BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: God's Existence Does Not Entirely Violate Science

Thanks Pro:Though firstly posting videos of Kent Hovind a Naive Science Teacher who knows nothing at all about Evolutionn and really should be ashamed of himself, instead of Arrogantly pushing Pseudo-Scientific Nonsense.There is no such thing as Cosmic Evolution, Chemical Evolution nor Stellar/Planetary Evolution, etc.They are all wrong, and have nothing to do with the Fact Of Evolution. Yes Evolution is a Fact and a Theory:http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.nas.edu...Young Earth Creationists especially like those who make a comfortable living out of spreading it like manure on toast, such as Kent Hovind, as being a Creationist spokesman in Naive USA, makes him much more money than teaching Science.There is more money in spreading nonsense than teaching Truth, Kent Hovind and Ken Ham are proof of this. They both feature in my last Video!http://howgoodisthat.wordpress.com...Kent Hovind is a very amusing, comical personality, but he knows less about The Theory of Evolution than I did at Ten Years of Age, some Science Teacher. I Believe Kent needs to go back and complete Secondary School Science. He might learn a lot.Reasons God Exists Video: Makes Many Bad Assumptions, science never said the Universe came from Nothing, Ever.This fact destroys the entire Video. Science only said it did not know what came before the Big Bang, but that is changing. Essentially the Video is nothing but a collection of Fallacies.Nothing in the God of wonders by People deprived of real scientific knowledge really proves anything at all for your case.http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...Why God is a violation of Scientific Physical Laws: http://www.youtube.com...Next I will demonstrate that Genesis is WRONG!http://www.youtube.com...Thanks Pro: Your Turn.
Resolved: God's Existence Does Not Entirely Violate Science

I have too much to get out of my brain to fit into this round, so I will just sum it all up in videos. Point 1: Evolution is ridiculous. This video is full of believable, reasonable, viable, provable, logos-filled reasons for that. -http://m.youtube.com... Point 2: "If the evidence is verified concerning the pre-existing Black Holes, your Creationism Theories are destroyed forever." Thank you for the tip, Sagey. I will show that there is no real verification for the evidence. Black holes are not real, as shown here: -http://m.youtube.com... If there are no black holes today, then there is no way that any black holes pre-existed outside of God making them. Point 3: Science can actually support God's existence, as shown here: -http://m.youtube.com... -http://m.youtube.com... -http://m.youtube.com... The burden of proof is now on you, Sagey.
Resolved: God's Existence Does Not Entirely Violate Science

Thanks Pro:Pro states: "Since your video shows God being killed and going to some higher heaven, you have proved one of my points:"I think you missed the point of the Video, in the end all the Gods were nothing more than the creation of the Human Mind.It does not pay to watch sources through Foundation Bias or Confirmation Bias Goggles, as you will always miss points.Yes, we have Gods that can break any scientific law that they want to, in movies and comics, but such a God has absolutely no evidence for nor connection to reality.My earlier conservation of energy and matter video covered this if watched without bias goggles installed. Regarding Black Holes: Scientists believe that they have evidence of Black Holes that pre-existed our universe, so the Black Hole Theory has now infinitely more credence than the Creation theory, they now believe that the Universe was spawned from a Hyper-Black Hole. If the evidence is verified concerning the pre-existing Black Holes, your Creationism Theories are destroyed forever.So the following will answer all your black hole questions: http://math.ucr.edu...http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...http://www.nature.com...Pro states: "You disregarded my use of the scientific method entirely."Pro has made these arguments limited to 2000 characters, too short to state why I don't believe Pro understands what Scientific Method is.This is why I have to resort to using URLs and Videos, because Pro deliberately made the arguments too short for a good argument. For a reason is beyond my understanding???On the Scientific Method Pro did not apply properly, a method that was developed by Monks!http://en.wikipedia.org...http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu...Thanks again Pro: Your turn!
Resolved: God's Existence Does Not Entirely Violate Science

Firstly, I will point out that you have, in a few ways, proven YOURSELF wrong. 1. Since your video shows God being killed and going to some higher heaven, you have proven one of my points: that He is a spiritual being, thus also proving that He can break scientific laws if he wants to. And assuming that there are indeed spiritual beings, science has no concern over what they can and cannot do. 2. "A God creating a universe out of nothing is infinitely less probable than the Universe being the product of a pre-existing Black Hole or Dark Matter (steady state theory)." Sorry, but it is really the other way around. The steady state theory's problems are as follows: 2a. What are the odds that these black holes actually met? Try encasing two vacuums in cardboard, putting them at the bottom of a large glass container, and make sure they are activated. Their nozzles should also be facing the bottom of the container. Then fill it with clear gelatin. Do they ever come together? No. 2b. How did they come to pre-exist? If so, then how? The steady state theory implies that they randomly sprang into existence. Not only does it not specify where they started, thus leaving it possible for them to never meet, but It also violates the Law of Conservation of Energy, which again, God can break if He wants. There is therefore no other explanation for how they came to exist. God made them. 2c. If the universe has been expanding for billions of years, then how big were the black holes? They could not have pulled that off, no matter how big they were as every every explosion will stop at some point. 3. You disregarded my use of the scientific method entirely. All you had to do was post that video and my point was proven: God is spiritual. Therefore, you have left my use of the scientific method valid. 4. Assuming God is real, He had no beginning and no end. If somebody made Him, then who made his maker? Who made maker #3? And so on and so forth. Your turn.
Resolved: God's Existence Does Not Entirely Violate Science

Thanks Pro!Pro states:"This really does not make a difference because since God is not a physical entity (John 4:24,) He has no government under man-made laws." Creationists stupidly believe that God created Energy and Matter out of Nothing, apart from being totally impossible and massively improbable, it destroyed the Law of Conservation Of Matter, so if a God exists, the Law of Conservation Of Matter cannot really be a Law.Thus Pro nor Science could not use it as an argument nor a principle which completely dismisses Pro's Argument Out Of Ignorance Fallacy.Pro evidently did not watch nor understand the Video I posted in my previous argument that addressed Pro's question precisely, thus the question has already been answered.A God creating a universe out of nothing is infinitely less probable than the Universe being the product of a pre-existing Black Hole or Dark Matter (steady state theory). Occam's razor slashes Creationism to pieces.On who created God? This cartoon answers that precisely:http://www.youtube.com...If any unseen flaws are found in Evolution as all Evolutionists aware of Creationism would have read your sources, they would become worldwide news and those finding those flaws would be Rewarded, maybe even get a Nobel prize.But, sadly for Pro, no such flaws are Real, they are all Fraudulent, because they would have been tested as all suspected flaws are tested. Scientists would love to find flaws in Evolution.http://www.scientificamerican.com...http://scienceblogs.com... If there is a God, it is certainly not from the Bible, there's too many Flaws in it!http://infidels.org...http://rationalwiki.org...It is so easy to understand how the Biblical God is a Violation of Science, it Violates Science and even reality in its own Scriptures!! Thanks again Pro: Back to you now!
Resolved: God's Existence Does Not Entirely Violate Science

Counterpoint 1. "God... Violates the Conservation of Energy Law." This really does not make a difference because since God is not a physical entity (John 4:24,) He has no government under man-made laws. Even assuming that God exists, there is no scientific disproof that he is a spirit. Additionally, God is not magic. Counterpoint 2: "The Theory... A single or two Unstable Black Holes Colliding..." If this theory is true, then where did either of these black holes come from? Did they simply pop up out of nowhere? Does this not also violate the Law of Conservation of Energy? If this is true, then God created this black hole/these black holes. And I will point again to John 4:24. Counterpoint 3: The theory of evolution's many unseen flaws are shown here: http://www.ldolphin.org... If we did not evolve, Then it is required for God to exist because we must have been created. Conclusion: God is not governed by laws that humans made, you still can't prove otherwise how the universe came to be, and there is scientific proof that we did not evolve.
Resolved: God's Existence Does Not Entirely Violate Science

Thanks Pro for this Impromptu Debate XD~I will demonstrate clearly that there is no place for Magic/God in Science and there can never Be a Scientific Theory that includes God. Because a scientific concept that includes God cannot possibly be Scientific.Firstly a rebuttal of Pro's opening points: Point 1: Pro states: "The Big Bang could not have happened without God. It violates the law of conservation of energy, which states that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed."Firstly: In that Case God itself violates the law of Conservation of Energy in that energy cannot be CREATED.Secondly: The source of the Big Bang as far as Science is concerned is a Big Honest, Don't Know?As science never professes to be able to answer everything, and something that occurred billions of years ago is a big ask for any study to predict or determine a reason for the event.The Theory That Our Universe Is Simply The Product Of a single or two Unstable Black Holes Colliding to Form an Explosive Singularity.Though the God Did It Concept totally and definitely violates the Conservation of Energy Law.http://www.nature.com...http://www.dailygalaxy.com...Point 2: Pro states: "The theory of evolution states that life originated from non-organic matter."No it does not, Evolution only deals with changes in living organisms.Though I will tackle Abiogenesis, which is not far from proving the nonsense of Biogenesis wrong and how Cell theory is irrelevant later.http://evolution.berkeley.edu... http://www.patheos.com... http://www.colorado.edu...Here is a little clip about God Creating the Universe:http://www.youtube.com...Thanks again Pro.Enjoy!!! XD~
Resolved: God's Existence Does Not Entirely Violate Science

I will be arguing that science can support God's existence and surprisingly, REQUIRES God to exist. Examples: 1. The Big Bang could not have happened without God. It violates the law of conservation of energy, which states that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed. How do I know I am not contradicting myself? Because scientific laws only apply to physical beings (i.e. Us). God is a spiritual being (John 4:14) and is all-powerful, so physical law cannot apply to Him. 2. The theory of evolution states that life originated from non-organic matter. This violates not only Biogenesis, the scientific belief that living matter can come only from other living matter, but also the cell theory, which states that "all living things are made of cells" and that "all cells come from preexisting cells." Additionally, it claims that many rocks collided and formed earth. If so, how did that happen? Did they randomly pop up where they would orbit the sun? One could say that God made them. But again, God is omnipotent, so He can make things happen that scientists would never believe. I have shown that there is room for God in science. Your turn, Sagey.
Edward Snowden was correct to leak NSA activity to the public

This event has been a VERY touchy debate - so much so, that the rift in opinions and clashes in quite broad. In this retrospect, I will post why Edward Snowden was wrong to leak the classified documents. First point - Edward Snowden made the decision to release such classified documents, knowing full well he would break the Espionage Act. This can be a life sentence imprisonment or even possibly the death penalty. He would also be charged with treason. The point here - Edward Snowden did in fact betray everyone he worked for, and can be considered a criminal. Whether you believe he was a Martyr is beside the point, he still betrayed the very thing he was suppose to keep secret and protect. You made this statement; "but they should have made known their agenda first" - This I believe to be VERY wrong. The point in Intelligence gathering, is to NOT be transparent on HOW you're gathering it, and WHY you're gathering it. If the NSA came out to the public and stated they are tracking suspected terrorists in the state of New York - so there may be data collection of mobile phones or emails of people who have made contact of this person, this would defeat the purpose of having an Intelligence Agency in the first place. From a moral point of view, I see your point. In a Liberal way, people shouldn't be spied on - which has also clashed with Privacy Acts. Countries all across the world spy on one another, whether that be allies or enemies and has been happening for centuries. The U.S has VERY good reason to know what is happening inside places like the Euro-zone, despite them being allies. Has anyone taken into account that Russia probably spies on nations as well? Hell - they had spies in Syria, who are supposedly meant to be an ally of Russia. I see it as this - If you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn't have a problem. It is not like the NSA just decides to browse through your history to see what you have been looking up. They have to have warrants and a decent level of permission to spy on people in the U.S. And as they have defended, they gather Intelligence on people suspected of committing or have been in contact with someone who has committed in criminal activities. I would much rather the NSA do their job well, than let another 9/11 happen. What would the public reaction be then? If the NSA made everything they do transparent, and a terrorist attack happens, will people still have the mind-set of "Why didn't you see this coming?!". We live in an age that is turning to computing, softwares, internet, wires e.t.c. - there has to be some degree or order and collection. So in conclusion - That may have been a wall of text thrown about the place, but in the end, Edward Snowden I feel created more damage than anything. That doesn't have to be immediate damage, if everyone knows what the U.S is doing, it has the potential to endanger lives.
Edward Snowden was correct to leak NSA activity to the public

Firstly, a government makes decisions on what is best FOR the people with the approval of the people AS WELL. I feel that any activity that will concern the people in either way should receive feedback from the people. the NSA claims that their surveillance was to prevent terrorist attacks and crimes. but they should have made known their agenda first. furthermore, the USA may be spying on everyone. foes friends allies etc which should not be the case
On average who is smarter men (Pro) or women (Con)

The points my opponent points out are all well and good with only one problem their all conjecture. For how exactly do you measure a average intelligence of a gender, with a IQ test, a analyse of topical conversations, or some other type of measurement. My opponent has not given any proof behind his claims and merely says that women are less smart because of his social interactions. For me personally girls in my school are smarter than boys on their tests but these again are not the only measures of intelligence. Also how will you account for a lack of education because women are unfortunately far less likely to receive a education. Although their have been studies that have found women smarter than men http://www.livescience.com... I would ask the instigator of the debate decide what is the bar that measures intelligence for as far as I,m aware talking about the news or the weather doesn't indicate weather you are smart or stupid.
On average who is smarter men (Pro) or women (Con)

1. Intelligence is the measure of both a person brain power (I. e. mental abilities) and logical frame work in which information is stored. I will start by arguing that the latter is weaker in women than it is in men. The average women is more concern by want others think of her than the average men. She is therefore more likely to believe what other tell her is truth since she will be more fearful that challenging there position could bridge a gap between them and her. Because social acceptance is more important to women than truth, in contrast to men, they will end up cluttering more their mind with fallacies which will result in a thought process which is less consistent with itself. The average conversation revolves around intellectually-trivial points such as mundane events, the news (which is often bias), the weather, games, school grades, office work, etc. Therefore, having a conversation with the average person does not enhance ones intellect. Women, on average, tend to socialise much more than men therefore they tend to spend more time on this non-intellectual activities. In addition, in order to develop ones critical thinking one must practice it. Since, they are more complacent, on average, they will be less likely to try to find the logical inconsistencies of the statement on other. Therefore, they will have a weaker ability to filter out bad information.
On average who is smarter men (Pro) or women (Con)

This section will b in all caps because I do not want my opponent to misrepresent me once again I HAVE ASKED YOU IN EVERY SINGLE DEBATE ROUND WHAT YOU DEFINE AS INTELLIGENCE YET EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU HAVE NOT EXPLAINED WHAT YOU CONSIDER INTELLIGENCE AND HAS ONLY TRASHED MY QUESTIONS ON WHAT YOU CONSIDER INTELLIGENCE BY CALLING THEM UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS Seeing as this is the last round I will now list every reason I can think of on why men are smarter than women which I have not done previously because my opponent has not and still has not defined what he considers intelligence 1.recent studies done have show that on average women have higher IQ's then men seeing as my opponent has not provided a opposing source to debate the topic that men's IQ's are lower then I suppose that men are not as smart as women 2.Men play more sports than women statistically and would thus have less time for schoolwork and the intellectual discussions that my opponent claims that men have http://www.gvsu.edu... 3. Women are statistically more likely to graduate college http://cnsnews.com... 4."My opponent has no supported his position or refuted mine. He has merely argued incessantly about the difference between empiricism and rationalism." yes because you have failed to define what you consider to be intelligence 5. Women are statistically more likely to get higher grades than men http://www.nytimes.com... 6. Women have been proven to multitask better than men http://www.livescience.com... 7.My apologizes viewers for taking so long to do this but I had hoped that my opponent would define what he considered as intelligence in order to narrow the specific focus of the debate -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And on a personal note I accepted this debate to see evidence that men were smarter than women but all I got were a series of conjectures P.S. The arguments do not represent my opinion seeing as I'm a man
On average who is smarter men (Pro) or women (Con)

"Seeing as this is not the case sources would significantly strengthen your argument." -> Merely claiming that there is an error without any justification is pointless. This is a debate and as such my arguments should be viewed in respect to yours. It is therefore your responsibility to show if I am making fallacies. Unsupported claim: "opinionated argument that we are having now." -> The arguments I put forward follow a logical frame work. If they were fallacies you should of pointed out why instead of claiming that they are "opinionated arguments. Summary My opponent has no supported his position or refuted mine. He has merely argued incessantly about the difference between empiricism and rationalism. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ On a personal note: I would of liked for my opponent to make some arguments that defend his position instead of just claim that both sex are equal. If this is his only argument why did he even accept the debate? PS. The arguments represented in this debate are not necessarily the views of the debater.
On average who is smarter men (Pro) or women (Con)

"If something is true even if it is not back up by an authority it still remains true. If something is false even if it is back up by an authority it still remains false. Therefore a logically consistent ideas do not necessarily need a source to back it up. However, reliable sources do add credibility to an argument" This would imply that what you are saying is completely true without any room for error.Seeing as this is not the case sources would significantly strengthen your argument. I'd also like to point out that you still have yet to have used sources to support your argument. Also the school of rationalism would imply that the reasoning being used is objective not a opinionated argument that we are having now I unfortunately have no more time to continue this debate round so I once again ask my opponent to clarify what he defines as intelligence. Whether multiple independent variables affecting women defines their intelligence. Such as education. And find a source such as I have that finds men with a higher IQ than Women and sited it don't just say "many studies".