BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evidence for macro evolution

Theist_1998, over the years scientists have come up with different ways to test the age of rocks, trees, or other matter. Obviously some have worked better than others, but the latest one has worked quite well. According to www.space.com, "In the early 20th century, scientists refined the process of radiometric dating. Earlier research had shown that isotopes of some radioactive elements decay into other elements at rates that can be easily predicted. By examining the existing elements, scientists can calculate the initial quantity, and thus how long it took for the elements to decay, allowing them to determine the age of the rock." In simpler words, since they know how each radioactive isotope decays and what it can decay into, it is easy to fill the gap with how long each stage of decay takes. Also, because the process is predictable, this method is very consistent. The proof for this is that there is simply no scientific evidence that disproves it. There is no way to see that far into the past through other humans but by taking what they know about isotopes and their decay, scientist have come up with a way to date the Earth with extremely little room for error. Everything they have done has been proven and proven again without a scientifically based doubt. Therefore, what scientists have agreed is that the Earth is about 4.54 billion years old. This age is consistent with the age of the moon and other bodies in our solar system. To answer your question asking why the Earth being made in 6 days shouldn't be taken literally I would say this. First of all, it is scientifically disproven; no arguments are happening among the people who date the Earth, Christian or not. Second of all, if this is taken literally, who's to say everything else in the Bible is to be taken literally. For example, in Matthew it is said that "If your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. " I'm sure we could agree this verse is illustrating to humans how serious it is to sin. It is not telling you to actually gouge your eye out. In conclusion I must ask you: How old is the Earth in your opinion and where is your proof? What other source than the Bible, which I believe you have misinterpreted, supports your claims?
Evidence for macro evolution

Theist_1998, I must disagree with your claim on macro evolution. I do believe in God but I do not believe He created the universe in 6, 24 hour days. For this to be true the Earth would have to be about 5,000 years old. This is obviously not the case as most rocks are lots older than this. There are even trees that date back father than this if you follow the line of Adam and Eve. Thus, I have come to the reasoning that God created the universe, but was not meant to be taken literally in that he created the universe in a span of 144 hours.
Paris Hilton is the WWE Heavyweight Champion

In Detroit, everybody's hungry, trying to hustle In Detroit, nobody's got a deal with Russell In Detroit, you'll be lucky if your not a victim of a shooting In Detroit, crack-head zombies still prostituting In Detroit, where the underground rap don't get played On the airwaves unless, pull or push men got payed In Detroit - [EXPLETIVE DELETED], you ain't even from Detroit [EXPLETIVE DELETED] your rap, 7 mile is where the hustlers at In Detroit, ain't no [EXPLETIVE DELETED] freestylin', ain't no time for that Got twenty-fours on the eighty-four Regal and I'm grindin' Detroit, know my name, in Detroit, it's cocaine In Detroit, don't play no ho games they'll blow out your brains.
Ultimate "wrong" or "right"

It's all quite interesting. Perhaps right and wrong are related only to ethics. But animals don't have right or wrong. Only "what I do/don't want" and "is/isn't beneficial to my survival." Can't dogs and other intelligent animals understand what a separate individual wants? Or even just whether they do or don't? What do they classify an action as if they know another animal does not desire it? Not "wrong," but simply unwanted. Most humans would say that urinating on the carpet is "wrong." That's not what a pet would think. The pet would only be influenced by encouragement or punishment, not morals or ethics.
Ultimate "wrong" or "right"

[I am somewhat coming to a conclusion suggesting that the only things correct are ultimate laws of matter/universe whether we discovered and perceived them yet/correctly or not.] The incorrect answers on your test were not "wrong." They were simply not the answers your answer key or teacher had in store. You would simply have to elaborate specifically what was "wrong" and exactly why it was "wrong." You see, the things taking place during a test, are molecules and atoms reacting with certain forces and other bodies of matter. The answers and attempts for the test are not tangible. They are not matter. What can be "wrong" or "right" in this occasion?
Ultimate "wrong" or "right"

In case there's any confusion. I am saying that there isn't a wrong or right. Universally and beyond, wrong and right do not exist. There is no such thing. Humans and organizations classify situations and actions by using the words "wrong" and "right" but those are nothing more than vocalizations and sound waves, words in a document, or ideas in the mind. It is technically false when someone declares anything to be right or wrong. Any occurrence is of natural means and cosmic law. What happens in any situation is the result of organic energy and atomic/molecular reaction, and human interaction falls within it all. For humans to decide whether certain events should or shouldn't happen for any reason, then that is only another example of matter reacting with matter.
"Anger can be a good moral motivation"

Is it not anger that someone feels when a loved one is harmed or in danger?, it is the first thing someone feels when they feel they have been wronged. Anger is a color of life, it is an additive that is built into every persons mind that comes out in times of need. Anger and "The need to act" based off of a wrongful death of a family member are two different feelings that yield the very same result. one person calls it duty and the other calls it revenge, this quote best defines this situation "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter"
"Anger can be a good moral motivation"

Seneca doesn"t believe that anger can be a good basis for moral motivation for the following reasons: 1)Virtues are intrinsically good on their own. Vices, especially negative ones, aren"t necessary. 2)Anger is just courage with a lowercase "c". 3)The motivation that anger is described as is actually honor and duty. 4)Anger is something that is uncontrollable and willfully disobedient. The best way to deal with anger is to not allow it to fester and swell, for then it is most dangerous and least likely to be surmounted. Seneca"s argument underlines the duplicity in anger. Anger though claimed to be the fire that ignites courage is actually perceived to be more of a charlatan from Seneca"s point of view. Seneca claims that a virtue is suffice on its own. Any alteration made to this, possesses qualities and characteristics that anger lacks such as precision and tranquility. A virtue is given its name for its intrinsically good nature and positive disposition. It would be paradoxical to claim that something as unstable and irrational as anger is sufficient to satisfy as its parallel. Furthermore, Seneca claims that the "anger" we feel in the case of loved ones being wronged is actually our sense of duty that manifests. We act as we see fit. Your mother is being attacked. You defend your mother. In the event that you fail, you avenging your mother"s death is just you seeking your own justice. Your devotion to the woman that brought you into the world should be enough of a stimulus for revenge. To just simply be angered about the death is weak, especially if no defense was put up or an attempt to seek justice after the fact. The difference between anger and devotion is that one is calculated and done in the right setting, for the right reasons against the right person as opposed to anger which is just an impulse, thought justified but yields no intended purpose. Lastly, the defense built around the idea that anger provides the extra enthusiasm necessary for a fight is crazy. It provides enthusiasm, but to what end? The result of fighting angry works against you, blinding you with emotion, crippling your rationality and stripping you down to your most vulnerable state. Anger is in the league of liquid courage, Frenzy, Lunacy and anything else that induces or illicit reactions that you weren"t brave enough to have to begin with. Being angry, drunk, frenzied and crazed all lead down the same path. Is anger then really that effective to your cause?
The teaching of creationism should be banned in all public schools.

Thanks to pro for his response.Religious subjects vary in some countries. For example, the Philippines, a Catholic country, teaches Christian Living Education for all Christians, the other students with different Religions either go out or join in. In some parts of Europe, Religion is taught as a subject for Christians, and the non-Christians go out the classroom and attend some other subject then eventually have their own Religion as a subject. I don't see how we 'force' them, and it's not like they're hurting each other. When a school has a 'school mass' to celebrate an event, the students are given a choice to either join or not. Not forced. People have their own choices, freedom and privilege to Religion. Let's just respect that.Also, Religion is a fact. History tells us so; artifacts, scriptures, ancient teachings. The fact is very clear. It has played a major role in society.Pro's case is somewhat lacking backup and needs more convincing arguments to refute my line of reasoning. Thank you.
The teaching of creationism should be banned in all public schools.

Now, I'd like to point out that I agree that this topic is too broad and I noticed you haven't posted enough arguments to support your claim that Creationism isn't educational. Also, I'm not sure which public schools, so I'll argue public schools worldwide instead. Yes, Creationism isn't proven by science but Grammar and Civics can't be proven by Science too but it's still educational. Creationism is an educational topic and vitally important to Christian Education or religious subjects, which are taught in most public schools worldwide. Creationism can be taught in the Religion classes, not nescessarily in Science classes. But according to an article (1), that Michael Reiss, a scientist of Royal Society, urged that Creationism should be taught in science classes as a legitimate point of view, he said that it would be better, to treat creationism as a world view. Done for now, good luck to my opponent. (1) . http://www.timesonline.co.uk...
I feared for my life so I killed an unarmed person

The two were the same height, but I've only seen Wilson reported as 210 pounds. Still a big guy, but 80 pounds is quite a big difference. After Michael Brown's case, it was proven that he did in fact reach into Officer Wilson's car, assault him, then reach for his firearm. I'm having a hard time thinking of someone who wouldn't fear for their lives. This video shows that Brown started charging back at Wilson. In Freddie Gray's case, I don't think that pertains to your argument. That was just one instance of police abusing their authority. And that's an interesting question. Police have dashcams now, and the, by law, show their badge to prove they're not an impostor. If a man or woman not in uniform pulled a gun on me, and did not show their badge, I as a citizen protecting myself can shoot to kill. The court would be able to prove that if all the evidence fits that description.
I feared for my life so I killed an unarmed person

I am fully aware of what media reports and understand why they do it. I've always believed it to not be a white vs black thing. Of course the media wants it to be that. that's irrelevant because we both agree the media doest help. In the case you referenced, yes Mr.Brown was 6'4 290 but let's be clear Darren Wilson wasn't a small guy himself. So as far your argument for nt being able to deal with browns size is your opinion. Wilson was 6'4 210-250 from what I've read. All you have to do is Google police use of fear for my life. You'll find plenty articles. Yes It is easy to say that if you don't commit a crime then you don't have to worry. But in case like Freddie gray which in he wasn't shot he didn't do anything. He ran from police. It wasn't a traffic stop he was minding his business. So it doesn't matter at any give time you could have a run in. Just basically you match the description. http://m.nydailynews.com... just because you used him. I do agree the media won't report stories of good police compared to questionable police. One more thing just s theory I've been think about. Say you sit in your car or doing what ever. You are a licenced ccw holder. An unidentified person/persons approaches you aggressively gun drawn in you shoot them. The unidentified person was a cop do we as citizens have the right to claim we felt threatened or feared for our life. Its well documented of the use of the phrase.
I feared for my life so I killed an unarmed person

Well the first thing you have to realize is that the media is very skewed to the left and loves to report on police shootings. It makes it even better for the media when it happens to be an unarmed black man. Also, they're trained to use nonlethal force only when the suspect does not pose as a deadly threat. In the case of the Michael Brown shooting, he did pose as a deadly threat. No person is prepared to deal with a six foot four, 290 pound man charging at you. I've also never heard the quote, "I feared for my life." If you could pull up an article of an officer saying that, that would be great. Officers are trained to protect those who are innocent. If you don't commit a crime, there's no need to worry. It's sad that you don't hear about the stories of an officer helping a black man, or when there was a clear reason for the cop to use deadly force. That doesn't play into what the media's beliefs are so they just happen not to report those stories.
I feared for my life so I killed an unarmed person

This is my first time. Hopefully I wont make myself look supid. But I really want to hear other people's stances on this. Okay... Its a shame that at least once a week you see a video o hear of a police officer killing someone. With the same played out excuse of I feared for my life as to justify a murder. I feel like us as citizens should be worried by this because they are trained to deal with situations like this. Knowing policeman have atleast 3 other options instead lethal force, why cant they explain their actions instead of pulling the "I feared for my life.
I feared for my life so I killed an unarmed person

In all these cases, the shootings were reviewed and the court gave the punishments or not. In Magee's case, he was considered innocent due to the facts that were in place. I'm sure that will also happen with Guy's case. However, in the case of any shooting, there will be a court case in place to prove the innocence or guilt of a certain person. You can't just drop charges from any sort of murder and that applies to anyone. In accordance to the "gawker" article, the evidence of that case showed that it was an airsoft gun, but the child took off the orange tip to prove it was fake. This was an extremely sad case, but airsoft guns are scarily realistic in the sense that they're modeled after real guns and made of metal as well. The child pointed the gun at the officer and that's when he got shot. It's really a tragic case, but children aren't innocent from horrific crimes either. https://www.pfoa.co.uk... http://www.cleveland.com... This is why "shoot to kill" is acceptable. However, I feel as if you're straying from your initial argument which was police officers using the excuse, "I feared for my life." The one story that had that was the Michael Brown case, and yes he didn't use nonlethal force. But you have to realize that non lethal force doesn't always work and if a man with clear, violent intents, is charging at you, you must protect yourself. Wilson wasn't "so quick" to shoot. He tried to chase after Brown, but when Brown turned around, Wilson shot. And he shot multiple times. In the YouTube video, the man recording said that Wilson was shooting, but he thought Wilson was missing because Brown kept charging. So if Brown didn't react to bullet wounds, do you think he would react more to a taser?
I feared for my life so I killed an unarmed person

Yes he was cleared of charges but based on what you said about their training. In any story I've read he never tried the non leathal way. We as citizens would fear for our lives but they are trained for this. It may be a training problem. I understand they are still human. But they are not on the front lines with marines fighting terrorism. Were I believe they should shoot first ask questions later. This the us I don't believe they be so quick to shoot an unarmed person. I have a few links for you to review. Some were police unjust shootings And some justified(persay) https://www.washingtonpost.com... http://gawker.com... https://www.washingtonpost.com... https://www.rt.com... The last link is is the most recent I've read about. I feel it will be unjust. Based off the specifics. I have one more link for you pertaining to the last question I asked you https://www.change.org... We just want some accountability for the police. I personally think we need to repair this relationship. We can't do it by ourselves. I appreciate this debate.
The United States of America is a Christian nation.

I wonder how the founding fathers would feel about that...... In specific, John Adams. Let's examine the treaty of Tripoli.. Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. And who was it signed by? John Adams Further, the United States Constitution has no mention of god or religion inside. The country was founded by people who wanted ANY religion to be practiced here be it Islam, Christianity, or some random third world religion we've all never heard of. "76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as Christian." That doesn't make the nation Christian, it makes the people who live INSIDE the nation Christian.
The United States of America is a Christian nation.

So I took this debate, not because I feel passionately about the fact that there a lot of christians in the US, but more to correct my opponents fallacious logic. With that, I will begin...... So I will be jumping around with my quotes to best represent what is most important..... "So someone prove to me that we are a Christian nation." --I need not prove anything to you, you are the one who instigated this debate. thus, the burden of proof is on you my friend. That is like you taking the con on whether or not aliens (from another planet, not country) exist. And telling the pro to prove it. Obviously the pro cant just go find an alien and say, "hey, here is an alien, I win." The con has to bring up some points as to why they don't exist. This is more theory than anything else, and if my opponent wishes to continue this argument, I would be more than happy to debate it, but lets now move on. "So, convince me." --Irrelevant and fits right into my point above, not to mention we aren't here to convince each other, we are here to convince the judges, it is almost a given we will both vote for ourselves. "Yet our nation was founded on the notion of being able to practice ANY religion." --Very true, however that does not mean that we are not a christian nation, a majority of people in america claim to be christian (which fits right in to your next point) "Not in terms of the majority of what people believe (many people believing one thing doesn't make it true)" --True that many people believing in something doesn't necessarily make it true. However, we are not debating whether or not Christianity is true, we are debating whether or not the US is a Christian nation. and with this statistic..... "76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as Christian." We can very much see that most americans are christians, and in a democracy, majority rules. Thus, america is a christian nation. Happy easter btw! :D 76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as Christian.
The United States of America is a Christian nation.

Wow, that was frustrating.... I was almost completely done with my argument, when I accidentally exited out of it...... Must do all over now....... Ok, so a brief summary of a very important point that my opponent missed before I hit what he did say. My opponent ignores the definition provided in round 2 of what a nation is, the people inside a country. So when my opponent keeps arguing that the government is christian, he is missing the point. We are talking about whether or not the people within the USA are christian or not, and with 3 out of every 4 people claiming to be christian, that answer is overwhelming yes. Thus, I have already won my side of the debate. Now, moving on to what he did say. "Our government is a representative one, since we are represented inside the government, but our government is secular, our nation is therefore rendered secular as well." --Falls into my last point, we are talking about people, not the government. If you wanted to argue whether or not the government was christian or not, you should have worded the resolution so. "Also, in a democracy, the majority doesn't get complete rule. If we did that then slavery would still be legal. The minorities must be protected as well." --Complete rule doesn't matter, the majority of people claim to be christian, thus the USA can considered to be a christian nation. "If a majority of americans eat cheese, it doesn't make us a cheese eating nation. It just means that we like cheese. Unless the government enforces it." --Um, yes it would. Again, we aren't talking about government, we are talking about the people. Look to the definition of 'nation'. "in a democracy, the people are represented THROUGH the government and since the government is secular....the people must be seen as secular." --Wow, I feel like I have seen this argument somewhere...... Just extend what I said earlier about this not being about the government, this about the people. With that, I shall summarize. My opponent tries to argue that nation = government. However, that is very untrue. A nation consists of the people within the country. 3 out of 4 people claim to be christian, we are a christian nation. I have effectively proved my opponent wrong. (as he has not proven anything in the round) My opponent never really stuck with the same argument and never clashed any of mine. With that, I ask the voters to vote on debate, not opinion. Thanks.
The United States of America is a Christian nation.

Our government is a representative one, since we are represented inside the government, but our government is secular, our nation is therefore rendered secular as well. Also, in a democracy, the majority doesn't get complete rule. If we did that then slavery would still be legal. The minorities must be protected as well. Another example... If a majority of americans eat cheese, it doesn't make us a cheese eating nation. It just means that we like cheese. Unless the government enforces it. in a democracy, the people are represented THROUGH the government and since the government is secular....the people must be seen as secular.