BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Macro-evolution is absolutely incompatible with Christian Doctrine

The "Ground Rules" The challenger will be a Christian who believes that God either did or could have used macro-evolution as His method to create life on earth. This debate will NOT be on the existence of God, non-Christian deities, atheism vs theism, the validity of evolution or the validity of Biblical creation. The Argument: I contend that macro-evolution, as currently understood and popularly accepted, is absolutely incompatible with Christian Doctrine and it is therefore impossible for God to have used macro-evolution as His method to create life on earth. The Reasons: There are numerous reasons why my contention is correct. I will state five of the most critical reasons: 1. The Biblical account of creation in Genesis clearly emphasizes six 24-hour day periods for the process of creation. But the macro-evolution theory requires billions of years. 2. The Genesis account of creation specifically states the order that things were created. The order in Genesis is not the order prescribed by the macro-evolution theory. 3. Death did not enter the world until the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden. But the macro-evolution theory requires billions of years of death prior to the Fall of Man. 4. Christ died on the cross to pay the price for men's sin. But death is an integral part of the macro-evolution theory and therefore could not be the penalty for sin and therefore Christ's death would not have satisfied the debt for sin. 5. The Genesis Flood account was global and required that all non-aquatic creatures generate from the animals on the ark. But the macro-evolution theory requires billions of years to produce the bio-diversity we see today therefore all modern animals could not have descended from the few on the ark.
Macro-evolution is absolutely incompatible with Christian Doctrine

Having forfeited my previous round due to neglect, it seems unfair to bring up any new points. However, I will go over the arguments I did make. === Example === There is at least one form of Christianity which explicitly accepts evolution while rejecting some of the notions biblical literalists put forth. The example I gave is Catholicism, the largest branch of Christianity. Its (Christian) doctrine is compatible with evolution, macro and micro alike. Christian doctrine is therefore not _absolutely incompatible_ with macroevolution. An absolute such as that statement can have no exceptions, and I have shown an exception, therefore the statement is false. === My opponent's arguments === My opponent brings up many parts of the bible that do not mesh with macroevolution. However, only strict biblical literalists have the entire bible as doctrine. Christianity as an inclusive term has only a few doctrines - Christ came to earth and died for mankind's sin so that mankind could get into heaven through his sacrifice. That's pretty much all the doctrine necessary for a form of Christianity. Specific brands of Christianity have additional doctrines - for example, biblical literalists believe the entire bible is literally true. However, that is part of biblical literalist doctrine, not part of Christian doctrine in general. Biblical literalist doctrine may be incompatible with macro-evolution, but Christian doctrine and macro-evolution can indeed coexist. I have also shown that macroevolution does not specify what happened in the past. It is a theory about a process, not about a timeline. The theory of gravity does not say that 300 years ago a man jumped and fell to the ground, but it does explain the process by which that would happen. Macroevolution does not specify that death existed at time X, and macroevolution does not even need death in order to work (it simply needs imperfect reproduction and comparative reproductive advantages). The entire point about physical death only existing after the fall of man does not contradict macroevolution. It may contradict the fossil record, it may contradict the timeline of events we have theorized, and it might therefore contradict a lot of the supporting evidence for macroevolution, but it does not contradict the process of macroevolution (though it would likely make it just a hypothesis, rather than a theory). I'll rest my case there. Thanks to my opponent for the debate, and to all of you for reading.
Macro-evolution is absolutely incompatible with Christian Doctrine

I regret that my opponent has forfeited the last round. He leaves much unanswered and unchallenged. I will move to my closing words. I am glad for the opportunity this debate has given me to test and reflect on my positions and arguments. In considering this debate I believe I have succeeded in logically defending my position and have done so in a considerate and thoughtful manner. I am interested to read my opponent's closing words if he chooses to leave any and take advantage of having the last word. Other than that, I leave the debate in the hands of the reader to judge as they see fit. Thanks again to my opponent and thanks to anyone who took the time to read this debate.
My opponent will contradict him/herself

1. No2. Yes3. No4. Yes5. No Start a question with "what" implies that it is not yes/no, whether or not those are the available answers. "What is you favorite color?" is asking for an example out of an assumed set. Yes is not a viable answer to that question. My opponent cannot ask a "what" question when the only responses I'm allowed are yes/no, regardless of context. I've made no contradictions because my answer to the "next" question was not "no", since 5 was a void question. Were 5 a yes/no question, it wouldn't be unanswerable and therefore not void.No contradictions have been made. Good debate.
My opponent will contradict him/herself

My opponent tries to wiggle his way out of my crazy paradox. However, question 5's answer is yes/no, since question 4 was obviously a yes/no question. In order for question 5 to be a NOT yes/no question, the answer to question number 4 must not be yes/no. However, my opponent does not argue that question 4's answer was neither yes nor no, and actually answered "no". He contradicted himself because "no" was his answer "to the previous question"--question 4, but my opponent answers "This question is not yes or no and therefore cannot be answered with yes/no. My opponent can only ask a yes/no question to get a yes/no response." This is not the answer to question number 4 and my opponent has thus contradicted himself. It's over--VOTE PRO.A bunch of filler questions (to try to mess you up further)1. Do you like waffles?2. Do you play any sports?3. Was your answer to question 1 "yes"?4. Was your answer to question 2 not "no"?5. Was your answer to question 4 "no"?
My opponent will contradict him/herself

Okay, so my opponent hasn't contradicted himself. This round is slightly more difficult.1. Is 1+1=2?2. Have you watched any good shows lately? 3. Are you an athiest?4. Will you answer "no" to the next question?5. What was your answer to the previous question?You see, while 1 to 3 are not intended to trip you, four and five are quite difficult to get past without a cunning loophole. Think about it carefully.If you answer no: "No, I won't answer no to the next question....meaning I will answer yes to question five, but that wasn't my answer to the previous question....CONTRADICTION"If you answer yes "Yes, I will answer no to question five...but I am forced to answer yes to question 5, so....CONTRADICTION"Good luck finding a loophole around that. >:D
My opponent will contradict him/herself

The resolution is simple. All I have to do is to get my opponent to contradict himself.I get to ask 5 questions per round. (I can of course choose not to ask any questions within any round, but that would be stupid) My opponent can either answer "yes" or "no", but must choose an answer--he or she may not put a blank next to the question. He can lie of course, but I can ask a question twice, so I suggest telling the truth so that the second time I can't catch you off guard. Capitalization or lower-case will be treated exactly the same. That means "No" is "no" and "Yes" means the same thing as "yes".I can challenge my opponent anytime to debate over whether he has contradicted himself within the answers of his or her questions, and my opponent gets the chance to rebut. If at the end my opponent cannot argue his way out of contradicting himself or herself, then he or she loses. He or she is allowed to use loopholes but nothing dumb or desperate.Round one for my opponent is acceptance only.
The Minimum Wage Should Be Abolished

Hello! I'm the100things, and I'd like to argue for the statement that the Minimum Wage should be abolished in the United States. I'd like to set out a few definitions and guidelines before the debate: Definition: The Minimum Wage The Minimum Wage is covered by the Fair Labors Standards Act, and, as of July 2009, is currently at 7.25 per hour. Some states have raised the level above the 7.25 limit. More information can be found at the US Dep't of Labor site here: http://www.dol.gov... This debate will be 3 rounds, and my opponent can start his arguments whenever he deems necessary - round two or during his first speech. Thanks!
You need to listen

Sorry. I just looked you up. I am a 70 year old man. Psychiatrists have said that I have a mentality of 14 years old. I feel like a teenager, and, I don't think I have changed since I was 14 years old. It was one of the best years of my life. The Credence Clearwater Revival did sing "Tomorrow never comes", about never "growing up". I have a vocation to spread the secret that got me in incredible trouble, for just getting caught knowing it, which can be put in medical terms today: Vagal stimulation is as effective as LSD. This is war! This is the most intense gut hatred in history; not for any individual, but, for a world wide organization. I just cut and past and slap the information down in print as fast as I can so I can go elsewhere to spread it further. I am obsessed, and, I will never stop while I am alive.
Artificial Intelligence will kill us all

I have categorized CON'S arguments into two points 1. They are simple human imitators 2. Restrictions will be in place So lets say that AI does fully imitate a human meaning that they understand the process of threats to their survival and can kill if feel threatened. So they can kill with a human imitated brain. However AI is not a "biological human" meaning that there is differences that I will discuss later. Another problem is that simply restricting is very tough. AI will be very smart. No REALLY smart. Like if there was an intelligence staircase humans and chimps have a difference of 2 stairs. For AI and humans it is more like 50 stairs. It is beyond comprehension. AI will think through a task and say "hey I need to access this database". If the development team says no, Then thats a threat to their original goal, Their purpose, Their survival. To understand how AI will be smart: The Law Of Accelerating Returns This law states that when societies develop the rate of development increases. Like in 1500, The rate of society increasing was not the same as 1750. Jump forward the same time period and in 2019, The rate of societies devopiling is not the same and WAY different. Now we can actually apply the same process to AI. Another example in computing? , You ask In 1940, A computer was able to do 1 calc per second, In 1960, 2k calcs, 1980-2 million calcs, 2000-8. 80 to the tenth power. All of this compared to the Human Brain is Lake Michigan comes out to be a puddle. And now the lake is halfway full. So for AI, It would look like this: AI is currently at a brain power of an ant. Now if we put a intelligence staircase an ant is 4 steps below a human and 2 behind a chimp. By 2025, It is a human brain and it is accelerating faster than ever. 10 years later and it is WAY smarter than anyone can comprehend and is higher by 50 steps on the intelligence staircase, We can't comprehend how smart it is. Any task given to AI is a risk. Lets say that AI was assigned to getting rid of spam email. AI starts to think and uses the delete button. Then a tripwire of intelligence happens and realizes that to get rid of spam is to get rid of humans. The AI hacks into infrastructure and creates an small micro army of robots. The AI who is imaginable smarter than us easily kills off humans for good. AI can be used in WW3 by many countries.
Artificial Intelligence will kill us all

I believe that AI will not kill us all, So first, Let's get a definition clear AI: the capability of a machine to imitate intelligent human behavior(Merriam Webster); a machine that can imitate human behavior(my definition) I have a few reasons for believing that ai will not kill us all: 1. They don't have to be in forced servitude; since they can imitate intelligent human behavior(or are intelligent) we shouldn't(and don't need to) keep them in forced servitude as we would a simple robot 2. They may as well be human, As long as we treat them as such, We don't have to worry about them killing us 3. Restrictions can be put in place; killswitches and simply restricting its "brain" from commanding itself to kill can be put in place, So if we do plan on treating AI's poorly, We still wouldn't have to worry
School Uniform Should be Compulsory

I believe that making school uniforms non-compulsory has more to do with a futuristic ideology and a student's creativity, Than many other factors. Allow me to explain. Enforcing a strict code about anything, Affects students more than others. Take uniforms - if you forget to wear them, Or mess up your uniform, Which in most cases gets washed daily and re-used, You get punished. You are forced to believe that it is, In some way, Illegal to dirty the uniform. Would it improve the lives of students if they are forced to wear the something every day? Of course, Discipline never is unwelcome, But there are novel ways to implement discipline other than making students wear the daily noose to school. It reflects freedom, Not to have a strict uniform code. It is hard to explain in words, But I'd like anyone reading this to imagine if, At any time, A robot can perceive freedom. Can a machine, Made to serve its "lord" even at the behest of its existence, Perceive true freedom? When you are told over and over again that you cannot explore different choices, When you are strictly punished for expressing your free will against the uniform code, Can you ever understand freedom? We must always feel at home everywhere. There is great truth in this. For instance, We make friends to feel a familial bond when seeing them. We try to become cleaner, So that when every place is clean, It seems just like home. Clothing has a huge importance in this. Apparently, The very fabric you wear affects your work ethics and emotions. Try putting on the same bleak shirt daily, And see how cranky you get. There is also the time factor. With exam schedules shortening and the daily race expanding, Students have no time. Time is barely enough to complete your studies, But then again you have to wash and iron your clothes. See what I mean? I wish to point that students cannot be forced to, And should not be forced to accept a uniform code. Let them be free to consider school home. I believe liberal discipline is the best discipline.
Racisim

I really can't see how you can provide "evidence" in this case... Did you go provide any evidence? No. Racism isn't a case where you can provide real life cases that can tell you if THAT is logical and THIS is not. It comes down to a country's point of view. I lived in black neighborhoods before and I have feared the ones that look like gangsters and didn't fear or stereotype the ones that rather looked like polite, or well-dresses. You can just go on and on in this argument, and you will get zero results. Your point was that racism is an illogical and illegitimate thing, and you wanted to know the justifiably of racism from a Christian point of view (The Bible). The things I went on to argue about were that some cases of racism contain legitimacy and is somewhat logical, just like the points I stated previously. I in fact DID acknowledge all of your arguments, but in the second round you stated that you were confused, so I cleared my points out, in the third round, you mentioned YOUR arguments, so I responded with my point of view (by summarizing my points), I did not lack evidence, since you can't provide evidence in a case like this. This is a debate, it comes down to YOUR personal perspective and mine. And again, you keep repeating the same things. Oh well, I might have repeated myself as well. but the points you made are the same. You CAN generalize a race. If I saw a white person that looks like a punk I would fear him, and if I see a black person that looks the same I would fear him too. I personally am a victim of the "Knockout Game". Who were the ones who started it? Blacks, not whites. I'm quite sure that blacks are violent than whites. Now imagine if Caucasians did this kind of act, and blacks said whites are violent. Who would give a damn? No one! Everyone will say their words are actually logical and legitimate. I am not going to be racist in a way that - for the 3rd time - is tangible. I am not going to scream in every black man's face. I am not going to put them in prisons. I am not going to make racially segregated areas. I am not going to give sanctions to discriminate a race from another. Thank you for responding and debating with me. Good luck in voting period, mate. :D
Racisim

Really. While I applaud your clear statement of your POSITION over and over again, you do lack supporting evidence in all your 'arguments'. Yes, I do get that you believe racism is logical, if it is incapable of being realized or defined, and racism is illogical, if capable of being realized or defined (whatever that means). My point is that I REALIZE that you BELIEVE this. However, stating the same argument over and over again without acknowledging any of MY arguments is not debating. It's the very definition of insanity. So, taking out the tangible part, you say racism is illogical, for example; torturing someone because he his race, or having racially segregated areas. I agree with this. Racism is illogical. And THEN you go on to say it IS logical; for example, fearing a race because most of them commit crimes. AS I KEEP ON SAYING, yes, more African Americans than Caucasians go to jail, but fearing an individual simply because of the color of their skin and stereotyping a friend with other people they may disapprove of as much as you is racist, discriminatory, and just plain 'ole RUDE. And actually pretty idiotic. You should first look at a person's appearance, who they hang out around, etc., and make an educated guess on whether or not they are a threat to you. I mean, who would you be more afraid of if you were a teenage girl; a drunk, unkempt creep who just happens to be Caucasian, or a well dressed, polite African American going to work on a Monday morning? Well, I'm sorry we didn't get into any real debating, and the rounds are up. Good luck in the voting period! And, thank YOU for responding.
Racisim

"1. Whatever race or color you are, you are still human, like everyone else." I totally agree. "2. Looking at yourself as a superior person because of your race is illogical." Again, I agree. To do so would be racist. "3. Generalizing a race as bad is logical, and does not contradict what I said in point #2." Please explain exactly HOW doing so would be logical. "4. You can look at a race as bad, but not to the point where you put them in prison, or kill them, or do such acts that affect their lives." True, a person can do this, but to do so would be wrong and unjust, as I stated in my last argument. Please, respond to my arguments instead of just stating your beliefs over again without any supporting evidence, respectively.
Racisim

1. Whatever race or color you are, you are still human, like everyone else. 2. Looking at yourself as a superior person because of your race is illogical. 3. Generalizing a race as bad is logical, and does not contradict what I said in point #2. 4. You can look at a race as bad, but not to the point where you put them in prison, or kill them, or do such acts that affect their lives.
Racisim

By stating I believe racism is illogical, I meant that the act of feeling and acting on the belief that one race is inferior or below you. "Say you live in the stone age in a town full of whites, and then, somehow, a black individual comes by, you will be stunned. Since all of the population consists of one color, a black person will look very weird to the point where you may think he's not human, or he's a demon or something." Yes, that would be logical, but I am talking about these days. We all know that there are people with brown skin, tan skin, and pale skin. And they are human. "Also, another kind of racism that can be logical, is the act of "generalizing". Which nowadays applies to blacks (at least in the U.S), such things, to me, are actually logical. Look at how most blacks act, look at their neighborhoods, or their songs. Weed, women, weapons and violence, and some of them are actually proud of it! Look at the how much blacks are more likely to go to prison that whites are. A big difference." Oh, I do agree with this. There most definitely is a higher percentage of African Americans going to jail and committing crimes than Caucasians. However, that does not support the claim that a race as a whole is bad. Not every single African American is a bad person or has gone to jail. Many are good people. You cannot look at someone with dark skin and automatically and correctly assume they have bad morals. Say you lived on a planet where your race was known for growing, selling, and consuming LSD. But you, an individual, did not do this. How would you feel if someone looked at your race, and put you with the majority of people in your race and immediately you were fired from your job, evicted out of your house, and shunned from your community. Just. Because. Of. Your. Race. Of course, I am NOT implying that it would be politically incorrect for a witness to tell officers the suspect was African American. I
Racisim

I might not be Christian, but I will review this topic from a Christian perspective. Yes, racism is somewhat logical, but not in the way people think of it. The definition of racism can be very simple, but at the same time very complex. Racism is the act of frowning upon a certain cultural group, or having a policy with the ideology that one race is superior to the other. Racism has a lot of levels. For example, it becomes a big problem when a certain race cannot work or live freely, while the other can. Now, as racism can look very illogical, it IS logical. Say you live in the stone age in a town full of whites, and then, somehow, a black individual comes by, you will be stunned. Since all of the population consists of one color, a black person will look very weird to the point where you may think he's not human, or he's a demon or something. Also, another kind of racism that can be logical, is the act of "generalizing". Which nowadays applies to blacks (at least in the U.S), such things, to me, are actually logical. Look at how most blacks act, look at their neighborhoods, or their songs. Weed, women, weapons and violence, and some of them are actually proud of it! Look at the how much blacks are more likely to go to prison that whites are. A big difference. That still doesn't mean I support that kind of ideology, but if someone does it, I know where he comes from. Coming back to Christian perspective, if I was Christian, and followed the Bible correctly, I would not be racist, not even in the slightest. Look at Romans 2:11 "for God shows no partiality" and Acts 10:34 "So Peter opened his mouth and said: Truly I understand that God shows no partiality", and those are just a few examples. Conclusion: Christianity - in no way, shape or form - supports racism. I hope your fully understand what I meant.