creator of the universe. I believe him when he says he created the heavens and the earth in 6 days. People believe in an earth that is billions of years old for 1 reason only, because the false theory of evolution requires these vast ages. (and these vast ages are not even enough for evolution to be correct). What difference does it make to you whether the earth is 6000 or 6 billion? it makes 0 difference except for the fact that if it is 6000 years old then evolution can not be true. Thus All scientific AND biblical data points to an earth that was created about 6000 years ago. The theory of Darwinian evolution is perhaps the most evil idea of all time. It leads more people away from God than almost anything else. I have debated this topic many times and I am yet to see a convincing argument for evolution. I defer the rest of my case to Kent Hovind. He has dealt sufficiently with this topic, I encourage anyone who is interested creation science to check out Kent Hovind on youtube. Thank you. http://www.youtube.com...
Creationism is true

1. Fine tuningVictor Stenger has stated that the fine tuning is the modern version of God-of-The-Gaps.[1] By using this argument, you are assuming that everything not yet explained is done by God.Plus, there are two possibilities for this: 1. The organisms adapt to the universe and 2. The universe adapts to the organisms because God made it do that. By using this argument for the existence of a God, you assume that the second one is true. However, you have to prove the second one is true or else it is not a correct argument. Let's do an analogy. "Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the Sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be all right, because this World was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for."--Richard Dawkins Does the liquid assume the shape of its container or did the container assume the shape of the liquid? the cosmological argument from contingencythe kalam cosmological argument based on the beginning of the universethe moral argument based upon objective moral values and dutiesthe teleological argument from fine-tuningthe ontological argument from the possibility of God’s existence to his actuality Pro has made no arguments to support those that he claimed to be evidence for God's existence. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Creationism is true

Quantum fluctuations occur in the already created universe not before it. "KING LEAR: ..what can you say to drawA third more opulent than your sisters? Speak.CORDELIA: Nothing, my lord.KING LEAR: Nothing?!CORDELIA: Nothing.KING LEAR: Nothing will come of nothing, speak again.In order for the universe to exist it requires a cause that exists outside of space and time. Given the extreme fine tuning of the universe as well as objective morailty, The best explanation for this timeless spaceless cause is God.As shown before, it can occur in vaccums. Vaccums are "nothingness". Before the universe was born, it was "nothingness". Thus, it can occur before the universe was created. Pro also has put no evidence on his argument on quantum flutuations.Plus, quantum fluctuations talks about very small particles, and it cannot create something big in a short time. The King and Cordelia analogy falls apart.You need to give proof that the universe was fine tuned, because if the universe was tuned differently (let's call it Universe B) the organisms would be very different but the organisms in universe B would still say that the universe was pefect, because if it wasn't they would be extinct. The organisms could adapt to the envoironment, instead of the envoironment adapting t the organisms, too. No actual reasoning or arguments were given by pro. He only give statements that were not supported by sources.
Brawl is a better game than Melee.

And debates are naturally subjective; one is trying to get their side to win. I accept nonetheless :)Onto the refutations. Speed. Overall, I agree. Both games are fun. But overall, Brawl appeals to a more casual audience, and Melee to a more competitive, which is why I think it's the better game. Melee is naturally a LOT faster paced than Brawl. Fox, for instance, has a hard time shine dashing and shine spiking in Brawl, as well as maneuvering quickly throughout the map with his short hops, and pressuring with double lasers. The good thing about the faster paced Melee games as opposed to the slower, seemingly sluggish in comparison Brawl game. Melee promotes fast, close-quarters combat, while the opposite favors range. The problem with this is that the tendency to camp removes fun from the game. Many characters have camping potential include Pit, Samus (only somewhat though), Link (and TL), ZSS, Wolf (Fox and Falco not as much as they're faster and their projectiles do less damage), and Snake. Unfortunately, many of these characters are considered good for their camp potential. This is the difference between Melee and Brawl. In Melee, there are hardly any campy characters (Link, Samus and somewhat Peach are the only ones I can think of), and if they are they're hardly used (Esam's Samus and Armada's Peach are exceptions) due to just that: the camp factor. Faster characters, such as Fox, Captain Falcon, and Shiek perform much better, as they're able to close the gap quickly and highly punish the rest. In Brawl, these characters aren't able to do so as well, as there are more campy characters, which have received buffs. While the slower gameplay may appeal to the more casual people, or the family as a whole, the faster-paced gameplay tends to be more fun, and appeals for those looking for a challenge. Competitive Scene. . http://smashboards.com...The above is a link to a SmashBoards forum section, dedicated entirely to tournaments. If you look, you will see there are many Melee tournaments present, even with cash prizes. As well, VGBootcamp regularly streams Melee, PM, and SSB4. In fact, a stream of Melee they did just yesterday received over 30k viewers. this proves that more people love Melee and want to see the competitive scene in action. Competitive Online Nintendo Games. Pokemon X and Y had a World Championship a few months ago. . http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...In fact, many of the Pokemon games have had competitive online tournaments. As well, the new SSB4 has an online mode, with a For Glory option, which is a competitive match-ranking system. Characters. We can assume this point is dropped, seeing as both sides have valid points. Overall, I believe Pro has failed to uphold his BoP. I thank Pro for his time and I hope everyone votes wisely. Thanks :)
Brawl is a better game than Melee.

Thank you for continuing with the debates! 1. To address your first point I would like to say that the majority of Brawl and Melee gameplay is family gameplay. As much as they are fun games I have not been over to a friends house and played Brawl or Melee. These games have always been played as family game night. This is the case in my family and other families I have played with. I understand that the game Brawl might be annoying because of some of the drag that you might experience, but most families don't notice it. Brawl tends to be 2 seconds slower than Melee on a 30 second timer. That is almost unnoticeable for most families. Another reason that Brawl is slightly slower is because there are so many more additions to Brawl!!! (maps, easier character movement, ect.) I personally played Brawl and Melee quite a bit and I noticed almost no speed difference!!! Is Brawl slower? Yes maybe so, but most people won't notice if they are just having fun. 2. Like I said in my last point is that the competitive scene for and off the smash games is almost non-existent. I have never watched or participated at all in online on Smash bros. Neither has most players (if I am wrong please show me so as I am going off of personal experience). 3. Agreed, but please show the market for competitive online Nintendo games. 4. I played brawl for a long time and never played with either character for quite a while. Not to many people dying over the loss of two when there is a gain of many. Thank You and if seems I am being subjective I apologize.
Brawl is a better game than Melee.

It seems opponent is unaware of the positions and who is covering which side.I instigated this debate on the side of Con, meaning that I believed Brawl was NOT a better game than Melee (or Melee was better than Brawl, but the BoP would have been on Pro anyways).Seeing he has accepted and intends to debate for my side I see no further reason to argue as this could be taken as a concession.If opponent wishes to have this debate again with the proper roles fulfilled (me as Con and him as Pro), I would be more than happy to have a new one. However, for this debate opponent has conceded and I thank him for his time.
Death Penalty

When someone is imprisoned they become a burden on society. Most attempts to reintroduce a criminal into society fail, as most are back in prison within 4 years. Why pay taxes and basically support someone's living who you don't even know, when they can just be killed and thus can never do anything wrong towards anyone else ever again. Yes, I agree this is quite a drastic punishment that should be reserved for certain circumstances only (serial killers/rapists, people who can escape, etc), but in these circumstances this is the only solution.
Allowing Gay Marraige.

I know that there are some people out there that don't agree with allowing gay marraige to happen, but I think that in my opinion that it should be a right because everyone wants to feel equal and everyone wants to say "my husband" or "my wife", even when it is the same gender. Being with the same gender should not matter, only that you love the person very much and that you both can connect with each other. Accepting people who are gay has been improving, but I find that there is still some discrimination on gay people because people are not allowing gay marraige to happen. Now, I know some of you may think that this should be in the politics category, but I don't want to put a political view on this issue as too many people do so.I want to put a spiritual and social view on this issue beause there is no need for a political fight about this as political fights are brutal in my opinion. So,without further ado, let's start debating!
The existence of a caring and active God is unlikely

I accept. I am arguing for the Christian God because, Like you, I am most familiar with Him. OrderHow can order come from disorder? If we look at the universe, We can clearly see patterns in everything. All planets and stars are spherical in shape, Gravity works the same everywhere, And light always travels the same speed (in each medium). The question then comes to this: how could all of this result from an explosion? Have you ever seen the wind blow a sand dune into a castle? Or a bomb explode a building into a car? No, You haven't, Because it's simply never going to happen. So we must ask ourselves, Is it really possible that we're here by chance, Or were we created by some greater force? TestimonyIn my opinion, Testimony is the most convincing argument for the existence of God. I don't mean just the people dancing in church (not to discredit them), But the atheists and agnostics and the people subscribed to other religions who, For some reason or another, Switched to Christianity, Sometimes through divine revelation. I mean the people in India who are getting dreams from Jesus himself, And the sick whose tumors "magically" disappear. There are thousands, If not millions, Of testimonies, So why are we ignoring them? One person could be lying, Sure, And another, Why not, But millions? That is not even remotely possible. I will add more arguments later on, But I leave the floor to you now.
The existence of a caring and active God is unlikely

The existence of a caring God such as the one described in the bible or the religious texts of Islam is unlikely due to a mix of philosophical and scientific facts that exist in stark contradiction to the things which must be true in order for an active God to exist and to have created the universe. I'm namely referring to the Christian God because, As someone who has grown up in a Christian household, I know more about Christianity than any other religion. That's not to say that the only thing to exist is that which we can naturally experience, Because I find it impossible to completely rule out the supernatural completely, But I would like to open up a fruitful discussion about the theistic meta-narrative.
Tape is sticky.

Hi, Names S.T. I'll be taking your Pro on this. Obviously a troll though.1. Duct TapeUsed for repair in the WWI army & Later for Housing Repairs.2. Medical TapeUsed for applying pressure to a specific area, Very Sticky3. Scotch Tape Used for repairing torn documents and other thingsCon Stated "Tape is not Sticky"Tape is however comprised of a solid front and a incredibly sticky back Unfortunately I'm not able to post my SourcesWith this I bid you Adieu
What do you think of white's owning slaves back in the days

You haven't specified the resolution, and have been ambiguous in your wording in general, but I infer that we are debating the morality of the issue of slave ownership by white people in colonial times. On this issue, you believe that slave ownership by whites is immoral, and will defend that stance; I, as Con, will argue that was moral. Please clarify if you are alright with these terms before I present my opening arguments.
What do you think of white's owning slaves back in the days

I belive the it was wrong because how can someone just go to a different country and decide to take over everything and every person that lives their and just because they are not white that they are below them and that they are not smart as them,but not knowing later in the future that they would be over powerd and that the slave would beable to go free and live as they wanted with no chains on any other sort of owning.The whites just seens the blacks as animals but still below their pet dogs
official catholic church teaching is that noncatholics and unbaptized infants go to hell

the only teachings that might say otherwise, are fallible, nonauthoritative statements. remember to be authoritative, it has to be the pope, intentionally, teaching, the church, on faith and morals. private letters, presentations to limited audiences etc, do not count. limbo, just some examples: Council of Florence Session 11 (Bull Cantate Domino): "With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time..." Council of Florence Session 6 "..the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains." No salvation for noncatholics: you can find plenty of rigorist authoritative quotes here: http://en.wikipedia.org... the only authoritative type statements that i see that they can be saved are vatican ii. it could be argued that they said they didnt intend to define anything, and it's always possible to hope that noncahtolics would somehow repent or 'be shown an angel before death' or something as is traditionally the only way of getting saved. so when they say noncatholics 'may' be saved, it is a political statement loaded with far out possibilities while making it look like they actually have a shot. it's a political statement.