BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God doesn't exist

1.universe- all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago. Source- https://www.google.co.in... exist- live, especially under adverse conditions https://www.google.co.in... Come on, we both know the universe exists. The definition itself says it is all that exists. The universe exists as God is the creator of the universe. If you say Big Bang created the universe, then the Big Bang was God. God doesn't necessarily have to be a person, our feeble minds are incapable of understanding him. God oversees all forms of creation, and he doesn't intervene as we are nothing but an experiment to him. Cosmological argument- P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. P2: The universe begins to exist. C1: Therefore, the universe has a cause. P3: There was no time, space, change, materiality or anything abstract prior to the universe. P4: Hence, this cause must be without time, space, change, and materiality. C2: Such a cause is God, who exists. Teleological Argument P1: If the universe is finely tuned, then an ordering intellect exists. P2: The universe is finely tuned. C: An ordering intellect exists Summary== (1) God exists as he is the one and only Creator. (2) Universe building requires an intelligent and powerful being, and that being is God. Source-http://www.debate.org...
Native American Mascots

I feel that Native American Mascots should not be changed. The mascots are a representation of the tribe itself and a connection between what this country used to be to what it is now. Also, the Native American Mascot means more than just a tough look and sound to the team, but also gives a meaning towards the tribe. The Mascot also shows awareness for the tribe in current situations. In some interventions between schools/ team owners and tribe leaders, the tribe leaders find it offensive that the team would want to change the name to something unrelated to the Native people.
Native American Mascots

I would like to apologize beforehand because I may rant a bit.Rebuttals"mascots are a representation of the tribe"Evidence? "connection between what this country used to be"How is this good in anyway? "what this country use to be" was disgusting and racist. We slaughtered the Native Americans. It was a genocide! We enslaved them and killed them. This is the most insenstive argument that could be made. In the words of Christopher Columbus "They ... brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks' bells. ... They would make fine servants.... With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want." They were giving gifts and the first thing Columbus thinks of is enslavments. According to Howard Zinn, a professor of Boston University says "When the Spaniards took prisoners they hanged them or burned them to death. Among the Arawaks, mass suicides began, with cassava poison. Infants were killed to save them from the Spaniards. In two years, through murder, mutilation, or suicide, half of the 250,000 Indians on Haiti were dead." Why should we keep something that reminds us of a destrutive brutal period in history? http://www.historyisaweapon.com..."also gives a meaning towards the tribe."See last point. Also in the example of the Redskins, that name is a degragtory term of Native Americans with the streotypical Native American, is disgraceful. It's being racist at best. Would it be meaning for to the African-American community if there was a team called the "Washington Niggers/Negros" (the term they used for Africans in colonial times) with a picture of a shaved African with generic tribal tattoos?"The Mascot also shows awareness for the tribe in current situations."Sports teams are businesses. What do they have to gain for raising awareness of Native Americans stuck in their tiny reservation? Can you show any evidence that shows these mascots alerting the crowds about the cycle of poverty they're stuuck in? Also as I mentioned, these mascots are a streotypical portrayal and if anything, it reinforces common misconceptions. "the tribe leaders find it offensive that the team would want to change the name to something unrelated to the Native people."They should be overjoyed! Refer to everything I say.ArgumentI feel that the mascot should be changed so it actually represents the Native American community, and if that's not possible to remove it. They're stuck deep in a hole without these mascot.
Evolution is true

Your quotes and links can not match my skill level I am very sure that you copied and pasted half that stuff. In consideration of that, I wish that you would please type everything. Thank you. Evolution is fake- how did they evolve? A deformed lizard, then a monkey that's way to tall, then peach colored spear holders? How can that compare to the Bible, which over 15 religions believe in? Fact is, this is opinion. However, I want everyone on my side. Thank you for letting me into this debate. I do wish to remind you I am a beginner.
Evolution is true

I am sorry to say that your links don't actually make a dent in evolution. Here are some of the well known examples: 1. UCG Fossils The absence of transitional forms is actually not true. We have found many, but deniers of evolution work like this. Anti-Evolution: Where's the transitional form between A and C? Scientist: We've found transitional form B between A and C Anti-Evolution: Hah! Where's the transitional form between A and B and between B and C? 2. HumansAreFree Random Here's a quote: Time does not make impossible things possible. As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly. What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Never in eternity! Time does not make impossible things possible. (...) This is the assumption that you just randomly type stuff until you get what you want. This is false: evolution works like as follows: 1. Randomly type stuff 2. Keep the letters that are in the correct position 3. Repeat This has been shown to take not that much time at all. 3. HumansAreFree Birds Here's another (false) quote: One of the best examples of evolution nonsense is the thought that a wingless bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable to his environment. The first wing stubs would be much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve wing stubs that are useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary theory of natural selection, which states that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. See: In this video, it is shown that half a wing can protect animals from fall. Thus, Natural Selection chooses half a wing over no wing. 4. ICR 2nd Law This is a common misconception about the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Gaining entropy only happens in a isolated area. However, the earth isn't isolated. The key thing here is the sun. The sun has produced light and heat to reverse entropy on earth. 5. ICR Anti-Creationism Here's the reason why we are opposed to creationism: It has barely any evidence. This would be like pre-1969 years where a religion said the moon is made out of green cheese. Sure, we didn't know if it was, but there was a lot of evidence refuting that the moon was made out of green cheese. One last thing: if you were to search up all of those transitional forms in Wikipedia, just about all of them would be legitimate.
Evolution is true

It is obvious you have done your research, so kudos for that, my competitor. Although, I have done research of my own. Of course, I would start out with the Bible. Please do not stop reading here, voters, if you do not believe. Hear me out. There have been "fossils" of bibles, found around charcoal, used as pencils, parchment and blankets for listening to sermons. Even dated back to where they think the world began. I can prove that evolution is fake without the Bible, as many people have different religions. Take a look at these links: http://www.ucg.org... http://humansarefree.com... http://www.icr.org... Also, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, because people can easily change it. Thank you for reading! I await my competitors comeback. I am still ding more research.
Evolution is true

First of all, evolution is backed up by many discoveries and scientific papers. Here are two discoveries backing evolution: 1. Fossil Record The fossil record includes numerous fossils showing evolution. From tiktaalik to Australopithecus garhi, it is clear that evolution is a fact. 2. Pseudogenes Pseudogenes are like normal DNA code except that they are deactivated from a mutation. It is much like a spelling error in a book or a misplaced island on a map. If two species have the same pseudogene, it is very strong evidence for common descent, one of the key factors for evolution. Here is one more link that will basically sum up evolution's vast collection of evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Humanities are an important part of any Education Curriculum

Thank you for understanding, Pfalcon. DONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTEDONOTVOTE
The Humanities are an important part of any Education Curriculum

I doubt any of that will be a problem, given Pfalcon's history of being an honorable opponent. There are a couple of important definitions for this debate. .. Humanities- subjects relating to the study of human culture; generally includes art, architecture, music, literature, the performing arts, and the history of each of those subjects. Important- of great valueEducation Cirriculum- subjects included in a course of study at a school or universityI look forward to a great debate! Good luck, Pfalcon :)
the earth is 6000 years old

I accept. There is a 750 character limit so I'll have to be brief. My opponent is responsible for shouldering the burden of proof in showing his assertion that the Earth is 6000 years old is true. I'd like to request a source from my opponent for his moon theory.There are several pieces of evidence that give credit to an Earth older than 6000 years. As the character limits won't allow me to go in depth into each piece of evidence, I'll include a source link which lists and describes evidence for an old Earth:http://rationalwiki.org...There are no comparable pieces of evidence for an Earth younger than 6000 years old. As such, we can reasonably assume that the Earth is not 6000 years old, but much older.
the earth is 6000 years old

The gravitational pull of the moon creates a "tidal bulge" on earth that causes the moon to spiral outwards very slowly. Because of this effect, the moon would have been closer to the earth in the past. Based on gravitational forces and the current rate of recession, we can calculate how much the moon has moved away over time. If the earth is only 6,000 years old, there"s no problem, because in that time the moon would have only moved about 800 feet (250 m). But most astronomy books teach that the moon is over four billion years old, which poses a major dilemma"less than 1.5 billion years ago the moon would have been touching the earth!
We are the main focus of God

If God will punish sinners, then believe it, WE ARE SINNERS. Stealing, murdering, warring, deception, manipulation, I don't think he wanted his creation to do all this and more. I wholeheartedly agree. He never wanted for His creation to do such evil, but he gave his creation the free will to do evil. You contradict yourself, you say he will do justice yet when the matter comes to you you make up the excuse of benevolence. God will be frustrated by this. You falsely assume that justice is eradication of those who do evil, instead of actualizing one's ability to abstain from it. This kind of argument goes the same for God's existence, for there is little evidence for him yet he can't be disproved. Since in this debate we are believing in God, we'll have to accept this as well. While I disagree that this argument could possibly apply to God, in that I believe that there is sufficient evidence, you are correct in saying that God's existence is assumed when dealing with the issue of God having us as His main focus. With that being said, you have not sufficed your own BoP for this claim that animals believe in God. Therefore, this argument is to be thrown out. We didn't actually make our self, so the credit as the apex species will go to Creator, not us. You may say we are not insignificant, but I speak from God's eyes. He would be saying 'Puny little humans wasting time debating and arguing. If only they'll give that time to my planet. Of course the credit goes to the Creator, but it shows that we are significant to the Creator for creating us. You have not sufficed your BoP to show that these would be the words of God. I don't say that God would improve upon humans, I say he would create an entirely more responsible, intelligent and good species. Anyways, there are many features that can be improved. One would be our physical prowess, for the early man was pretty weak with no claws or sharp teeth. Another is laziness. Far too many people have become unproductive these days. Creatures which need far lesser recreation than us, and who can work longer and more efficiently without getting disinterested. You have not shown that God would create a more responsible, intelligent, and good species. Early man was adaptable without both traits. This is why the man wore the lion, with its sharp teeth and claws. Laziness is a trait which is dependent upon one person or another. I asked for an objective trait. My opponent has not given us any good reasons to accept any of his claims.
We are the main focus of God

If God will punish sinners, then believe it, WE ARE SINNERS. Stealing, murdering, warring, deception, manipulation, I don't think he wanted his creation to do all this and more. 'Again, God is omnibenevolent. He could never destroy his creation entirely or change them' You contradict yourself, you say he will do justice yet when the matter comes to you you make up the excuse of benevolence. God will be frustrated by this. 'We do not know how to communicate with animals, for they don't make strange sounds for nothing. What if they too believe in a God, only lack the intelligence to make a statue of him or something?' You're making the greater claim here by asserting that which cannot be disproven in absence of evidence in support of your claim. That is, of course, if you do claim that animals believe in God. If you do not, then you have made no point. This kind of argument goes the same for God's existence, for there is little evidence for him yet he can't be disproved. Since in this debate we are believing in God, we'll have to accept this as well. 'How puny are we really, if we came up with the Marvel universe? You're not insignificant. You're the result of 4 billion years of evolution. Fifty sextillion planets in our Universe and yet you are the apex species on one with actual life. You are not insignificant. ' We didn't actually make our self, so the credit as the apex species will go to Creator, not us. You may say we are not insignificant, but I speak from God's eyes. He would be saying 'Puny little humans wasting time debating and arguing. If only they'll give that time to my planet.' 'As comparative to what God could create, show me one feature which could be improved upon from humanity, objectively speaking.' I don't say that God would improve upon humans, I say he would create an entirely more responsible, intelligent and good species. Anyways, there are many features that can be improved. One would be our physical prowess, for the early man was pretty weak with no claws or sharp teeth. Another is laziness. Far too many people have become unproductive these days. Creatures which need far lesser recreation than us, and who can work longer and more efficiently without getting disinterested. Although it seems this debate has slide off the resolution already.
We are the main focus of God

Then why do I hear God will punish sinners? Where is his great benevolence gone now?God punishes because he is benevolent. God would be a God absent of justice if he allowed sin to go unpunished. We do not know how to communicate with animals, for they don't make strange sounds for nothing. What if they too believe in a God, only lack the intelligence to make a statue of him or something?What if, what if. I will stand by the belief that dolphins are not trying to warn me about the end times unless evidence shows otherwise. You're making the greater claim here by asserting that which cannot be disproven in absence of evidence in support of your claim. That is, of course, if you do claim that animals believe in God. If you do not, then you have made no point. Why not? We are an imperfect species, and we have a bit of the God as well as the Devil in us. Won't he prefer much more loyal and good species to take over the reins of the Earth? Certainly God doesn't appreciate the development of atheism in his very own creation, if that is what you say.Again, God is omnibenevolent. He could never destroy his creation entirely or change them. Again, we do not know if animals have prayers or not. Plants can't speak or even move, so that is a dead end. Plus why would God associate himself with us mortals and our little candles/flowers? He hasn't shown himself on the Earth on this modern time, why would he bother with materialistic things if he is the CREATOR? He can create ANYTHING, so why will he care about puny humans and Earth when he can even make Marvel universe come alive?How puny are we really, if we came up with the Marvel universe? You're not insignificant. You're the result of 4 billion years of evolution. Fifty sextillion planets in our Universe and yet you are the apex species on one with actual life. You are not insignificant. As comparative to what God could create, show me one feature which could be improved upon from humanity, objectively speaking.
We are the main focus of God

Omni-benevolent- Then why do I hear God will punish sinners? Where is his great benevolence gone now? 'I also do not think it reasonable to assume that God would have to answer to the prayers of organisms who do not have the capacity to conceive of Him' We do not know how to communicate with animals, for they don't make strange sounds for nothing. What if they too believe in a God, only lack the intelligence to make a statue of him or something? 'Concerning the last argument, of course He could not make Human 2.0, unless He eliminates that which makes us human.' Why not? We are an imperfect species, and we have a bit of the God as well as the Devil in us. Won't he prefer much more loyal and good species to take over the reins of the Earth? Certainly God doesn't appreciate the development of atheism in his very own creation, if that is what you say. 'Finally, in an attempt to show that we are the main focus of God... It seems much more logical for God to concern Himself with the species that can worship Him' Again, we do not know if animals have prayers or not. Plants can't speak or even move, so that is a dead end. Plus why would God associate himself with us mortals and our little candles/flowers? He hasn't shown himself on the Earth on this modern time, why would he bother with materialistic things if he is the CREATOR? He can create ANYTHING, so why will he care about puny humans and Earth when he can even make Marvel universe come alive?
We are the main focus of God

I think that we should understand that God is, by nature, omnibenevolent. Therefore, no matter how much His creation does wrong, He would still love them. I also do not think it reasonable to assume that God would have to answer to the prayers of organisms who do not have the capacity to conceive of Him. Concerning the last argument, of course He could not make Human 2.0, unless He eliminates that which makes us human. Finally, in an attempt to show that we are the main focus of God... It seems much more logical for God to concern Himself with the species that can worship Him.
Abortion is ethically justifiable

CLOSING ARGUMENT Abortion is far from ethical. It is evil, in that it is the taking of life. It touches on a larger issue, sexual licentiousness. If you arent female, and have sex with a male, you cant get pregnant by accident. So what we are looking at is the justification of out of wedlock sex, through being able to abort after a supposed MISTAKE was made. CONTRACEPTION IS WRONG If we look at the chemicals and devices that man uses, including condoms, they are all wrong; the exception would be a vasectomy, perhaps. * The pill can cause major physical and mental problems in girls and women * IUDs can cause sterlization and other physical problems * Condoms prevent true sensation, and arent guaranteed to prevent STDs SEXUAL OBJECIFICATION IS WRONG The devaluing of th human female, and debasement of the culture, the teaching to children of sexual licentiousness at a young age and improper parenting are causing unwanted preganancies. If is is clear that if abortion is much harder to get, for example you may have to leave the state to get one, it will create a climate that MAKES children and adults behave more responsibly. Sex will be treated as MUCH more serious, which is SHOULD BE. As a MAN, you should NOT have sex with any woman who you are not committed to and prepared to make a baby. And nonetheless to be a REAL MAN, you need to have CONTROL over yourself. If men CONTROL themselves, there will be NO unwanted pregnancy. Again, this is a matter of CONTROL over YOURSELF. Thus, this is a further argument for abortion to be a state issue, and it be possible to BAN abortion, except in the case of rape or the life of the mother. MY ABORTION POLICY (1) Overturn ROE v WADE, and make it a STATE issue. States can ban, or condone abortion at their discretion. Horrendous practices, like late term abortion, or the murder of a live infant , can by punishable by jail or fines, or both. (2) Make adoption very profitable for the donor mother make this a state and federal priority. provide free services for poor mothers. Make it clear the EVERY CHILD IS WANTED and that there are MULTIPLE wonderful families waiting to adopt ,and that abortion is harmful, risky, and expensive. (3) Have counseling and support services for pregnant women who need help, as well as prenatal counseling and support services. SOALRMAN