BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution is a fact

Wow, that's quite a large amount of work you put into that. Thanks for reading my post, I find that rather honorable. First off my comments were not red herrings they simply had to do with your first post. So if my post had nothing to do with the topic; yours before that (Obviously trying to insult my belief.) Had nothing to do with the topic either. I did not insult your character, I did not try to, and I'm very sorry if you took insult to it. I was trying to show you, through you how much you yourself are following Gods plan for you whether you try to rebel or not. You spoke of dogs, How can you say they are evidence of evolution? They disprove evolution! They are still dogs, no matter how they change. Big ones small ones, they are still part of the same family. The are definitely not a tiger or some other strange creature. Micro-evolution is true but evolution is not. You can distinguish between the two by referring to genetics. If we are talking about a species within the genetic code, we talk about micro-evolution. This is how many wild dogs became tame ones. You still never addressed the pleasure of reading. no animals can read, they never will! So no evolving will ever cause them to. Which leads me to believe God created us this way too. With a bigger mind set. As far as power goes, why should a religion still exist that does not go for power when it can. According to this world, Christianity should have died out long ago and not survived to this point. Yet here it is, almost as strong as ever! You asked what is better then sexual pleasure. I have an answer. Knowing God. I know God and love him, he always there for me. If evolution turns out to be correct when I get to heaven I will not say OK God I'm leaving here for hell. No, I'll stay there with him. Many do not know God and I promise that is why many stay with evolution and try to insult Christians. Each creature in the world is deigned the exact way it is supposed to be. My last comment is this, you used wiki as your source! That's not reliable! Anybody can write on there!
Evolution is a fact

Hello there. I accept this challenge to defend my faith. First off I would like to start by letting you know that if you vote yes to this, you are calling Abraham Lincoln, George Washington of the US, and many of England's finest leaders quacks. Second, I think you misjudge us. Most Christians are not fanatics who go around preaching everyone's doom! If somebody follows Jesus the way they're suppose to, they'll preach his love to all, not his hate and wrath like the religious pharisees did. Third, I saw on your description you are a rebel. You won't give in to God easily for many reasons one of which is enjoyment of all the things you like to do. So I will talk about enjoyment, or pleasure. God created it! How could something so diverse and complex happen any other way? Every person enjoys different things. Some like to jump off cliff with a trampoline beneath them whilst others prefer a good book. Something like this could not have just evolved! Otherwise we would all have it much closer to the same. Look at the apes, and all other animals for that matter they are all very much the same, sure they very slightly, but overall they are very alike. He made enjoyment an there will be plenty in heaven of every type to go around. So for these reasons I say please vote no.
Lincoln was a white supremicist and one of this countries worst, most unconstitutional presidents.

1) I didn't say he was MORE racist than certain people, my point was that there's a line....one side are racist bigots, and the other side they aren't. My Point was that Lincoln was on the wrong side of the line. Keep in mind that i'm not judging him against society, or generally accepted morals, but against himself, and in some cases other presidents. Yes, the majority of people back then may have been racists, that doesnt make it right that he was one. Especially since he has gone down in history as the great anti-racist. A) Freeing teh Southern states could NOT have been used as a tactic in teh way you discribed, the north had no control over the south, so basically it was doing absolutly nothing. Waht's interesting is taht it DID allow Lincoln to look like he was freeing slaves without actually having to free any. Another point i didn't make earlier.....why didn't Lincoln free the slaves the same way every other country on the planet did? Buy them and give them their freedom? I mean even in the North, that would avoid all those obsticles you mentioned. B) I have however heard there was a force involved in moving them, basically moving them wether they wanted to go or not, i don't have time to find evidence for or against this right now, but if it's true it adds a whole other dimension to it. C) These quotes are no worse, or better than the one i gave you earlier. the second one was interesting because he said if he COULD do it without freeing the slaves he would. This is a hypothetical question, therfore he would also be able to assume there would be no backlash. he could quite as easily have said "if I COULD Free all the slaves i would" That would make much more sense if he had actually wanted to free them. Obviously he couldn't because of the backlash you mentioned, but he WANTED to. What he said implies he didn't want to do it if he could help it. 2) A president's job is to uphold the contitutions THAT'S ALL, we elect him to do exactly that. If he doesn't do that he is decieving the people who hired him and that makes it a VERY important issue. A) But you'll have to admit, Lincoln was the first to do so, he set the precedent. And i despise FDR and Bush just as much for doing it. B) Well if he REALLY wanted to preserve the union, than why wouldn't he take the south's side in congress? or at least a fair side? he was so anti-south the south had no choice but to secede. Why would he not try to compromise a little? instead he decided to force them to his way of thinking by brute force? C) All other means of fighting it WERE exausted, they had been fighting it in congress for i believe 16 years beforehand, The republicans got the majority the same time Lincoln was elected, which meant that it would firmly go against the south. D) Correct, but Lincoln made the federal government powerful out of proportion, took most of the state's rights and made the fed an all powerful big brother, somethign that was further perfected during the Roosevelt administration and pretty much everyone since (barring Coolidge)
Lincoln was a white supremicist and one of this countries worst, most unconstitutional presidents.

I'm making this a long debate because i really want to get to the bottom of this. In this first post i will merely show my explanation for each of my points in the topic, then we'll go from there. 1. Lincoln was a White Supremicist. A. Lincoln only freed the Slaves in the south B. Immediatly after the war Lincoln began mass deportations of blacks to Liberia and the Caribean C. Lincoln Stated that White blood should not have to be contaminated with blacks. Based on that I Make my claim the Lincoln was a White Supremicist. 2. Lincoln was one of this countries worst, most unconstitutional presidents. A. BEFORE the war, Lincoln arrested 13,000 political prisoners, many of whom were newspaper editors who had merely published critisism of him. B. When the legislature of Maryland refused to go along with his ideas, he marched a division of the army and arrested the entire governing body of Maryland and replaced them with his own supporters. C. He suspended Habeus Corpus D. One of the main reasons for the war (If i'm right about point 1. it couldn't have been about slavery, plus the South was also were working to free the slaves) was that lincoln wanted to put a tarrif on AG products which would effectivly make the 30% of the US population residing in the South pay 80% of the taxes. E. Lincoln created an all powerful Federal Government (that we struggle to keep in check to this day) and trampled on teh rights of the states and the individual. there's probably more but this is plenty of information to fill a 5 round debate. Those are my Claims any takers?
Biologival evolution is observable

My opponent is not explicit as to what phase of biological evolution is he referring to. There are two phases in the inevitable process of biological evolution according to evolutionary scientists and these are the microevolution and macroevolution. What my opponent has defined as evolution is really the micro-evolution phase: Microevolution is a change in gene frequency in a population. SOURCEhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu...My opponent presented his debate challenge on the realm of RELIGION and hence, it is assumed that he'll defend biological evolution against the teaching of Christians concerning Creation Science/ Intelligence design. My opponent should realize that science can only explain what happens after creation not how creation took place. Science works on induction. It can only know what it can only observe with the human senses. This is naturalistic per se. This is what we call scientific. On the other hand, philosophy seeks to explain things on the basis of logic and reason. Consider this classic example:Up-to-date, there is no scientific evidence that the macro part of biological evolution exists. We do not yet have a scientifically known mechanism in biological science wherein a new gene is added into a genome. Scientists would only used a "long time" a priori knowledge plus " micro-evolution scientific mechanisms" in order to come up with this scientific hypothesis of macro-evolution. On the other hand, the super natural explanation of creation fits every scientific data we now have.The following are the arguments about the mechanisms of macroevolution that I had encountered with Atheists to defend macro-evolution: Transverse inductionGene-hopping RetrovirusesDisruptions and copying errors in the DNANone of it comes close into explaining new genes are added into a genome. This article is not bias in that while it supports Evolution , it tells us that Evolution has met its waterloo: Evolution's mutation mechanism does not explain how growth of a genome is possible. How can point mutations create new chromosomes or lengthen a strand of DNA? It is interesting to note that, in all of the selective breeding in dogs, there has been no change to the basic dog genome. All breeds of dog can still mate with one another. People have not seen any increase in dog's DNA, but have simply selected different genes from the existing dog gene pool to create the different breeds.SOURCE: http://science.howstuffworks.com...
Atheism is a Religion

The following definitions, from the Oxford Dictionary of American English, will be used: atheism (n) Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. religion (n) The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. worship (n) The feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity. chance (n) A possibility of something happening. ultimate (adj) Being or happening at the end of a process; final. Pro posits that all atheists ascribe to an ultimate power; this is patently false. The basis of Pro's argument is a non sequitur. No ultimate power is accepted by "all" atheists. The supposed ultimate powers of chance and the person themselves, as posited by Pro, are each not final in any way, but may each be affected by the other and outside factors. Atheists share only a disbelief in a god. By definition, atheism is not a religion, as no belief in or love of a deity occurs. bit.ly/1M2tWpU
Atheism is a Religion

Religion n. the belief in and/or worship of an ultimate power, especially a God or gods. Atheism, the belief that there is no God or gods, does not exclude the belief in an ultimate power. Different atheists believe in different ultimate powers from fate to chance to themselves. It is impossible to ascribe to atheism without ascribing to an ultimate power in the same way that it is impossible to ascribe to any religion without accepting its ultimate power or God. Because Atheism requires a belief in an ultimate power, Atheism is a religion.
Atheism is a Religion

The belief in the Karma and Dharma is Hinduistic. Buddhism and the concept of the Dharma are *not* necessarily mutually inclusive. The universal tenets of Buddhism are the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path, and the cycle of reincarnation - interestingly enough believed to be *not* controlled by a deity. Buddhism also believes in and worships no deity. Thus, Buddhism can be firmly established as a philosophy rather than religion. In their rabid pursuit of the Buddhism argument, Pro has neglected several points: Pro initially begs the question with the atheism-religion comparison. Pro never at all defended their main argument, the claim that atheism *requires* a belief in an ultimate power. Pro never addressed their non sequitur that Buddhism was an atheistic "religion" so consequently atheism must be one as well. Thank you for an exciting and worthy debate. I shall look forward to the end of the voting session and the reveal of the winner.
Atheism is a Religion

Con has made the claim that I have contradicted myself by stating first that religion requires a deity and then that Buddhism was a religion which lacks a deity. At no point have I claimed or accepted the claim that religion requires a deity. Also, none of the definitions of religion presented here require that any religion accept a deity. religion n. the belief in and/or worship of an ultimate power, especially a God or gods. religion n. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. Buddhism is a religion because it requires a belief in a dharma. This dharma is an ultimate/superhuman controlling power within the universe. Con claims that Buddhism is not a religion. The definition of religion presented earlier by Con categorizes Buddhism as a religion. In a ridiculous attempt to contradict me by saying that Buddhism is not a religion, Con has contradicted himself. His arguments are therefore invalid.
Atheism is a Religion

Again, Pro bases their entire argument on a non sequitur, this time the claim that Buddhism is an atheistic religion, and consequently atheism must be a religion. Pro completely ignores that by the definitions both of us provided as bases for argumentation, Buddhism is atheistic, and therefore falls outside of the category of "religion" as defined and agreed upon by both arguing parties. In other words, Pro contradicts themselves by positing (Rd. 1) that a religion requires belief in a deity and then presenting an example of an "atheistic religion". Also notice that Pro attempts to posit that the religion Buddhism shares attributes with atheism, thus invalidating the exclusion of atheists from religion. I have taken the burden of proving and shown that Buddhism is in fact not a religion. Pro did not meet the burden of proof or demonstrate that it is. Pro's rebuttal is invalid on the grounds that it's based on the flawed assertion that Buddhism is a religion, so my argument stands.
Atheism is a Religion

Con claims that because Atheism requires a "disbelief in a god" it is not a religion. Lacking belief in deity, however, does not exclude Atheism from religion. Buddhism, a religion, also lacks a deity. Buddhists are not Theists. They share the same "disbelief in a god" that Atheists do. Con's claim that this shared disbelief excludes Atheists from religion can not be true as long any religion has the same attribute. Because Con's central claim is false, his entire argument is invalid and my original must stand as it cannot be refuted by an untrue statement.
Carreers

considering what you said about switching to different jobs is true are still not defining why it's fair for footballers to get more money than doctor. footballer are such cry babies the bigger the match the more fouls and corners there will be the only time when they're civil is when they're all shaking each others hand and wishing a good match.an hours later you've had 5 corners 2 reds and at the end of it all you see Suarez going and biting people!?! even when someone just touches their leg go bawling making the ref give them a free kick. This is unbelievably unfair because other is swearing and cursing each other over someone laces!?! doctors now you don't see them crying over nothing in fact they're out there saving life getting people off drugs and smoking. Footballers only get for money because they're entertaining people with world cup and other leagues. football has also increased the percentage off poor this is wrong
Carreers

To further elaborate on my points 1. If you stay with the same job you will receive a pay raise and an increase in vacation time. Switching from job to job will leave you with minimum benefits and a low pay compared to the average of that occupation. Also staying with the same business will help you get promoted and in turn a large pay increase. 2. Almost every high paying job in Western society requires a diploma in that occupation, tuitions for college are costly and time consuming. You will have to start using your free time to study and go to classes. 3.Switching from job to job will not provide enough income to sustain a family. Finding a career will provide you with a steady income that is needed for a family. 4. As the new guy you will first one the list of possible lay-offs. 5. When the economy is not doing well finding a job will be hard and you will find yourself unemployed often. 6. Developing friendships with co-workers is a nice benefit of the having a career.
Carreers

Just to be clear this debate is on careers and you have chosen the con side. A career as defined by IDictionary is a profession for which one trains and which is undertaken as a permanent calling. Source-http://i.word.com.... This means con must prove why the concept of having a particular occupation for a prolonged period of time is not good. Now I will refute some of con's points. 1. Con states that football players make between 3 million and 5 million, while this is true for some the average MLS player makes $141,903 source-soundaheart.com. Yes it may seem as if soccer players make more but you have to realise that the higher the salary the more attention that player will receive. 2. Cons main argument against careers is that doctors are more important than soccer players. Yes they do save lives, but they signed an agreement with their employer believing there salary is fair amount to how much work they put in. In a free market society the business and employ determine the pay. Now on to my points to why careers are good. 1. Sticking with the same job overtime will increase your pay and benefits. 2. Most jobs require a diploma which is expensive and time consuming so switching from job to job is costly. 3.A stable income is needed to raise a family. 4. Businesses usually fire people with the least seniority so it's not always good to be the new guy. 5. Finding a job in hard economic times will not be easy. 6. You might develop friendships in a stable job. P.S. this is my first debate
Carreers

why do footballers get more money than doctor when doctors save your life and footballers just kick a ball about. If you were about to die you would call a doctor to save your life. footballers are just entrainment doctors actual save people's life everyday. the world can survive without football but we can't survive without a doctor. Doctor do so much but earn so little compared to a football. per year foottball can earn from "3,000,000,-"5,000,000 doctors are only getting 406,154 this isn't fair at all doctors save life footballers just create entertainment.
Carreers

1. Yes I believe that it is okay for soccer players to get more then doctors because it is a free market and their is a far greater amount of possible doctors then soccer players. 2. Um I don't get angry at doctors for giving others anti-depressants and please refrain from putting words in my mouth. 3. Also you use the term doctor interchangeable with any medical personal, for instance general physicians are not the ones helping injured players it is usually physical therapists and trainers. Con has failed to prove why the concept of careers is bad. This debeat is simply on Careers the act of having a career for a prolonged period of time. Con's only argument is that because soccer players make more then certain doctors the whole idea of keeping your job for a long time is wrong. Is this is enough evidence to back up con's argument, absolutely no.
Carreers

to clarify you agree that it's fair for footballers to get more money than doctor. if I may I can ask you to say clearly and state why you think it's right when footballers are entertainment and doctors are lifesaver. ok, yes, sometimes you get angry when GP's keep giving you depression tablets when though you don't need it but it's what the NHS and government are telling them to do. footballers on the other hand need the doctor more than anyone sometimes because when they hurt themselves someone needs to be trained in first aid to help them and apply the right medicine and pain killers to help them continue playing the match. for example Neymar really needs doctors help now because of all type of injures he's having now because of what Kerala Ayurveda did by accident. this affected brazil following game because all their minds were focused on Neymar mean they weren't concentrating on the game against Germany. Germany knew this and were able to win the game 1-7 to them.
Carreers

1.Again if the doctors doesn't like how much he is getting payed he doesn't have to work there he signed the contract with his employer. 2.As I said in the first round doctors actually make more then most soccer players. It's just the high profile players that make the biggest bucks. 3. Yes It may seem that a doctors job is more important but this is a free market meaning the company pays you based on the number of people qualified to perform your job, how valuable you are to the company, and how much the company can afford to pay you. For one their are far more doctors then professional soccer players so good soccer players are rare. Second soccer players rack in millions of dollars in revenue for the professional team through jersey sales and tickets. Lastly professional sports teams are making a ton of profit now so they can afford to pay them, on the other hand hosipitals are struggling to make a meager profit. Yes I get that what doctors do seam more important than soccer players,but should that alone drive everyone to quit their jobs and ruin their lives?