BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God and evolution can't both be true

This seems off-topic to me. When I went to a Catholic school in Omaha for 8 years I was taught many things. Once I asked the question of "If God made the world in seven days where did dinosaurs come from? " It was an ill-worded question but for some reason my teacher seemed stumped. Then she had an epiphany. The bible carries ultimately true messages but was open to human error by the gospel writers! That means that little details, like the world being created in seven days may or may not be true depending on whether or not you are a bible literalist or not. Secondly, since God is eternal who's to say that a day is equivalent in length as it is to us? Let's say an average person lives 70 years. That's approximately 25,550 days. So one day is one twenty five thousandths of a person's lifetime. So since God is eternal and ever living who's to know what 25,000ths of his lifespan is? We could go by how long we think the universe has existed (almost 14 billion years). This would mean that a day to God could be equal to 548,000 of ours, or 1500 years. Still not enough time you say? If god has existed forever there is no possible way of knowing how long a day is to him. Secondly, I don't know what mysterious group of people you are talking about. I believe in evolution and don't believe that after years of sin Homo Sapiens were first born. there is no one generation that miraculously changes from an ape to a person. It was extremely gradual. Since you have failed to define evolution I could say I am referencing Lamarck's theory but I won't be that mean. This is my case, God started the world and in so creating it made evolution possible.
God and evolution can't both be true

Can God (Christian God) and evolution both be real? No. First of all, in Genesis chapter 3, the Bible clearly says that sin entered the world after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. The Bible also clearly establishes that Adam and Eve were both humans. Those who believe in evolution say that after thousands of years of sin, Homo Sapiens were first born. The Bible says the exact opposite. Sin entered the world after humans ate the forbidden fruit. Both cannot be correct. Either the Bible is a bunch of bullcrap or evolution didn't happen. Not both.
Creation vs Evolution

I want to thank my Heavenly Father God through His Son Jesus Christ for giving me another chance to glorify His name! I also want to thank debate. org for giving us a platform to debate our issues, I also want to thank my opponent gametimer for accepting to debate me on the issue of Creation vs. Evolution! It is safe to say, that I" am the clear winner of this debate, my opponent has not defended evolution nor atheism in the first two rounds & has forfeited the third round. Before I get into my closing argument I would like to address The space wizard that popped up from where? Nothing, comment. It seems that atheist admires mocking God, Christians, and Faithful Individuals. Comparing God to space wizards, Santa Claus, Flying spaghetti monster. I think it"s pure bullying tactics based on irrational assumptions, serious debaters in open debates don"t even use them terms anymore, it has no scientific sufficiency, it has been debunked numerous times. Because we have undeniable evidence that there is no old man, with a long white beard, wearing a red suit, riding on reindeers, flying around, delivering toys to children all over the world. Just as the Flying spaghetti monster, logically we know that spaghetti cannot fly! If my opponent wants to be taken seriously, I encourage him to use better compelling arguments going forward. My closing arguments would be to potential voters, I encourage voters no matter their religious preferences To look at this debate objectively & with an open mind. The evidence clearly supports the creation hypothesis. I have presented cosmological arguments, scientific rebuttals, and fine-tuning hypothesis with not logical rebuttals from my opponent & a forfeit to top it off.
Creation vs Evolution

My opening argument will lay the foundation on why I believe that this amazing creation was designed by an Intelligent Designer. In my argument I will be presenting arguments from Dr. William Lane Craig of Reasonable Faith states, "their is no good argument that atheism is true, & that their are good arguments that theism is true. " My first argument is the Cosmological argument! We understand that through amazing scientific breakthroughs, mathematicians & astro-physics have come to the conclusion that the universe indeed has a beginning & is not eternal. Because the universe is not eternal it has an absolute beginning known as the Big Bang that is known to have happen some 13 billion years ago in a cataclysm event, what make the Big Bang so startling that it represent the origin of the universe from literally nothing, that all things came into existence as far as the physical universe is concerned from nothing. Now this put my opponent in a awkward position because he must explain How the universe came from nothing & by nothing, logically that doesn't make any sense, because nothing from nothing leaves nothing. Now if the universe begin to exist and is not eternal we must ask ourselves, why is the universe? The logical reasoning is that the universe has a cause, and this cause brought the universe into existence. Now as the cause of space & time this being must be an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial being with amazing power & intellect. .. We know that abstract objects can't cause anything, so the cause must originate from a transcendent intelligent mind. For my opponent to refute my argument he must show evidence how the Universe came into existence from nothing and by nothing, and why the universe came into existence? I have more arguments & evidence against the theory of evolution, but would like to hear from my opponent. .. Thank you for you're time and attention.
beauty discrimination

So if a restaurant only want to only hire attractive girls to get more customers, higher tips or just want the customers to have a better time then I think it's completely fine. The reason for this is because if having attractive females boosts your sales then it means the attractive women are more qualified then other less attractive females or men would be. This is almost like complaining about model jobs are mainly open for more attractive people. I honestly think it should be up to the owner who he hires and who he doesn't hire. If you think this is morally wrong that is up to you but I feel you hire the person that is best suitable for the job no matter what.
beauty discrimination

Id say race does not define you as a person at all but the culture you grow up in does. And overall when it comes to black/white it is usually a difference between culture. And if there is a owner that won't hire a attractive black women then its his loss. It makes his company lose money and if he want to loose money because he is retarded I think its fine. (If attraction would bring more money to the table). Again if you think this is morally wrong then it's up to you but I personally feel like this would not make a valid law and could get abused to ruin people's lives.
beauty discrimination

Beauty defines the person in some way race don't. A black person can be attractive a white person can be attractive an Asian can be attractive. Beauty for the most part lies in your body such as stomach, teeth, hair etc which are all changeable in some way. But yes for the most part you don't choose how you look and you can't control it. But you know neither do you choose being smart for the most part. You don't really choose your IQ or understanding of math it's just how it is. Sure some people work really hard to try to become smarter or whatever but so do people trying to become attractive. And the difference between race and beauty in my opinion is that beauty is subjective and race is objective. You can say "I don't really see the difference between male and female both are not changeable" see the problem? And what I meant with it's stupid if there's a law on that it's illegal to only hire white people then I meant that if there's a law forcing you to hire less qualified people only because of their skin color then its stupid. I do understand what you're saying but I simply think "beauty discrimination" laws would be way too easy to abuse and would only harm people in this world.
Cartoons, Christmas, and Education causes kids to be mentally ill

OBJECTION! The entire Burden of Proof is on Pro. 30 minutes, and 2,000 characters, I can't beat around the bush too much. Rebuttals:Education:"your brain is not supposed to be big" You haven't shown that brains actually grow. By "Education" we're reffering to ALL forms. Science, Math, Imagination Station, all that. You've only shown a failed teaching method. Christmas:How does believing in imaginary things equate to being mentally ill? Santa's a popular character, bringing presents to people. SUre, they're mistaken, but not mentally ill. Being mentally ill would be thinking murder is right, being obsessed with porn, or just flat out insane. Santa doesn't do this. To the contrary, the reason Santa Claus exists is to make sure children are nice. If you're not nice, you'll end up with coal. Cartoons:How do Cartoons make people mentally ill? None of your sources even mention anything about this. I can assure you that millions of people watch Loony Toons, and no one will gain a lust for insanity or anything. Source Examination:Source #1: This only covers 1 example. To suggest Education is evil is to suggest all education is evil, whcih it isn't. Source #2: The Vlog of a grown woman. I have little time to fully watch it, but it's a grown woman, so it's irrelevant. Source #3: This is another adult. We're taling about ages 1 through 18. THis is irrelevant. Source #4: This is just Bieber saying Santa is fake. This is irrelevant.
Cartoons, Christmas, and Education causes kids to be mentally ill

Cartoons, Christmas, and education cause mental illness for kids 1-18 education causes mental health issues, your brain is not supposed to be big. Scientifically, it was supposed to keep its small size. and ruins their future source: http://www.americanthinker.com... we already proven that Christmas should be banned by NoMoreChristmas characters like santa claus fool kids to believe they're real, but the truth is they are not. cartoons however, cause even more mental damage. BAN ALL CARTOONS, CHRISTMAS, AND EDUCATION ALL TOPICS FROM OLD TO NEW youtube videos: Justin Bieber song to address deceit and carelessness of parents in Christmas Courtesy of Guubu Records (SME)
Their are only 2 genders

I have never really debated in a formal sense before, But here I go. When a human is conceived, The 23rd pair of chromosome, Determines the child's gender. If they receive two X chromosomes, They are considered a girl, And will develop a vagina, (stop laughing 12 year olds) in the sense that they provide the egg during reproduction. If they receive a Y chromosome from their father, They will grow a penis and will be considered a boy. I think that having a penis means you are a boy and having a vagina means you are a girl. Not just because I believe that your gender is decided before you are born, But because basic biology decides that the haploid cells that combine to form a child, Can only produce a zygote with only 1 of 2 possible outcomes, XX (girl) or XY (boy). You probably already know this and like I said this is my first time debating, But according to basic biology, There are only 2 combinations of the 23rd pair of chromosomes that can be made. Meaning 2 genders.
Is Minecraft a good game for the youth of today

Minecraft is a game that is very loved by many from the age of 4 to 40. This game triggers a child's building talents. The survival mode helps with their skills of triggering once they see a mob for example, or if they see an ore. Minecraft/Mojang has even said that it is to help strike a child's imagination and to help with urban development in the future. These are skills developed after playing minecraft: Visuospatial Reasoning or learning to manipulate objects in space in a way that creates dynamic structures. Visuospatial reasoning is the basis for more abstract forms of knowledge like the ability to evaluate whether a conclusion logically follows from its premises. "The object (of the game) is to construct, not to tear down. It"s a video game, but it can also be classified as a building toy." "Students learn how to collaborate to solve problems, and collaborative learning improves critical thinking skills that support motivation for learning." According to the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), kids need more, not less, video game play. "The success of complex video games demonstrates that games can teach higher-order thinking skills such as strategic thinking, interpretative analysis, problem solving, plan formulation and execution, and adaptation to rapid change," the Federation announced in a recent report. "These are the skills U.S. employers increasingly seek in workers and new workforce entrants."
abortion

My opponent and I will be sharing the BoP in this debate since this is a dual sided topic where both cases can build arguments. Therefore, I will be providing a construct along with my refuatations. Now, without further delay, onto the debate! II. Cross-ExaminationPro mentions in his initial paragraph that women should be allowed to do what she want with her body. This is true, however irrelevant. At what point does a fetus become a seperate entity from it's mother? Surely it's immediately after conception. The organism growing inside her is no longer working to benefit it's parent. Instead it is taking the role of a human, relying on her for nutrition and protection. Meaning that the abortion isn't only affecting her and her body, it is a decision to decide whether to kill something or not. This is should not be up to what she "wants". My opponent brought up a few points in the first half of his opening argument. Most of them can be disregarded with a single argument. He claims that abortion can save a child from having to deal with isues like pain, brain injuries, and poverty. However when you consider the same effect can be achieved by simply slaughtering the child upon birth, then you can see the error in this logic. Death is an easy way to avoid any problem, but it shouldn't be left up to another as to whether a solution this permanent is justified. Second half of this argument is much more substantial as it has been the focus of most pro-abortion constructs. If any woman, a child especially, is raped and is finds herself a potential mother, should she be given the right to prevent the birth of the child to save herself from either death or other parent-related issues? The answer is far from simple but one must consider when searching for it that abortion, if practiced at all, should only be seen as a last resort. Just as killing anyone should never be considered unless all other option are exahusted. So, in a sense, abortion should be an option, but not one left up to the mother. A mom is typically not qualified to determine whether birth will be fatal or not. A trained physician on the other hand would be able to make the call with an objective outlook. III. ConstructThis is the basis of my argument. Abortion is a very serious matter. Serious matters are best left up to those trained to deal with them and make decisions that are an objective compromise. A mother carrying a child has naturally developed a bias to the fetus, this could cause her to make irrational decisions such as keeping a potententially deadly child or killing a prefectly healthy one. You could argue that she has the best interest of it in mind due to the natural bonds she develops, but again, those bonds aren't a human nurse with an objective best interest to both the child and mother. IV. ClosingPro presented a common pro-decision argument that stands some ground, however doesn't consider bias. I'd like to see how he refutes these claims, so I pass it on to him for round 2!
abortion

I believe that a women should be allowed to do what she pleases with her body, and it shouldn't be in the goverments control. Abortion can save children from: 1. Extreme pain 2. Extreme cases of brain damage 3. Being born in poverty 4. Incest 5. Major diformities and if a young girl is raped who has a body too young to produce children, and it is much too emotionally difficult for a young girl to give birth to a child anyway, please note by young child I mean under 14, abortion can stop her from dying in birth, and the child from having to carry with him that his mom is a dead 13 year old. Good luck to my opponet.
The Boston bombing was a false flag perpetrated by the US government.

It is traditional, if one claims that photos are fake, doctored or in any way not geuine, that person provides some sort of proof. All of these images and statements are provable with a simple search, however I will provide this information where I can. . https://youtu.be... . http://abcnews.go.com... . http://thecraft.com... . http://www.voltairenet.org... . http://www.dumbocratquotes.com... Conclusion Whether or not my opponent chooses to properly research this argument, as I have done, is irrelevant in its accuracy. Con should research and provide at least one source, reliably disproving any of my points.
The Boston bombing was a false flag perpetrated by the US government.

As anyone knows, a conspiracy theory deserves to be taken in a very critical light. You have to be very careful buying into very strange ideas without first accepting a serious amount of evidence, so let's analysis the evidence. First Photo : It has no time stamp or location, they are blurry poorly produced photos with no substance that really inspires us to believe an extra-ordinary claim of a hidden conspiracy. Second Photo : Did the FBI say this? Was the bomb in that bag? Is that even a photo of the bag at the event? I can't tell anything from this. Third Photo : No idea what the third photo is, too many lines going in no obvious direction. Is that a known symbol? Is that relevant? Where was the photo taken? Fourth Photo : Terminology distinction. Even if he said that, which a meme of a photo won't tell us, then so what? Fifth Photo : I don't understand this photo? Is that Putin? Is that an 'actor'? Is that someone relevant to this debate? Sixth Photo : Two independent photos of one guy doesn't convey a 'set', it doesn't convey a 'false flag', it really doesn't convey anything, apart from in one photo he's helping someone . The rest of the photos are either memes, poorly display and I can't read or simply irrelevant. There has been no evidence that this attack was a false flag, the standard narrative is sound, I don't need to prove it didn't happen, only that it wasn't a false flag event, and as we have seen it isn't.
The Boston bombing was a false flag perpetrated by the US government.

Evidence continues to accumulate across the internet from vigilant free-thinkers and conspiracy researchers proving that the Boston marathon bombing, just like the Sandy Hook and Aurora shootings, just like 9/11 and 7/7, was a false-flag operation carried out by the government. I've compiled the following key bullet points, pictures and videos which completely blow open the mainstream media version of this event: -The two suspect's backpacks aren't even the same color or design as the exploded backpack-Two other men with the same color and design backpacks as the exploded backpack have been completely ignored by the "investigation" and mainstream media reports. They are wearing wires, built and dressed like military, and wearing the logo of a private security firm (like Blackwater) called Craft. Not only that, but one of them is on film running away from the explosion with his backpack missing!-Several of the suspect's family members including their parents said they were being set-up and that the FBI had been controlling them for years-The Boston Bomb squad was there at the marathon running bomb drills, just like 9/11, 7/7, Oslo, and other false-flags where they "coincidentally" just so happened to be doing terror drills. This "simultaneous drill" excuse has been used again and again in false-flag operations-The wheelchair double amputee victim "Jeff Bauman" has been positively identified as being Nick Vogt, an Afghan war vet whose legs were already blown off!-Three of the same policemen at Sandy Hook have also been positively identified at the Boston bombing-While being interviewed the Boston police chief in a likely Freudian slip referred to the suspects as "actors"-The predictive programming cues were there with an in-depth Family Guy reference to bombings at the Boston marathon and a "Joggers" Illuminati card-There was even a Boston bombing facebook aid page set up two days before it happenedhttps://youtu.be...https://youtu.be...https://youtu.be...https://youtu.be...https://youtu.be...
chickens are cannibals because they eat chicken when you feed them chicken

You assume too many things that are not true. They were well fed because they were fat and always ate scraps. Chicken wasn't the only thing in the scraps. There was bread and vegetables and salad and lots more. They seemed to like the chicken more than anything else, which included the chicken food that was already in the chicken pen. It was clear they preferred chicken over all other foods. This definitely makes them cannibals. They did not eat each other however, but it is common for chickens to peck at each other when fighting. These chickens were cannibals, and shows that all chickens have a propensity to be cannibals. A person who eats human flesh is a cannibal no matter what the circumstance is. Just the same as a rapist is a rapist no matter what their excuse is.
chickens are cannibals because they eat chicken when you feed them chicken

Well, firstly your 'experiment' involved only a specific group of chickens, hence you cannot generalize your results to say all chickens are cannibals. Despite that, your experiment has a lot of faulty actions which I will mention here. You state that they were well fed, but that is from your point of view. You ofcourse are the person giving them food so if they were not well fed it would bring dishonour to you and hence you have a bias of saying they are well fed. Not surprisingly that is exactly what you said. Have you even bothered to ask the chickens whether they were hungry? Did'nt think so, and so not only is what you said dubious but the approach you have taken too. On top of that, you gave the chickens no choice as you only gave them chicken which they would have to eat to survive. I actually found that your chicken said that you did not ask him, and he said he would never do such a thing if you didnt make him. Shame on you for forcing your chickens to do such a shameful act: <(He never asked me, and gave us no choice, EVER)Moving on, an example of what I mean by cannibalism is the exemplified by this event. If you were on an island dying of hunger and had another individual with you, would you not eventually succumb to eating yourselves if the situation made it so? According to philosopher Thomas Hobbes, he said that it is the nature of man to do anything that it would take to survive. Chickens, are no different so when they were starving and the only option was the meat you gave them, they ate it. It was only to survive, not because they like and enjoyed it. You have also not answered to my objection that the chickens didnt kill and eat each other later, so I will assume that it is true. Since your chickens did not eat each other when given normal grains again, it shows that they are not cannibals but were driven by necessity. I know that a lot of people would eat themselves or others if the situation was that desperate but they wont do it when not in such a situation. These people are not cannibals becasue a cannibal is one who eats of its own species even when other options are available, not when only when there is no other option.