BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The atonement of sins is an immoral and illogical doctrine

The atonement is an immoral doctrine, specifically "substitutionary atonement" which holds that Christ suffered and died on behalf of humankind. The first round will be for opening arguments. Con will be in favor for a moral atonement doctrine. I will be in favor for an immoral atonement doctrine. Con shall have the burden of proof since it is a major doctrinal component in Christianity and stated as being moral from Christian religious leaders. http://en.wikipedia.org... Responsibility is by definition: accountability: the state, fact, or position of being accountable to somebody or for something Not only is the atonement for sins immoral because it allows a guilty person to dodge their responsiblity via scapegoating, but it is also illogical. It is illogical because punishment is the appropriate response for the one who is guilty of breaking a certain law. The important element of retributive justice then is that the guilty party and only the guilty part should be punished, and thus it is logically impossible to punish an innocent person. To punish an innocent person contradicts the very definition of the word "punish" in the judicial sense. Thus, the substitutionary theory is an oxymoron.
Molecules to Man Evolution

Well you obviously didn't know how natural selection and mutation work if you were asking how did a flower know what a bee looked like, and that it not knowing put doubt on the process. Secondly creation "in the biblical sense" is by no means a sound theory, and has long been disproven. Also you need to understand what i mean by temporary outcome, we have found fossils of early homo-sapiens dating back to around 255,000 years, so we know that are species was at least around for this long, humans are just one of the current forms that life has, like the long evolutionary history that lead Australopithecus to Homo-Sapiens, humans along with all other living things are still evolving, so unless we go extinct, its inevitable that we will ultimately continue change in both appearance and genetics until such a point comes were it would be impossible for this future human to bread with a homo-sapien from the 21'st century and this will continue so on and so on, life will become more complex and diversified then it is today, this is what i mean by temporary outcome. Also how could intelligent life be essential if said intelligent life needs to come into existence in the first place, that doesn't solve anything, i would also go against that every evolutionary step is for a purpose, by definition, every generation is transitional since every generation brings genetic changes. http://humanorigins.si.edu...
Molecules to Man Evolution

I understand perfectly well the principles of mutation and natural selection. So what actually is the purpose of your debate? Are you simply making a statement of what you consider to be fact. From the wording of your proposition it would seem to be typically, evolution versus creation. Evolution and creation are both sound theories until conclusively proven otherwise. I was merely suggesting that sometimes things appear to be, to perfect or purposeful to be regarded as "temporary outcomes". So let's go off on a different tack, one that might elicit less derision and more thought. Maybe there is an initial creation event which instigates a purposeful process of material evolution. Based on this possibility, I would propose that intelligent life is an essential link in this purposeful process and cannot be simply regarded as a "temporary outcome". The infinite possibilities of time, might suggest that this is a recurrent process. Ultimate purpose may or may not be beyond the limits of human comprehension, it would appear that intelligence is now transferring to a post-biotic phase of material evolution and that intelligent life is likely to become a redundant player. Knowledge and information may be all and the spreading of knowledge and information across the infinite possibilities of space and matter is probably beyond the capabilities of intelligent life. I am therefore proposing a repetitive process of creation to annihilation, where all evolutionary stages in between are inevitable and purposeful.
Molecules to Man Evolution

The flower didn't know to make itself look like a bee, let alone in one generation, the flower isn't conscious -_- You obviously dont understand how mutation and natural selection works. Lets say i took a species of plant and laid it down on a chess board "just for example" and i let a hypothetical predator feast on the plants, the plant obviously looks nothing like the chess board so the predator finds it easily, now lets say we have a mutation occur in one of the offspring that alters a certain area of shade on the plant, if this new shade makes it look closer to the chess board then it has a better chance of surviving compared to other plants on the chess board that lack this mutation, so over multiple generations the plants that lack this mutation and weeded out by predators while the other plants with this mutation take over the population, you repeat this process for hundreds possibly thousands of generations and you will get a plant that looks almost identical to the area of the chest board it is on, all the other plants that didn't fit as perfect were weeded out leaving only this plant with chess board shade pattern. Evolution isn't an intelligently guided process, but it isn't random either, the flower doesn't just decide to make itself look like something or know what something looks like, at some point in the past the flower didn't have that bee shading feature on it, but at some point in the past it gained a random mutation that altered its shading ever so slightly, this shading attracted more bees to it rather then the other flowers which lacked this mutation, as a result this flower got pollinated more then the others and it took over the population weeding out the other flowers that lacked this mutation, this is an example of a "Beneficial Mutation" this process repeated after generation after generation of flower, those that had further beneficial mutations that made its shading look more similar to a bee were populated more because the more bee like it looked attracted more bees, and those that fucked up the shading through a series of "non-beneficial mutations" were less likely to be pollinated and were eventually weeded out by those which were more successful, over thousands of generations this flower does indeed have a shading pattern that looks similar to a bumble bee. But the flower had no control over this, nor was it aware of what a bee even was or what it looked like, a great example of this is the Orange oakleaf butterfly, over thousands of generations of random mutation and natural selection, it had developed a shade pattern on its wings that looks identical to a dead leaf, because those that looked less like it were weeded out by predators and other selective pressures. i hope my explanation was enough to clarify your misconception, i think it would be in your best interest to do a bit more research from more credible sources before you respond. https://evolution.berkeley.edu...
Molecules to Man Evolution

You certainly emphasise in your opening proposition, "a long history of genetic variation and natural selection". I therefore suggest that my reference to the Bee Orchid is pertinent. How did a plant, know what a Bee looked like? Why did a plant choose to mimic a Bee and not some other insect pollinator? Molecules to Man. Molecules to Bee. Molecules to Orchid. I have no problem with this theory. But a plant that decides to make itself look like a bee is another issue, one that defies the logic of evolution. A plant does not have the sensory capabilities to enable it to visualise or gauge form and colour. Unless you can prove otherwise, then the molecules to man theory is thrown in to doubt.
Molecules to Man Evolution

This is similar to how species of animals have developed color shade patterns. Ophrys apifera at some point in the past underwent a mutation that altered a certain shading in a certain part of the flower, this different shading was beneficial and attracted more bees, after thousands of mutations and natural selection you end up with a shading pattern that looks almost identical to a bumble bee, its inevitable that this pattern will change as new selective pressures are acting upon it in the future. Although I want to stress that this debate is "Molecules to Man Evolution" and that con is suppose to have an argument for why this cant be the case. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Molecules to Man Evolution

Once again Pro doubts my ability to understand evolutionary and theoretical information. And once again my response is, I understand perfectly well, thank you. The be all and end all of Pro's debate concerns species evolution and their presentation comes across simply as a proclamation of their own ability to understand specific, undeniable, theoretical facts. No matter at what academic level we regard theory, theory is nonetheless theory and therefore as such theoretical facts in themselves are undeniable and therefore impossible to actually argue against. Alternative theory therefore seems a sensible way to take the debate forward. 1) Ophrys Apifera. The Bee Orcid. Sometimes things appear to be to perfect or purposeful to be regarded as temporary outcomes. Hinting at the possibility of some manner of divine intervention in the evolutionary sequence. A less erudite theory perhaps, but theory nonetheless. 2) Purposeful creation. Certainly not specifically put forward in a biblical or divine sense. At some point matter was created, a something from nothing event that occurred long before biotic interactions started. That is to say, the evolutionary sequence started at the beginning and will go on until such times, when the purpose of everything has been achieved. The recurring inevitability of time and space and all matter, if you like. My suggestion is that life and subsequent intelligent life is an inevitable and vital phase in the evolutionary process of matter. I would also suggest that eventually intelligent organic life will have to hand over the responsibility of furthering the process to a more universally efficient inorganic form of intelligence. A temporary outcome maybe, though not in the Darwinian sense, but temporary in terms of universal efficiency and usefulness. Pro, dwells on life and a probable sequence of events that lead us to this moment in time. They do not wish to consider the certainty of before life or the probability of after life. They really only wish to proclaim their personal ability to understand this one area of scientific theory.
Molecules to Man Evolution

Well first of all I think you need to understand the difference between a general theory and a scientific theory, theory has a different meaning in science then in a normal conversation use, a scientific theory is a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment, for example, the theory of General relativity.Mutation and natural selection are not just concepts, we have observed mutations happen in both nature and in a labatory setting, if they didn't happen, we would need to keep making new vaccines and we wouldn't have things like cancer or sickle cell disease, and when ever you have a self replicating system prone to change and modification, natural selection inevitably follows, we have been studying this for a long time, we know the mutation rates of everything viroids to humans. As for what you have said on the regards of inevitability and purposeIt may be possible that the way everything reacts with each other from the beginning of time to the end of time may be set in stone thanks to how the forth dimension works "time" but as for it being purposeful, I wouldn't really see it like that, I would also argue that intelligence is not an inevitable outcome of life but rather a trait that was benefiting to most notably the Family Hominid "great apes" and other animal family's in the same way other traits were benifial to other living organisms, so no, I would not subscribe to the notion of objective purpose.I don't really understand what you meant with the last part of the debate, but I assume it has something to do with evolving into a higher state or something metaphysical? in that case I would say we have no evidence that biological or chemical systems can change let alone evolve into metaphysical systems through natural processes "if metaphysical even exists", I would agree that life will become more complex and diverse as it always has throughout time, but that's about it until something proves otherwise.http://humanorigins.si.edu...https://evolution.berkeley.edu...
Molecules to Man Evolution

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the general purpose of a debate was for a proposition to be opposed. Natural selection and mutation are sound theories. But theoretical nonetheless. The purposeful creation and evolution of matter is simply another, opposing and perfectly logical point of view. Biblical creation was never mentioned. Mythology is a worldwide phenomenon, but the basis of biblical creation cannot be dismissed out of hand. Once again let me stress that I understand your proposition perfectly well and I understand quite clearly what you refer to as temporary outcomes. Do you subscribe to the notion of chance or the notion of purpose? That is to ask, do you think that temporary outcomes are indiscriminate or that they are inevitable and purposeful. I personally subscribe to the notion of purpose. That is to say, the sequence of evolutionary events is an inevitable process, with the organic or biotic phase being one of many necessary links in the evolutionary chain of events. So I suppose which ever way we look at it, the biotic phase and our role within that phase could be regarded as temporary. Temporary but inevitable. I am suggesting that intelligent life is an essential link in an evolutionary chain of events, a chain of events that started long before the biotic and one that will continue for a long time after. Maybe to an inevitable conclusion, at which point the cycle of events will start again. Do we need to solve anything? At a base human/organic level, we need to gain understanding in order to facilitate evolvement, but I would suggest that gaining understanding is progressional rather than just problem solving. At a higher/universal level I would suggest that the acquisition of knowledge is part of the inevitable process.
Barbie Has Become an Outdated Toy

Barbie is definitely not out-dated. Think about this doll's journey. This doll was invented in 1959 by Ruth Handler(co-founder of MATTEL). Barbie&Ken where named by Ruth Handler's daughter&son. Ken was introduced 2 years after Barbie in 1961. She came out as a blonde, brunette&then red hair was added. Barbie was first sold in 1959 where 300,000 dolls where sold. Today those 1959 dolls are valued&sold for $27,450! In 1965 Barbie had bendable legs and eyes that open&shut. Throughout the years, Barbie has improved in many different ways. She has pets, cars, a dream house( 36 hot tubs, an endless closet, flipping food on tables & in the kitchen & much more) etc. Berlin had built a life size dreamhouse &3000 people visit per day.- www.barbie.com
Barbie Has Become an Outdated Toy

Girls may like pretty, girly things, but there is a huge market of those- it is not only restricted to Barbie, making Barbie the only toy available out there that meets these requirements. In addition, your points simply prove mine: her biggest selling item- made in 1992! Barbie's time has come and passed, to make room for new toys for this century. With all the technology these days, girls aren't impressed by a plastic doll less than a foot tall with a painted smile and limbs that barely move. Barbie is outdated.
Barbie Has Become an Outdated Toy

Most people agree that Barbie has not become an out-dated toy as many girls, like beautiful and pretty things. Barbie represents a strong and beautiful girl who succeeds in everything. Barbie's best-selling doll was a "Totally Hair Barbie"(1992). This was because Barbie's hair was very long and can be styled in many different ways. Girls also get extremely excited as Barbie comes with many clothes, accessories and shoes. Barbie's first pet was a horse named Dancer. This toy was one of the many pets she had. Barbie had more than 50 pets including 21 dogs, 6 cats, a chimpanzee, a panda, a parrot, a lion cub, a giraffe and a zebra. Barbie's very first car was a 1962 Austin Healey roadster.
Barbie Has Become an Outdated Toy

I do not only believe Barbie is outdated (created in 1959) I believe it also is degrading to society's view of women. Firstly, the dictionary definition of outdated is obsolete or out of date. Since that is a quite narrow definition, and this seems to lead itself to a debate based solely on opinion, I will take a product made in the year Barbie was made. The Edsel car [1]. Edsel is a car that was designed to increase Ford Motor Company's profit and popularity, yet sadly failed. The Edsel is considered quite out-of-date, seeing as it is virtually nonexistent and is not made anymore. Taking a product made in the same year as Barbie and seeing that it has been all but forgotten shows that 1959 products may be considered out of date.
Barbie Has Become an Outdated Toy

I perceive that Barbie is not an out-dated toy as it teaches small children to have a think about what their career goal is. These dolls are known as the " I Can Be " Barbie dolls. Because Barbie has many professions, this gives children an idea of what they want to become, therefore children will push themselves in learning to get to their career goal. Overall, this means that Barbie encourages children to study to get good jobs creating more services, entertainment and more to the community in the future. Link: http://icanbe.barbie.com...
Gay Marriage should be abolished

This is not an evolutionary questionWhether or not someone "believes" in evolution does not matter for the resolution, even if homosexuality is a choice (does anyone remember when they chose to be straight? Does anyone think they could choose otherwise?), it is not the governments job to decide which citizens are allowed to take their love relation to the next level. Unless someone can demonstrate that gay marriage is in some way harmful to society of course, which never happened and I am pretty sure that it will never happened.Good luck to Pro.
Gay Marriage should be abolished

Sorry for not posting, I was unaware that it was my turn to debate since this is my first debate. According to your argument you seem to believe in evolution. So I will try my best not to argue with my religious beliefs. If our species did evolve from proteins and Natural selection was existent. Well then evolution did exist. Evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth. This whole purpose of evolution is to develop until a stage where you can reproduce. From the beginning of cells, they have been constantly reproducing just like every species. If the whole process of life is to reproduce and pass on genes then why would there be so called "gays" in this world? Even among animals "gays" are just animals with bad ideas that never try it again. I simply think being homosexual is just a choice. So basically gays are normal people that have chosen to be with the same gender I'm only 15 years old just wanted to try this site out anyways thanks for the argument. If I was arguing with my religious beliefs this argument would be different I just want to share a famous quote which sums up my view on gay marriage "It's Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve". Thank you.
Gay Marriage should be abolished

Thanks for instigating this debate, as Con I will show why it is not the case that gay marriage should be abolished for good. Since Pro has not given any rules for this debate or actual arguments I could object to I will keep it short.Homosexuality is naturalAll great ape species among other animals practice homosexuality. It is most likely rooted in ones genes such that you cannot alter your preferences. Denying some human beings rights that most other humans have (in a specific country) is discrimination.
the catholic church has never contradicted itself, from an official capacity

contradictionnouna combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another."the proposed new system suffers from a set of internal contradictions"I understand that you are claiming that the Catholic Church has never contradicted itself. My role is therefore to provide proof, by direct quotation, that the church has contradicted itself from an official standpoint. My example shall be the Church's views on contraception. As far back as anyone can remember, the Catholic Church has been opposed to all forms of birth control. It has made its position known to anybody who wishes to hear it, and everybody else who doesn't. Catholics believe that sex is only there to make babies, and if you don't make babies, you're a sinner. STDs were thought of as sinful illnesses, and condoms were considered to be tools of evil. To quote Pope John Paul II, "it seems profoundly damaging to the dignity of the human being, and for this reason morally illicit, to support a prevention of AIDS that is based on a recourse to means and remedies that violate an authentically human sense of sexuality, and which are a palliative to the deeper suffering which involve the responsibility of individuals and of society."And now a quote from Pope Benedict:"She [the Catholic Church] of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality." The above quotes shows direct, irrefutable contradiction.Sources:1. http://www.dw.de...2. http://news.bbc.co.uk...3. http://www.washingtonpost.com...