BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Biblical Young Earth Creationism is scientifically probable. (Second Challenge)

I accept the challange that Con has presented.I believe that the following points are undeniably taught in thye Bible:1. God created the entire world as we know it2. This creation took only 6 periods of 24 hours identified as days3. This creation took place thousands of years ago, not millions or billions4. The order of all created things is as follows: a. Lightb. A "firmament" identified as "Shamayim", or Heaven/the Sky/Outer Spacec. Dry landd. Plante. Celestial bodies besides Earthf. Water-dwelling reptiles, fish, amphibians, and birdsg. Land-dwelling reptiles, other animals including humansIt will be my goal to display that it is scientifically possible (and even likely) for those above points to be true. I do not claim to be able to scientifically prove biblical creation, but rather show that it is not scientifcally disproven. I do not claim that the theory is true nor do I claim that the Big Bang is true. Becuase the theory of creation covers not only cosmology but also the origin of life, I will refer to both the Big Bang and theory of Darwinian evolution as the "mainstream theory."I believe that any theory which is based upon a logical fallacy is invalid, regardless if is for or against the topic in quesiton. If I do commit any logic fallacy as a main premise of any argument, I recant that argument and will reaccept the burden of proof to provide another argument for the I was trying to make if I become aware of my error. I wish that the Con will do the same, although I cannot force any action upon him.My argument for round 1 is in order to show that an intelligent creator of the universe is probable.We all know that the universe is immense and extends much farther than we can observe. Some scientists believe that it might be infinite in its size (1). The universe is also very fragile. Altering any physical law too much can have drastic effects. According to Source #2, changing the law of gravity too much could cause larger life forms to be crushed, prevent intelligent life from exiting, make star life much shorter, or it could cause more elaborate and longer lasting structures to form in the unvierse. For our universe to exist as we know it, gravity has to be close to what it is now. This apparent fine tuning of the universe can be explained 3 ways:1. There are infinite universes2. The universe "learned" to work with the laws it had and eventually produced life based on carbon3. God created the universe as it is and fine tuned it to work in harmonyAll three of those hypothesis cannot be proven by science, becuase we cannot repeate nor observe what exactly caused the universe to work as it does andsupport life, nor we cannot see outside our universe if an outside exists. This means that we have to rely on other information to determine which one of those three is the most logical. I will present this other information in my future arguments.Sources:(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...(2) http://sciencebits.wordpress.com...
Biblical Young Earth Creationism is scientifically probable. (Second Challenge)

Welcome everyone to this debate!I hope to give a chance to any opponent who wishes to show me (and indeed, the Internet), that BYEC (Biblical Young Earth Creationism) is scientifically probable.I will define BYEC as follows:"The belief that the God described in the Bible created the Earth in six literal Earth days; the belief that the Earth is between 5,700 and 10,000 literal Earth years old; the belief that this god created humans in their present "form" (homosapien); and the belief that there were originally two humans (one man and one woman) that lived in a perfect place known as "The Garden of Eden"."This definition isn't perfect, and if you want to change it then please post a comment; every Creationist has certain differences in their beliefs, after all. The definition above is not fixed. However, my opponent must agree to the definition of the God described in the Bible as:"Omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful to the extent of the logically possible), omnipresent (all-present, always there, everywhere), and omnibenevolent (always right, always moral, all-good)."Unless anyone thinks that this definition is inherently flawed, this is not a debatable definition. So, I believe all the other definitions speak for themselves, so I will now state the rules:1) The first round is not for acceptance only; the first round is for both acceptance of the rules and for Pro's opening case.2) In the fifth round, Pro must state (and only state) the following "No argument posted here as agreed". 3) The BoP is on Pro to prove the resolution to be correct. The BoP is on Con to prove Pro's contentions as false, thus stopping Pro from meeting his/her burden.4) A forfeit of a round is an automatic loss of conduct (regardless of the reason), but it is only a loss of conduct.5) There can be no "Vote Pro" or "Vote Con" at the end of the debate unless one of the debaters consented.6) Sources are considered accurate unless proved to be otherwise. ((Therefore, Wikipedia, TalkOrigins, AnswersInGenesis etc... are considered accurate, although the reliability of the sources will be up to the voters.))I believe that's all, if anybody has any questions, please post a comment! Good luck to all, and allez!(Please note, this is the second verion of this debate I am doing; this was not a glitch.)
Biblical Young Earth Creationism is scientifically probable. (Second Challenge)

DNA is not information. DNA (deoxyribose nucleic acid) is a chemical. When this chemical is arranged in particular patters, those patterns make the strand of DNA contain information. However, DNA is not information any more than paper is informaiton or ink is information. It is simply a medium by which the information is contained. If DNA was not arranged in a useful way, it would not contain informaiton. As for Darwinian evolution, if anyone can explain to me how it can occur witut genes coming into existance, please do that on your vote comment. Because we have not observed a required process for Darwinian evolution, the entire process becomes unobserved. Without genes coming into existence, there is no way to get from a bacteria to a mammal. Evolution might have been a valid opinion when it was first written down and when nobody understood genes that well, but now that we have discovered DNA, the thoery requires more scientific experimentation to be credible form a scientific standpoint. I would also like to post a thought I have not et had answered: if the universe was once a singularity and nothing else existed, what caused that singularities expansion?
Biblical Young Earth Creationism is scientifically probable. (Second Challenge)

I would like to talk about the circular reasoning once more. I am not saying DNA/RNA is information. I am saying that it contains information, or what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things. Replacing RNA/DNA with "books", you can see how it is not circular reaosning:P1. Informaiton is most logically explained by an intelligent creator.P2. Books contain information.C. Therefore books are most logically explained by an intelligent creator."We can infer that new genes must be created through evolution. A relatively small fact that we haven't yet observed doesn't damage Darwinian natural selection at all."The fact that we have not observed it makes it an unscientific theory. Science must be both observable and repeatable. If we have not observed the thing in question, we cannot know it happened. If we cannot repeat it, we do not know if we misunderstood it or made a mistake.
Biblical Young Earth Creationism is scientifically probable. (Second Challenge)

"you have quoted me out of context. " If I have, I apologise, but if that wasn't the conclusion then I cannot really take this any further. If there's no conclusion; it's not an argument, so I don't need to refute it. Well, I guess we'll move on, unless my opponent wants to come back to it in his post. OK, so my opponent has now set out his argument formally: "P1: If information exists, it is most logically explain by an intelligent creator. P2: RNA/DNA contains information. C: Therefore RNA/DNA is most logically explained by an intelligent creator. " So now that I have the argument as my opponent presents it; allow me to refute it. Ok, so this is circular reasoning. I will clarify my previous post. So, if we accept P2 to be true, then we can change "information" in P1 to "RNA" without objection. We can then remove P2 (because it's redundant). So, what's the argument now? P1: If RNA exists, it is most logically explained by an intelligent creator. C: Therefore, RNA is most logically explained by an intelligent creator. I'm sure my opponent will agree that's circular reasoning. If we cannot replace "information" with "RNA" then premise two is incorrect, but as my opponent pointed out and proved; P2 is correct. Therefore, the argument resorts to beg the question. On my third source, my opponent makes a good point, so I'll consent that source. However, I give this one[1], not to disprove my opponent's claims, but to back up my own. The debate still goes on and I think we won't find a conclusion. However, on:Opponent's Note 1: "Human evolution hasn't been proven. "Whether or not homo neanterthalensis and homo sapiens were the same species is largely irrelevant; my opponent didn't provide any objection to my counter that human evolution has been proven[2]. Therefore, I will extend the bulk of my contention, and my own note that:Note 1: Whether or not early humans and Neanderthals were the same doesn't disprove human evolution. Opponent's Note 2: Darwinian evolution is damaged. My opponent's proof that Darwinian evolution (which is defined as:"A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. "[2]) is heavily damaged is: "we have never observed a gene being created that never before existed. " That's true (at the least, I cannot find anything that would prove you wrong). This doesn't damage Darwinian natural selection in any way, however; there's evidence for Darwinian natural selection[3][4]. We can infer that new genes must be created through evolution. A relatively small fact that we haven't yet observed doesn't damage Darwinian natural selection at all. Well, that's all for now, I look forward for my opponent's final response(s)! Until then! Source(s):[1]. http://www.pbs.org...[2]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[3]http://www.bbc.co.uk...[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Resolved that the deal to free Bowe Bergdahl was unjustified.

Today I strongly affirm, This resolution demands analysis of justification. Justification, when talking about government policy or decisions, will be defined as morally justified. In other words, the government must choose what they can best justify on moral grounds. I will also be analyzing the concept of morality by what more positively effects the most people in our society. For those reasons I will ultimately be defending that the deal to free Bowe Bergdahl was unjustified because we could have done the more morally correct things, and helped more people in our society, by not making the deal at that time. Contention 1: The deal to save Bergdahl jeopardized the safety of all military personnel in that area for years to come. A: This choice supports the group to kidnap in the future. It may seem that our choice to remove Bergdahl was a moral choice because we were able to bring him back to his family, but in this we have incentivized similar groups into more kidnapping. This is because we payed such a high price to have him back; we have taught them that stealing American's for random is profitable. It become much more hostile of an environment, and may mean that other people will face his same fate, and may not be as lucky. B: The deal was too desperate. By this I mean that we traded 5 terrorist/ military personnel. That is a lot of terrorists to give back for one person. In this circumstance, again, trading Bergdahl endangered the larger society. On top of all that, he was already charged my the US military for abandoning post and "misbehavior before the enemy". All in all, there was no pressing reason to make such a drastic exchange. This is especially true when you consider all the people we have put at risk. This argument sounds extremely cold, but a government ought to protect the society over a single person. Perhaps Bergdahl could have been helped later in a less desperate situation. But this particular deal was unjustified as it puts to much insecurity into the region for American's and even endangers us at home. For those reasons I affirm. I now stand open for Cross Examination.
Resolved that the deal to free Bowe Bergdahl was unjustified.

I accept and thank the instigator for the opportunity to evaluate this complicated subject. I believe that people of equal patriotism and compassion can reasonably devolve into opposing camps on the subject of Bergdahl, but I have no problem justifying the deal the US made to bring home a lost soldier. I look forward to your arguments to the contrary. https://upload.wikimedia.org...
Late Night Rap Battle Royale

The Quarter Life Crisis, a story by WOLFY. First year was bless, slept like a baby, little to no stress (ya face a mess) Second year was aiite, not too much fright (n ya look like a dust-mite) 1999, man uniteds year divine (you do not look fine) At four, i needed a lil bit more (you already know you a boar) cos at 5, the ocd attacked to thrive, ( and you smell like cheddar chive) by 6, i needed much more (to) fix (I bet you binge on twix) hallelujah, 7 was truly my peaked up heaven ( something something Devon) by 8, it was too late (i'll make you irate) 2005, almost drowned, the peoples done frowned. (you weigh 300 pound) by ten i was broken, a decline unspoken (something something Broken) 11 to 12, the loneliness sank in, (i really want to put u in a bin) and by 13 everything fell apart, cos i still can not wheel cart (u a tart) Year 9, the vulnerable antagonist exposed, twas first n only time i have been hit, and I froze, yep i froze. Why, i dunno. someone beat up, please someone beat me up. i need it. I need to be a king again, this story will be continued, when all is said and done...only if you just wait for it...
Late Night Rap Battle Royale

UHUMMM Ladies and Gentle men, party of the 7, everyone in heaven. apart from you, oh and soon I'll be 22, but not like that t-swifty sh1t, or any other shifty nifty sh1t. just wait for it... cos after its all said n done, ill make this chump look like a right old tit. So I want this to be summin special, just wait for it... i call it the Quarter Life crisis, n ya'll already know its gonna hit hard like ISIS. yep I'm ruthless, just wait for it... just wait for the old age to kick in gal, then ul be toothless. just wait for it...
Late Night Rap Battle Royale

Now i'm afraid we have not met before, perhaps its because you a bloody bore, n all the words that rhyme with gore, like snore et so much more. I think you know where i was going with dat, cos ya look like rat. And besides, how u gonna let man call u cringe, o no wait, alls u do is whinge. This wont be easy, i know u b sleazy. Ima bout to take u on journey, ul bomb so hard ul need an attorney. Im the antagoniser, go make me a sandy n an appletiser.Jk im not masterful...Wait da fuq rhymes w/ dat...
December 21st 2012

I am going to go through my opponent's various proposed reasons for why the world will end in 2012 and explain why each of them fails to uphold this conclusion. Evidence 1. I would like to see cited evidence that the Mayans believed the world would end at the end of the Great Cycle. The word "cycle" itself seems to imply repetition, so there is no reason to assume the Mayans believed the world would end after their calendar ended. Even if they did believe this, it would be pretty irrational of them. Why should the world end just because a South American tribe that was fairly advanced in astronomy ended their calender on a certain date? Nothing in Mayan astronomy provides us with any reason to believe that the world will end at some point in the foreseeable future. Evidence 2. I would like to see cited evidence of Nostradamus' prophesies. As Con and the Contender it is not my responsibility to look up information that my opponent is vaguely referring to. In any case, there is no scientific evidence of any humans beings possessing any kind of prescient abilities. There is no reason to interpret the bizarre riddles Nostradamus as having any real meaning. Evidence 3. There have been no hurricanes within several orders of magnitude of the size of the ones my opponent is proposing. It is doubtful that their is even enough energy in Earth's meteorological system to produce such phenomena. There is no reason to assume such an event will take place on December 21st, 2012. December is not even hurricane season Evidence 4. and 5. The volcanic eruption in Iceland my opponent refers to delayed flights because it released a massive ash cloud. It's fairly well known that it is unadvisable to fly under adverse weather conditions. All this tells us is that large-scale geological events can have a large effect on people's everyday lives. This is true, but it does not mean that a large geological event that will cause worldwide devastation is actually going to happen. For instance, there is no reason to believe that Yellowstone will erupt and cause massive destruction at a specific time just because volcano's have erupted elsewhere in the past. My opponent simply proposes a list of possible, highly damaging events. There is no evidence that they will actually happen. She seems to falsely believe that just because there is a moderate list of potentially bad events that could happen, it is therefore likely that they will happen. However, the probability that any of these events will happen is to negligibly low that even the composite probability of any one of them happening is too small to even be worth considering.
December 21st 2012

Thanks to my opponent for offering this rather unique debate. December 21st, 2012 will be a Winter Solstice. I can think of no other significant astronomical or geological event likely to occur on that day that could bring about the end of the world. Pro believes there are signs tat will easily prove that the world and the human race will end on December 21st, 2012. I would be interested in hearing about this alleged evidence. As it stands, there is not reason to assume that the world will end on December 21st, 2012, or any other particular date in the foreseeable future.
Beauty is inside and out

Out of respect for the PRO's argument, I have posted a link to Susan Boyle's performance:http://www.youtube.com...I will also provide a link to the definition of beauty, where I find that I have quite an uphill battle in this debate:http://dictionary.reference.com...I will first challenge PRO's assertion that (QUOTE #1) "beauty is inside and out" by also citing his assertion that (QUOTE #2) "Beauty is not skin deep, true beauty is not something that you can judge with your eyes. It is something that comes from within." In this statement PRO refutes his own argument. AssumptionsA - Beauty is InsideB - Beauty is OutsideOutside = Skin DeepWithin = InsidePRO's argument is as follows(QUOTE #1) = (A & B)(QUOTE #2) = (Not A & B) Argument:(A & B) -> (Not A & B)This argument is not possible, it is a false argument. I move to win this debate solely based on this reasoning alone.For the sake of argument, I will attempt to address PRO's other points. I will use Susan Boyle as exhibit #A.Susan Boyle is, according to PRO, "a frumpy middle-aged woman. Her hair was not done in the latest style, she was somewhat overweight, and her average looks were not what stars usually look like." PRO uses Susan Boyle to argue that "Beauty is not skin deep, true beauty is not something that you can judge with your eyes. It is something that comes from within." I fully agree with this notion. This notion refutes the argument.On second thought, I can't address PRO's other points, as they all build up to the Susan Boyle archetype. I agree that Beauty is not skin deep. My apologies to PRO, as I'm certain he wanted the debate to expand beyond this point. However, as the argument is constructed, I believe this debate is over.
Beauty is inside and out

Thank you for accepting. Beauty is often described as being seen in the eye of the beholder, but, true beauty is not just that which is seen; it's both inside and out. Contrary to popular belief, beauty is not just a gift that one is born with as a birthright, but one that is acquired through sometimes tedious work and diligence. Is Beauty Only Skin Deep? Unfortunately, we have all done it; made snap decisions about someone"s character based on their physical appearance. It"s a very harsh reality but it happens daily. Whether it be at the workplace, at school, or even just passing someone on the street, appearance is a person"s way of advertising to the world what they are all about. Akin to the way a book"s cover is trying to entice you to read the story. Are you less likely to pick up the book if the cover doesn't catch your attention? Unfortunately, for most people, that answer is yes. It is said that it only takes about 3 to 5 seconds to make a first impression. What things are people picking up on in this short amount of time that make people feel like they can put their brain on instant autopilot, and judge? Numerous studies throughout recent years have shown that people respond better to people that they think are attractive. Participants in the studies showed a significantly more positive response to those with big eyes, a small nose and full lips. These features seem to give someone an air of innocence and vulnerability, thus making people feel safe around them. Even if we try not to judge people by the way they look, we assume things about them. A prime example of someone being judged by their appearance rather than for themselves is Susan Boyle. As she stood on the stage to sing, the judge"s faces told it all. They saw a frumpy middle-aged woman. Her hair was not done in the latest style, she was somewhat overweight, and her average looks were not what stars usually look like. All it took was for her to sing the first note of her song to prove to the judges they were all wrong. The look of amazement on their faces has been shown over and over on television, capturing their disbelief that someone with Susan Boyle looks could possess such a voice. The sad thing is, we as a society, make these cruel assumptions of people daily, and it must stop. Beauty is not skin deep, true beauty is not something that you can judge with your eyes. It is something that comes from within. No one is ugly, society is.