BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Creationism VS Big Bang-Abiogenesis-Evolution

I extend my first 10,000 characters. Pro can use their characters any way they choose.3. Evolution-Chromosome 2Human chromosome two is a fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes.Humans have one fewer pair of chromosomes than the great apes...because two ape chromosomes fused to make our 2nd chromosome.http://genome.cshlp.org...Single chromosomes typically have two ends and a center.Telomere - Centromere - TelomereTelomeres (the red ones) - - - - - Centromeres (the green ones) --- But humans' 2nd chromosome looks like (the single chromosome is on the right): Which is Telomere - Centromere - Telomere - Telomere - Centromere - Telomere This shows fusion.How do we know what fused?Base pairs on the ends of each chromosome are unique to that chromosome.We found the base pairs that match ancestral ape chromosomes on our 2nd chromosome. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...Evolution just states that organisms that live long enough to reproduce pass on their genetic characteristics that helped them live long enough to reproduce.As organisms migrate to different environments, different genetic characteristics lead to living long enough to reproduce.Those that live long enough to reproduce pass on their genes more successfully than those who do not live long enough to reproduce in the different environment.Genetic changes over time lead to different species from a parent species. The new species would have remnants of the parent species in their genetics. Our 2nd chromosome is clear evidence that apes are our ancestors and our parent species is ape. We are in fact modern apes.This fusion of chromosomes is exactly what you would expect if evolution were true, and it demonstrates how changes over time lead to different organisms completely.Due to its mechanistic explanation and subsequent demonstrations of the biodiversity of life on earth, and that human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ape chromosomes, which is an accurate prediction from evolution, evolution is likely true.4. Creationism-I don't knowPro has not provided any demonstration of creationism's claims.I reject the resolution, because Pro has failed to meet their burden of proof that creationism is likely true, and has not provided any claims. For these reasons, Creationism is likely not true, and The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution are all likley true.
Creationism VS Big Bang-Abiogenesis-Evolution

I believe that it was creationism that helped to create the world and universe that we know today (not to mention the life). ~Before The Big Bang~ * The Big Bang - the rapid expansion of matter from a state of extremely high density and temperature that marked the origin of the universe. This definition is where I shall start. According to the theory it was both matter and energy that were packed together densely. This raises the question where did the energy necessary come from? According to "Law Of Conservation Of Energy" energy can not be created nor destroyed. Their is no way that the universe could have created the energy itself using a natural process because their was no nature to begin with. Which means that their had to be something unnatural to have created the energy in order for the Big Bang theory to happen. Now while the Big Bang might of happened it wouldn't have been possible without help. ~Evolution and Abiogenesis~ * Evolution -the process by which different kinds of living organisms develop and diversify from earlier forms during the history of the earth. * Abiogenesis -the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances. According to the theory of Abiogenesis: 1) An unknown event happened that created an unknown organism in an unknown location in the ocean 2) An unknown event happened that caused the unknown organism to reproduce Unfortunately for the theory of Abiogenesis, there are many unknowns that have yet to be proven. Lets start with number one shall we? It has been proven time and again that a living organism can not be made or created from a non-living thing. But according to this theory that is what was supposed to have happened. Also according to the theory, the unknown organism was created in the ocean, this causes in itself many problems. Such as the long chains of Amino Acids that is needed for a living organism can not be created while in water. Then there is the chance of all this happening, which lets face it is extremely low. The chances that all everything necessary for a living organism to come together in an area where some of the much needed things for it could not be created.
Creationism VS Big Bang-Abiogenesis-Evolution

ResolutionCreationism's claims are likely true, and The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution are likely not true.Burden of Proof Is SharedPro - Has 40,000 characters to demonstrate that the claims of Creationism are likley true (Pro's BoP), and rebuttal Con.Con - Has only 30,000 characters to demonstrate that the The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution are all likely true (Con's BoP), and rebuttal Pro.*There are no rounds, so there are no round rules, just characters...use them as desired to meet your burden of proof.Pro WinsIf we accept the resolution.Con WinsIf we reject the resolution.DefinitionsCreationism - the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, rather than by natural processes.Claims - assertions of the truth of somethingLikely - probablyTrue - in accordance with fact or realityThe Big Bang - the rapid expansion of matter from a state of extremely high density and temperature that marked the origin of the universe.Abiogenesis -the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.Evolution -the process by which different kinds of living organisms develop and diversify from earlier forms during the history of the earth.*Definitions are agreed upon by posting your first argument.*Definitions can be changed in the comments section, before the debate, as long as both Pro and Con agree in the comments section.May the better argument win.
The west should STOP sanctioning Russia as they have no good reason to do so

I wrote a lengthy responce, only to realize too late that I have filled up the allotted charactor limit by my first paragraph. I don't think I can craft a meaningful responce in the charactor limit, so I apologize for the incovienence and forfeit this debate. If Pro wants to make this debate again with a much more liberal charactor limit, I will definitly accept.
The west should STOP sanctioning Russia as they have no good reason to do so

I may take some time to respond as i am doing my exams. Anyway I created this debate because i live in a western country and the amount of propaganda that is saying Russia is corrupt and evil and its 100% its fault in Ukraine is extremely annoying. If you don't know what i mean- http://en.wikipedia.org..., http://www.numbeo.com..., http://www.numbeo.com... These ratings all have a similar pattern, were the list is opinion based (not like literacy rate) the west is allays nice and green at the top and evil Russia is red around the bottom of the list with the LEDCs. When you look at facts like literacy rate u notice, wait Russia has a bigger literacy rate than the west! This combined with all pollination's the west think the exact same about Ukraine and the media going on the heavy anti Russian propaganda is a bit to much. That the people there want to be western and hate Russia witch is just a lie because the last election involving the whole of Ukraine a pro Russian was elected. When in fact Russia is helping UKRAINIANS who hate there western puppet government breaking of... How is that bad or breaking international law? America invades Iraq and destroyed the place Russia doesn't sanction the USA! Worst of all, the plane that was illegibly shot down by UKRAINIAN rebels. The Media said that Putin shot it down! What, its not Russia it may not even be the rebels they are illegibly funding! It may have been the Ukrainian government! I would under stand if you or me thought that but WORLD LEADERS! They have so much information so hopefully they cant actually blame Putin! Did you know that in the Iraq war the US shot down an Iran passenger plane because they thought it was Iraqi? Probably not and that was America not rebels they were funding and they did not even apologies! Did Russia care NO. If you are not sure what this is about- its about Ukraine basically.
The Universe Can Be Explained Naturally Without God

Just to be clear, I cannot use God as an explanation either? Or is the whole point to prove that God exists? in which case I can't prove that God exists, that is a matter of faith. I include my main points below. - The age of the earth as observed through science - The Big Bang Theory is illogical as a scientific explanation of the origin of life. - The concepts of time, space, order, and reality - The difference between religion and spirituality Thanks for the debate. I look forward to it. Just a heads up, I may not reply until sometime tomorrow night because I am extremely busy tomorrow.
The Universe Can Be Explained Naturally Without God

IntroductionI am going to be arguing that the beginning of the universe can be explained by aspects of nature, without referencing God, or plugging him into the equation with regards to an exlanation. This doesn't mean I have to prove the explanation is true, just that I must provide a natural explanation that explains the universe without any problems, and without assuming God exists.DefinitonsGodThe factually necessary sentient being that the universe is contingent uponUniverseThe entirety of energy, space, and time that leads back to roughly 13.7 billion years ago (when our universe began); excluding any previous (whether temporal or non-temoral) state "prior" to "The Big Bang"Rules First round is for acceptance.
The Universe Can Be Explained Naturally Without God

It really isn't necessary to put a withdrawal in quotes and respond to that. If you would like to believe in evolution, then that is your choice. If you don't want to believe in God, that is your choice, but don't destroy other people's opinions You seem to have the idea that evolution cannot be questioned because of "proof" that hasn't been proven. The Big Bang Theory is just one argument in the multitudes of other arguments about evolution. One day I truly hope you see the errors in your logic. Science doesn't hold all the answers as you claim it to. Science is useful, the religion of evolution is not. "I doubt you could. Yong Earth Creationist's arguments have all been thoroughly debunked."And..yes I can, and no they haven't. I simply do not have the time nor the energy to put forth an argument that you won't even listen to in the first place, so really why should I bother? Below are some links that support what I say. I encourage my opponent and the readers of this debate to examine them.http://www.remnantofgod.org...http://www.answersingenesis.org... http://www.genesis-creation-proof.com...http://www.bestbiblescience.org...http://www.creationism.org...
The Universe Can Be Explained Naturally Without God

'I thank you for the debate as well. "I could counter everything he posted above, but I won't because it will take too long, and it goes off the topic of this debate. "I doubt you could. Yong Earth Creationist's arguments have all been thoroughly debunked. "It seems as though my opponent would rather not discuss the topic of the God and instead talk about different possible origin theories as evidenced by his first argument. "Well, of course; this should be evident. The resolution was pertaining to whether or not I could provide an explanation without reference to God included within it, or an explanation that doesn't involve his causal actions. I just wanted to show that the universe can be explained Atheistically, and that no God has to exist to explain the universe (even if it is possible for him to exist). "Second, I wasn't paying attention and didn't realize that my opponent had defined the universe at being 13.7 billion year old. Since this is a definition invented by my opponent and not an accurate one, I cannot defend it. "It is an accurate definition regardless of whether it was invented or not. The universe is 13.7 billion years old, and I provided scientific sources to back my claims. "I fail to see how my opponent would like me to explain the universe with a God using a definition that supports his side of the debate. Since this is the case, I respectfully withdraw. "The definition doesn't support my side of the debate; it is more than fairly neutral. Most Christians I interact with use The Big Bang as evidence for God and believe the universe is 13.7 billion years old. The biggest Christian philosophers (William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne) all look at Young Earth Creationism as false. The esteemed and intellectual Theists are Old Earth Creationists, and Theistic Evolutionists. Therefore, it is unfair to claim I had a biased definition, when most theists I debate with would certainly accept it. "I would like to ask my opponent to please use unbiased definitions in future debates. "As I said, the definition is not biased as it doesn't support Atheism any more than Theism. Most theists I debate end up bringing up The Big Bang before I do. If you were a Young Earth Creationist, then you shouldn't have accepted the debate; the definition clearly was outlined for Old Earth Creationists. "I am more than willing to debate this topic on those terms, or any other topic for that matter"Possibly.
The Universe Can Be Explained Naturally Without God

I could counter everything he posted above, but I won't because it will take too long, and it goes off the topic of this debate. It seems as though my opponent would rather not discuss the topic of the God and instead talk about different possible origin theories as evidenced by his first argument. Second, I wasn't paying attention and didn't realize that my opponent had defined the universe at being 13.7 billion year old. Since this is a definition invented by my opponent and not an accurate one, I cannot defend it. I fail to see how my opponent would like me to explain the universe with a God using a definition that supports his side of the debate. Since this is the case, I respectfully withdraw. I would like to ask my opponent to please use unbiased definitions in future debates. I am more than willing to debate this topic on those terms, or any other topic for that matter.
Resolved: That, on balance, the rise of Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC) has had a positive i

As the voters should know, I am not a fool that posts his contentions online so that everyone can see them. I obvioulsy did not come 14th in nationals last year because of putting my cotentions on the web and letting potential opponents see my case. I believe that you should vote for me, because I am not a fool, and as you can see, my opponent does not realize that now, everyone can take, use, modify, and fight against his argument. Thus, my superiorness is why I should win this debate. Thank you very much voters. I count on you to make me win!
We have a duty to give to charities

According to my above definitions, if given two paths of action, it is immoral to take the path that will lead to more overall sufferings in the world. With this in mind, if we have the choice to alleviate some sufferings without sacrificing something of comparable value (for instance, without developing equivalent sufferings on another person or on one own self), it is immoral not to do so. Everyday, we spend money on commodities and leisures, such as fancy clothes, concerts, movies and food, money that could be spent relieving people from sufferings. Considering the conclusion of the previous paragraph, it is our duty, if we have the choice between spending 10 dollars on a movie or giving those same 10 dollars to a relief fund for the victims of the Nepal earthquake, to give the money to the charity, since our enjoyment of the movie does arguably not equal the benefits (food, shelter, medical aid. .. ) that 10 dollars can bring to the Nepali survivors. It might be argued that some charities do not manage the money they receive in the most efficient way, and that a lot of this money is lost. My point, however, is not that we have a duty to give to ALL charities, but to those which are the most efficient at relieving sufferings. This reasoning implies not only that one should give to charity A that manages its money most efficiently than charity B if this alleviates more hardships, but also that one should give to charity C that manages its money poorly, if the money spent to charity C will be used to generate more relief than when spent for leisures or unnecessary commodities. For instance, if charity C only gives 10% of its collected money to the Nepal earthquake relief fund and the rest as salary to its (greedy) management board, one has a duty to chose not to spend money on two movie tickets and give the money saved (let us say 15 dollars) to charity C, which will translate into 1.5 dollars, the price of a meal in Nepal, spent to feed one survivor of the earthquake (only, of course, if one considers that the satisfaction of an earthquake survivor being fed is greater than that of two people going to see a movie). I now leave the floor to my opponent.
We have a duty to give to charities

People will probably think I am heartless for negating this case, but I believe giving to charity could make our society ultimately spoiled. My philosophy is based Darwinian Capitalism. Darwinism-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 Capitalism-an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. I believe that in order for our society to be prosperous we need to motivate the young to compete with each other. In my case, I will try to prove this with historic examples and how competition proves useful. I will also try prove that my opponent's theories are good short-term but bad long-term.
We have a duty to give to charities

Second try, let us see how one can fare with that one. I would like to argue for the duty to give to charities. Some definitions: - duty: something that is immoral not to do; - morality: I would like to take the definition that something bringing more overall good than bad into the world is moral, something bringing more overall bad than good is immoral; - definitions of good and bad are debatable, but I would like to set that things such as pain, sufferings and death are considered bad; - charity: an organization dedicated to alleviating the sufferings of all or a certain category of people. Debate plan would be: 1) acceptance 2) Pro case / Con rebuttals & case 3) Pro defence & rebuttals / Con rebuttals & defence 4) Pro closing statement / Con closing statement Looking forward to this debate.
Rap Battle

Thanks so much for letting me do this with you. Your rhymes are impressive, and I wish you the best! Now onto my response: You say my rap "lacks heart" as a whole Well let me tell you this: its got soul May not be about my life story My rhymes not "sweet", they savory! Ya tryin to be the kids' motivation And that aint bad, I too have got emotions But here's my message for all the viewers Life is a journey, and not a guided tour Life is like a lake, you CAN go deep But if you wanna have more benefits to reap Then ski upon the surface of life, have some fun Then you'll be happy when your life is done So all you readin this now I want you to vote For the man with the best rhymes that were wrote I was a bit afraid this battle would be bile But looking back at it, it makes me smile
Rap Battle

I see you over there thinking you're smart, While you treat rap like a spelling bee instead of an art Acting like you're omniscient but you only know a small part, Yea your rap has cool words but it lacks heart Anyone can rhyme a few words together But it's the message in the words that last forever Since you like stories of spies, i'll lay out some clues Let me say it clearly now: I'm not gonna "lose" Maybe I try to inspire to achieve some good You don't aim to inspire but you probably should Don't let your talent get to your head This cockiness is gonna be the reason you end up dead Saying i'll be the bear and you'll be the moose, How about i'll be the fox and you'll be the goose See I only write to reveal the truth Give a little bit of courage to the youth That's news to me but I have news for you At least I have a motive behind everything I do But nowI guess we can let can let the viewers decide, If they should vote for an opponent who is only full of pride
Rap Battle

This dawg over here think he an inspiration, Feel like the whole world should throw him a celebration, Ya aint gonna win but everyone just come and listen So y'all can decide what is your position As a kid I found I had a love for books Couldn't get away, like a fish on hooks Told me stories bout everythin' from spies to birds As I kept reading, I started rememberin' the words Rhymin' some words ain't a problem for me Especially cuz I got a big vocabulary Readin' wasn't a way to get me away from crime For me it was just a way to pass the time This opponent tells you he cannot "loose" Says it gonna be like a bear against a moose Well I have got some news I ain't gonna lose
Rap Battle

Haha, you got me for a second, thank you for this opportunity. My first battle is below: I started a rap battle 'cause that's what the cool kids do, And now i'm in this battle between me and you Now please sit here and listen to me rhyme, As I develop my story over this time My story begins when I was in the 3rd grade, Sitting in my desk with my little french braid You see, I first found my personality during this age That's why I started scribbling music on my homework page That moment in my life brought me to this point, I learned to write instead of rolling up a joint. Writing my thoughts is what helped me survive, See the words I wrote are what kept alive The reason why all that matters here, Is to make my true motive clear: I put my soul in every battle I choose, And today I have no intention to loose.
I will have the exact amount of characters that the character limit allows.

It is still 500, I am not using the post in the comments to help me, and if anyone thinks they help me, please disregard it when you vote. I have other pictures but I will not use them. There is no proof that you can go up to 8000 characters. I can only do 500 characters and I am doing exactly what I said I would every single time. The only way you could show me that you are right is by using more than 500 characters in the next round. If you don't do that I think that you do not have any proof.
I will have the exact amount of characters that the character limit allows.

It doesn't matter. PRO claimed that the character limit allows 500 characters when it in fact allows 8000 (allows = maximum). Problem is---PRO isn't an administrator, thus does not have the ability to use the 8000 during any round thanks to the way he set the debate up. Beyond that, if you'd look at the first post in the comment section, you'll notice that PRO used it to add onto his argument.
I will have the exact amount of characters that the character limit allows.

I only said that I will do the exact amount that the character limit allows and because the character limit is 500, I will do 500. I did a find on this page and the only time the word maximum shows up is in your argument. I was hoping I wouldn't have to argue anything and could just talk about my fantasy baseball team or something, but whatever. Now I am happy that you declined my other debate because all you would've had to do is accept any of my open debates like you did here and I would lose.