BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible is Scientifically Inaccurate

You failed to speak on how the genesis story gets the order of events wrong. For example why it says that the earth came into existence before the sun, which is just plain wrong. Even if the distinction between the sun and other stars is based on the sun being most visible in the sky (which I disagree with) it still paints the sun as being the first star to be made. Of course thanks to modern science we now know that there are billions of other stars much older than the sun. As far as the moon goes you would be correct if genesis said the moon was a light "source", but it doesn't. It says that the moon is a light. Calling something a light is much different than calling something a light source. The bible also says that these "lights" were placed in the sky Genesis 1:17 says "God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth" Again thanks to modern science we now know that the sun is 93 million miles away from Earth and you could line up 109 Earths across the face of the sun. The sun's circumference is about 2,713,406 miles. The moon is off course also in outer space. And most of the stars are not even in our galaxy. The bible does teach that the earth was created in 7 literal days hence why it specifies the end, and the beginning of each day with 'there was evening and there was morning". The age of the Universe and the Earth dates way further back than 10-15 thousand years ago. In fact human have been on this earth for about 200,000 years. In Genesis chapter 2 (which contradicts the first chapter concerning what came first, man or other animals) God makes man before all other animals. In Genesis 2:18-20 it says that "The Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals." This is also scientifically incorrect Your detective example is flawed because scientists never rule out anything. If there is some event in earth's history that was supernatural, scientists wouldn't come up with an alternative natural explanation, they would just consider it an unexplained event in the mean time while still trying to figure out the explanation. Evolution isn't an alternative natural explanation, it's a fact in science with overwhelming amounts of evidence to the point that we now use it in medical science. For example vaccines are improved every year because diseases evolve to become immune to the previous vaccines the year before. For the thing that we don't know about the history of life, those are left unexplained until scientists find an explanation Scientists don't just make up a natural explanation.
The Bible is Scientifically Inaccurate

To start with the easy part, making a distinction between the sun and other stars is only natural since the sun is the earth's main light source. Also, regardless of whether the moon has it's own light or not, it is still a light source at night. People make these distinctions today in common conversation and we don't blame them for it unless they make definite claims that the sun is not a star or that the moon has it's own unborrowed light. Everything else you've mentioned falls under the topic of evolution, and, you are right, this IS a major problem for the Bible. In fact, I would say that it is the only real discrepancy between science and the Bible. Everything else could be explained fairly easily. So first, I want to clarify what the Bible does and does not claim on this topic and then spend some time on the definition of Evolution. 1) The Bible does not teach that the entire universe was created in 7 days 6000 years ago. 2) The text allows for the possibility that both the universe and the earth itself existed prior to the creation week. 3) There is even room to assume that microorganisms existed prior to the creation week and it was only the higher organisms that were created during that week. 4) The timing also could be anywhere between 6000 and 10-15 thousand years ago. 5) There are people that consider this entire section of the Bible a parable but, if we take the text at face value, this is about as far as we can go. In other words, we don't need to go as far as Young Earth Creationism (YEC) but we do have to accept Young Life Creationism (YLC) to stay faithful to the text. 6) YLC is still in major conflict with evolutionary science. Now the theory of evolution addresses everything that happened from the first living organisms to the present (it does not address abiogenesis - life emerging from non-life). And, like with all science, methodological naturalism is used. In other words, in science, all work is done under the assumption that God (or any kind of supernatural) either does not exist or does not interfere. To use an illustration, imagine that you are a detective, a murder was committed, and your chief tells you that you must figure out who did it. But, you are not allowed to conclude that the murder was committed by the victim's husband. If you exclude a person from your list of suspects a priori and conduct your investigation accordingly, there is a good chance that eventually you will find someone else to blame even if the husband did do it. So evolution is the conclusion we have to come to if we assume beforehand that God had nothing to do with it. If, like the Bible claims, God WAS involved however, at least some of the conclusions of evolutionary science could be wrong. And, until scientists develop an alternative theory to evolution that takes into account the possibility of divine involvement, there is no basis on which to determine to what degree the Bible is wrong, if at all.
The Bible is Scientifically Inaccurate

The the creation story in genesis gets the order of events from the beginning of the universe to the origin of man wrong, and the dating of these events all messed up. Here is the scientific order of events including dating: The Big Bang happens. After a billion years into the universes expansion Gravity makes hydrogen, and helium gas coleuses to form giant clouds that become galaxies. 15 billion years into the universes expansion smaller lumps of gas to form the first stars,. As galaxies cluster together under gravity the first stars die spewing, and creating heavy elements those will eventually turn into new stars, and planets. Biological evolution began with microbial life 3,500 million years ago, and then plant life emerged 400 million years ago, fish evolved at around the same time as well. Amphibians emerged around 360 million years ago, insects around the same time as well, reptiles around 270 million years ago,mammals at around 200 million years ago, birds around 100 million years ago, and finally humans at around 200,000 years ago. The bible put the earth as coming before the sun, and separates the sun as being a different type of stellar object from other star, of course we now know that the sun is a star. It also describes the moon as being a light, however it made of rock from the earth, and reflects the sun's light. The Bible also puts complex plant life like trees and fruits before sea life. also it places the birds creation before mammals.
The Bible is Scientifically Inaccurate

1) To be able to respond to this I would need specific instances where it is scientifically inaccurate. 2) It would have to be a manageable amount of such examples (1-3) since there isn't enough space/time available here to adequately address more than that. So pick your best examples. 3) We would then need to make sure the examples you are giving qualify as scientific claims made by the Bible since there are passages in the Bible that are symbolic or poetic in nature.
Drugs should be legalized in the U.S.

There's not any real background information, except that drugs are currently illegal in the U.S. But you should know that. I am in favor of legal drug use and drug dealing in the U.S. Point 1: The government loses alot of potential revenue on illegal drug dealing. According to the BBC (British Broadcasting Company), the drug-dealing black market made an estimated $400 billion in 2000, which was more than was spent on food at that time. If such trafficking was not illegal, the government could tax it for a large profit. For example, with a 25% sales tax, the government would make about $100 billion a year. Point 2: Crime rates would decrease drastically. Since drugs are illegal, one would have to steal, kill, etc. to get them. Also, according The Cato Institute, during the years of prohibition (when alcohol was illegal), the murder rate shot up by about 400,000. This proves that drugs are one of the main causes of violence.
Drugs should be legalized in the U.S.

1a) By stating that legal drugs are "...likely to produce enough 'advertising' on its own, through the mass media...", you have confirmed my point - more people would buy drugs, because they are no longer illegal and have mass publicity. And, by not spending money on extra advertising, the government can use this for the other problems that may arise. I agree that we can only guess the revenue, but it would be some amount of surplus - logically, there should not be any loss from revenue alone. 1b) A new unit would not necessarily have to be funded - the government can just increase the amount of police officers. A police officer can do the job of inspecting, reporting and recording just as well as a special agent can. 2a) There is a very simple solution to an unskilled work force: W-2. (http://www.ontheissues.org...) It's a welfare/job skills program used by Wisconsin, which has decreased the number of people on welfare by 92%. Give all of these criminals job training, and they will be more likely to get jobs. 2b) More cops are needed anyway, so it shouldn't be a problem (that may be a little biased, but I live near Baltimore City...). I did not state that police have the right to search your home. They would obtain a warrant, as usual, to make sure you don't get more than the amount of drugs you're allowed to have. Nowhere did I say that fourth amendment rights will not be protected. As for the limit on certain drugs, it should be the point when they become too harmful, obviously. Not all drugs are instantly dangerous. The article may be biased, but it presents a real-life situation. In addition, keep in mind a drug dealer may very well have a job, which adds to his/her income. I haven't ignored the costs, I've provided measures that can be taken to cover up these losses. And as for the income, logically, if the illegal drug trade didn't provide a surplus of money, nobody would be doing it. Therefore, legalizing the trade makes the same amount of surplus (possibly more), but puts a tax on it.
Drugs should be legalized in the U.S.

1a) Through marketing/advertising, comes interest from the viewers, causing them to buy the product. If the government could get a good amount of advertising, there would be a surplus of customers. 1b) Regulation would be somewhat easier if the drugs were sold in orderly and recordable pharmacies. Thus, regulating the drug trade would not be much harder than regulating and inspecting the condition and distribution of food, for example. 2a) By granting these criminals amnesty, it will be easier for them to find some sort of job. There would be no record of criminal activity (at least regarding first-time felons) to be held against them. 2b) As for the role of certain drugs in the commitment of crimes, this can be handled by keeping a record of how much of that drug one person owns, and setting a limit on it. For example, there would be a limit on the amount of ecstasy that could be purchased at one time, and if your record states that you already have an amount of this drug that would exceed the limit, you would not be allowed to buy it. You would also need to show a signed from that states the police inspected your home to make sure you don't have that drug. In addition, consider these scenarios from: http://www.taxfoundation.org... In this scenario, which is very common and could be considered the average amount of customers from one dealer, the drug dealer makes more money than the average worker. If you put a tax on that, it is very possible that whatever money lost through fundraising, rehabilitation, lawsuits, etc. could be gained back. I stated that the risk was worth taking because it is. The reason being, any financial hole that is caused by legalizing drugs can be fixed and replenished, and would make the government billions of dollars. Why vote pro: 1. Government income would skyrocket. 2. The crime rate related to drugs would decrease with the proper support (regulation). 3. Most, if not all, of the problems encountered can be solved fairly quickly.
Drugs should be legalized in the U.S.

1a) We don't have any idea how much could be made in revenues. The mere possibility that a large amount of revenue could be made does not justify undertaking a very risky and potentially costly project. 1b) Regulation would not increase revenue. Regulation costs money. Currently, the black market for drugs regulates itself, circumventing law in order to do so. Legalizing drugs would place the onus of regulation on the US government. This is not cheap or easy to implement. In addition, hypothesizing that mass marketing would somehow enhance revenues (based on nothing, data or otherwise), is a very shallow approach. The majority of private corporations do not throw money at their marketing departments and simply pray that the marketing makes money. 2a) Amnesty is not the issue here. These people would not easily find jobs. If they do not have jobs, they do not have money. If they do not have money, they cannot survive. If they cannot survive, they will find ways to do so. The only easy non-job ways to make money involve receiving from the government in the form of welfare, or re-entering the black market and taking part in criminal activities. So basically, either the government has to take care of these people (another cost), or (the more likely scenario) the crime rate does not decrease. 2b) The point here is that the crime rate might actually increase as a result of certain drugs enhancing the propensity to commit crime. My opponent has not analyzed or measured risk of any sort, yet states that he BELIEVES the risk is worth taking. The legal costs alone could be drastic. People would not only blame the drugs in order to prevent incarceration, but they would sue companies and the government for promoting substances that led to life-damage. My opponent simply assumes that legalizing drugs is a profitable endeavor from a financial perspective. He ignores the potentially large non-financial fallout (lost goodwill, religious backlash, emotional damage), the potential indirect damage (life-damage, corporate productivity declines, etc), and other possible issues. Even if we were to ignore the costs of these indirect or non-financial losses, there is insufficient evidence that financial profitability could be achieved. Regulation and Oversight would cost money. Welfare for former black market members would cost money. Litigation would cost money. 'Mass Marketing' would cost money. All of these represent real and substantial costs. These costs would not decline relative to the amount of potential tax revenues that could be achieved. The potential tax revenues cited by my opponent have not been checked for accuracy or bias. The actual revenues could be much lower than the estimates my opponent quoted. Considering this, the financial risk is very high. It would be highly irresponsible by members of the government or of corporations to off-handedly take on such an endeavor with a simple 'I believe that the risk is worth taking', as if this statement alone validates such action.
Drugs should be legalized in the U.S.

I'll use the same system as my opponent. 1a) Although estimates may be off, if drugs are legalized, they could be publicized and make a large amount of money regardless. Now, although the revenue is say, only about 1% of the national debt, that's still alot considering the national debt is about $9.4 trillion. 1b) The point of market money and regulation is good one - the costs can outweigh the benefits. However, it is just as likely that all this mass marketing and regulation can increase the revenue. This can also kill two birds with one stone, in the sense that the prices of drugs may not have to be raised for an overall increased revenue. 1c) As my opponent has stated, this ties in with b. 2a) To solve the problem of unemployable criminals, there are actually many solutions. One example is that the government can provide amnesty for these people, provided that it doesn't happen again (otherwise a harsher punishment would be enforced). 2b) I believe that the risk is worth taking, considering that some crime rates (drug possession, trafficking, stealing, etc.) will go down in exchange for others. Concerning the more harmful drugs, there could be a record of the amount of that drug everyone has bought, and propose limits for these drugs. 2c) Over the entire period of prohibition. I will also provide solutions to the costliness of drug legalization. Regulation: Hire/Use police/special officers to control the dealing, keep it in shops similar to pharmacies (or even put them in pharmacies) so that they can be inspected. Rehabilitation: Build more rehab centers or send patients to existing ones. Funding: If there is not enough money for proper funding, the taxes can always be raised. Even the slightest amount could provide good funding. Loss of life is already an issue concerning drugs, legal distribution rather than illegal distribution would not change this to an extreme.
Drugs should be legalized in the U.S.

By crime rate, I mean the general crime rate in the U.S. Many crimes are committed to obtain drugs. But if drugs weren't illegal, you wouldn't need to get them illegally. I guess I should clarify drugs also. In this case, a "drug" would be an addictive substance that distorts the body in some way, such as these examples: - marijuana - ecstasy - heroin Of course, there would have to be an age requirement. I would suggest 18 or older. 400,000 would be straight murders. Legal would be, there would be no punishment for possession, dealing, etc. You could not be fined, put on probation, or jailed.
Drugs should be legalized in the U.S.

Since we do have 5 rounds, might as well get some clarification out of the way: 1) I will assume my opponent means the 'non-drug' crime rate (as the drug-related crime rate would by nature decrease if drugs became legal). Rates are measurements relative to other measurements. The murder rate is usually written as a per / X figure, where X is a certain number of citizens. So what is this 400,000? Just a straight number of murders? A percentage increase? 2) My opponent uses the term 'legalization' very generally. How legal is legal?
Resolved: Fictional Literature Serves No Purpose

Critical Thinking It was made perfectly clear in the first argument how fictional literature develops critical thinking skills, but regardless, I will restate it. When reading books like The Sound and the Fury, by William Faulkner, the reader needs to analyze evidence not only within the story, but also within the writing style itself in order to determine the chronological shifts and to extrapolate meaning. Whether or not non-fiction books also help to develop critical thinking is irrelevant to the debate, as the resolution is “Fictional Literature Serves No Purpose,” not “Fictional Literature Serves No Unique Purpose.” “Besides, why would you need to analyze Hamlet. What career will that help you with?” Hamlet is an example of a play where an individual must use and improve his critical thinking skills in order to understand the play. As the language used in it is very distinct from modern day English, the reader must use his or her critical thinking skills to evaluate the evidence, read in between the lines, and determine the meaning of the non-colloquial words and sentence structures. The critical thinking skills developed will help in any decision-making career, as it will aid the individual in the leadership position in taking in all information present in order to make rational choices. “While the person may see what is happening in the book, the person does not come up with anything on his or her own.” While it is true that fictional literature is generally descriptive, the descriptions are not perfect. Few images are described in a way that leaves nothing to the imagination. The reader not only has to imagine what the author describes, but the reader also has to fill in the blanks in the description. Making the reader imagine what the author has described and what the author has not properly described is fostering the imagination of the readers. Fictional literature is effective in that regard. “As far as critical thinking goes, you can get the same amount of thinking skill from non fiction, and you would also get facts.” Pro just conceded that you can get critical thinking skills from fictional literature. I would like to remind the readers once again that the resolution is “Fictional Literature Serves No Purpose,” not “Fictional Literature Serves No Unique Purpose.” Whether or not non fiction also gives similar level of thinking skill is irrelevant to the debate. Conclusion I have shown that fictional literature aids in the development of imagination and critical thinking skills, thus showing that fictional literature serves a purpose. It was even conceded by Pro that critical thinking skills are acquired by reading fictional literature. I have fulfilled my burden of proof. I look forward to my opponent’s response.
Resolved: Fictional Literature Serves No Purpose

Critical Thinking: For now, I will skip to why Critical Thinking is important, as your plan does not support this. How can reading fictional literature develop the ability to analyze facts? You can analyze facts better by reading the facts from nonfiction. After all, these books hand you the facts, but the facts still have to be interpreted. This interpretation of facts will build critical thinking, while also doubling as a method of gaining information. Besides, why would you need to analyze Hamlet. What career will that help you with? Imagination: There is a problem with your logic. While the person may see what is happening in the book, the person does not come up with anything on his or her own. When the book says Harry has black hair and a birthmark shaped like an N, all the people see are those things. Reading books allows you to see what is there, but nothing else. Thinking and daydreaming for yourself allows you to foster imagination, as anything can happen, as there are no rules. Fictional literature is not beneficial for imagination. Conclusion: As far as critical thinking goes, you can get the same amount of thinking skill from nonfiction, and you would also get facts. Facts will be necessary. Facts can be used to persuade people. Facts can be used to manipulate people. Fiction is of no use to anyone other than the pure entertainment from reading. Imagination can be learned by doing things other than witnessing the imagination of an author. Imagination can only be learned by thinking for yourself.