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

Please, let's be respectful of everyone involved in this debate from you and me down to the viewers and those who comment as I will aim to do the same. I did a little research centered around your persistent claim that "every scientist with qualification agrees with evolution." What I found was multiple petitions by scientists actually against evolution. Here's one that was noted by Evolution News and was specifically signed against Darwinian Evolution. The following passage is directly taken from the article [1]: "Over 500 doctoral scientists have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution. The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. The list of 514 signatories includes member scientists from the prestigious US and Russian National Academy of Sciences. Signers include 154 biologists, the largest single scientific discipline represented on the list, as well as 76 chemists and 63 physicists. Signers hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines. Many are professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as MIT, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, the Ohio State University, the University of Georgia, and the University of Washington." Please, allow me to clarify. I did not argue that "we cannot see evolution happening," rather, I argued that- and I quote- "we have not been able to accurately test and fully confirm the ideas behind Evolution, yet." To put it simply, the scientific community as a whole has not been able to trust and confirm these beliefs- as proven through the passage above. I am willing to believe you when you say that "we do know when the candle was lit" so long as you can prove HOW we do so. Yes, Dovind is a Creationist and has the biased motivation to persuade the audience of Creationism. However, I ask you- is it not a valid and reasonable question for anyone to say, regardless of their beliefs? Please, do watch it and you may find some interesting points that are worth considering. "We don't have to see it to know it's true." This is a common argument for religion- are you suggesting that Evolution is faith-based? Once again, the moths are an example of a hypothesis- they clearly state that it is a observation within the article entry, yet I have not yet found they have tested this hypothesis. They note how Sewall Wright argued that it is "the clearest case in which a conspicuous evolutionary process has actually been observed," for example. - Sources - [1] Evolution News, Robert L. Crowther, II, "Over 500 Scientists Proclaim Their Doubts About Darwin"s Theory of Evolution" https://evolutionnews.org...
KCA Debate

Ave.Modern day theists use the Kalam Cosmological Argument to establish the existence of god, who is defined as the timeless, spaceless, beginningless, immaterial, probably omnipotent, and personal cause of the universe. The argument has three premises.P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.P2: The universe began to exist.C: The universe had a cause.By deductive reasoning, that cause is established to be god. I want a theist to accept this debate and demonstrate the truth of the premises and the logical validity of the argument. The burden of proof is on Pro to demonstrate that the KCA is true beyond a preponderance of the evidence.The next round is for Pro's opening statement. Pro should leave a round blank for fairness.Vale.
KCA Debate

Thank you Sargon for your argument.I shall answer your points one by one: 1: The theory of relativity shows that god cannot create an initial state of time. The KCA doesn't imply that God created an initial state of time. it just says the events that have a finite past, have a cause. and the universe is one event that has a finite past. and science fonfirms the universe has an age. http://www.slate.com... 2: The possibility of simultaneous causation shows that matter can form without a personal being. This wouldn't answer the cause as: What did cause the universe, but answers : How was the unicerse caused , this is a common mistake people make when the subject is the Cause, that they describe the process instead.If I ask what caused the forest fire, I don't expect you to describe the process by which fire is trigered! but what caused the fire, whether it be a person or a combination of factors. 3: The Wavelength Function of the Universe explains the origins of our universe without a personal being. Again, the explanation of the origin of the universe, doesn't indermine a cause to the universe: as much as explaining how a seed grows into a plant doens't indermine that the cause is the seed design (call it nature) that allows the seed to respond to a combination of factors by growing into a specific plant. Likewise, explaining the universe existence by wave function doesn't take in cosideration the cause that lead the wave function to behave the way it does! this if the theory is true. and an incomplete probability (if we consider that such a probability have been calculated accurately which I strongly doubt) allows to consider a creator to the universe. It still leaves questions unanswered, the causal question specifically, after knowing how, we want to know What caused the firststep of the universe birth. what caused that change ? 4: The Wavelength Function of the Universe shows that a personal being contradicts the evidence from physics. As long as the probability allows it, the existence of God doesn't contradict the law, and the phisiscs laws cannot take God into consideration, for He isn't part of the universe. Your turn.
KCA Debate

Ave.I gave four reasons for thinking that the KCA is a bad argument in my last round.1: The theory of relativity shows that god cannot create an initial state of time.2: The possibility of simultaneous causation shows that matter can form without a personal being.3: The Wavelength Function of the Universe explains the origins of our universe without a personal being.4: The Wavelength Function of the Universe shows that a personal being contradicts the evidence from physics.None of these reasons have been addressed by Pro, as she forfeited the last round. I extend my arguments.Vale.
KCA Debate

I start off by thanking my opponent for instigating this debate.I will prcede with the premises analyse..P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.Everything: anything that we know about.Begins to exist: was inexistent in the past then starts to exist at some point in time. A cause: something that triggers the beginning of our object, the Cause can be a combination of factors (like for the rain) and can be a sentient being (like for a car).The Human has the ability to reason, and this first premise a fundamental law in reasoning, whenever we see a new thing, we assume its existence has a cause, and we have been ,based on this premise, to build our knowledge of science and physics. So much that one who beleives that some event doesn't have a cause is considered irrational. P2: The universe began to exist.As part of "everything" , the universe is assumed to have begun to exist, and theories are made on the cause of it's beginning, we basically assume the universe didn't exist since ever, but began to be in a specific point in the past, before which the universe was simply NOT. and the reason why we assume it begun to exist is that the first premise never failed. C: The universe had a cause.The Logical conclusion that follows from the two first premises.The Cause here needs to be a sentient being, for the universe isn't anything, but a series of events that led to be the way it is, a complexe and organised combination of machines. No Combination of factors can lead to the existence of a universe like ours, this if we assume there could be any possible factors before the universe was.The sentient being has to have the following attributes at least: Has no cause himself: for the causal rule needs a setter.Has absolute free will: as He has no cause, nothing can prevent him from anything.Power and ability: necessary to do anything.The legitimate owner of everything: what ever exist is directly or indirectly created by Him.Is Independent of time and space: as those too need a creator. Now I send it to my opponent so he can start with the rebuttals.
cant divide or multiply with 0 and 1

Pro: "sure i agree that if you define 0 as something then your math can fit, you can add, {1} because its not 0 {2}. . but 0 is a default value. . {3}"Answer: I used "mathematically" or "in mathematics" etc. several times. The field which deals with addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division is generally called "mathematics". And in mathematics 0 is defined as "something" that represents "nothing", as I have already mentioned. Recall that the headline is "cant divide or multiply by 0 and 1". Pro doesn't mention what 0 means, neither in the title nor in the first round. Therefore, I take it as a mathematical representation for "nothing", which is the most proper definition of 0. And in mathematics we can add 0 to, subtract it from, divide or multiply it by any finite non-zero real number. And as I showed above, if you don't pick up any soda, then its mathematical expression would be as: "you picked up 0 sodas". Picking up zero sodas in meathematics exactly means picking up no sodas. So, you can pick up no sodas simply by not picking up any soda. Pro (under comments before I accepted the debate): "i grant that if you can beat the headline on any level you win". CONCLUSIONI showed that we can divide or multiply 0 by any finite non-zero real number. Pro, on the other hand, didn't provide any direct argument to prove his proposition. In addition, they didn't provide any sensible rebuttal, which were also refuted in round 3. What Pro provides in R4 either don't make sense or don't refute my arguments. I would like to thank Pro for this debate. I also thank the voters for their time, consideration and voting in advance.
cant divide or multiply with 0 and 1

multiplication is a form of adding.. you can not add nothing sure i agree that if you define 0 as something then your math can fit, you can add, because its not 0.. but 0 is a default value.. like something is 1 esentially what you are trying to do, can never equate.. it is an error (1+1+1+0)1+1+1=3 0 dosnt fit in the equation answers are true.. can be is not an answer unless the question is to question the question that" i picked up 0 sodas" statement, is the lack of solidity of language where as equations are rigid 0=false hm it can be true that i lied, but its still true that lies are false.. you cant put a lie on a table thats the thing.. you cant hand them 0 bills.. or handing them 0 bills is not even handing them 1 bill.. bills are true bill=something 5=1+1+1+1+1=not 0 0 can not equate, it isnt even in the equation.. put 2 sodas on a table, and put 0 sodas on the table, and you have added 2 3*1(3).. dosnt equate 1=true sense=true it can be true that some one lied, and then is the answer false does not equate to true.. or lies dosnt become true once you lie, then i would lie konstantly how do you add false to the equation that fits with, 1 tomato+4 tomato+8tomato.. it just isnt in there..esentially you can argue that within any equation is 1000 zeroes.. like 1+1+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0=2.. 1+4+0+8.. this dosnt equate with 0, 0 dosnt go through, there is nothing to go through, its like slapping your cousin with your invisible hand that has absolutly no effect.. you dont get no sodas.. from adding no sodas to no sodas.. you can not add nothing to nothing.. equations or answers are true conclusion: pointless debate and way of looking at math, you can use it for nothing, and nothing is not something, something is true
cant divide or multiply with 0 and 1

NOTE"=": means "is equal to""=/=": means "is not equal to"REBUTTALS TO REBUTTALS OF PRONow I will answer all of Pro's rebuttals/counter arguments. Pro: "you cant multiply nothing"Answer: We can multiply "nothing", but the result will be "nothing", as I showed in R2. Pro: "0=false1=true(something)"Answer:One can use "0" to mean "false" and "1" to mean "true" ONLY AFTER s/he defines them that way and notes that they will use them as such. No such thing was defined by Pro before, so we will ignore them. In addition,0=zero and zero=/=false => therefore, 0=/=false!1=false(something) is also correct. For example, 1 false answer! Pro: "pick up 0 sodas from the floor"Answer: I can do that in many ways. For example;- There is a soda on the floor. I want to pick it up. But when I do the action of picking up, I miss the soda and come back with empty hand. How many sodas did I pick up? I picked up 0 sodas! - There are sodas, apples, and oranges on the floor. I pick up 2 oranges and 3 apples. How many sodas, how many oranges, and how many apples did I pick up? I picked up 0 sodas, 2 oranges, and 3 apples. How many sodas did I pick up? I picked up 0 sodas! Pro: "the value of money is false, the bill is true {1}, and you handed them none {2}"Answer:{1}: OK, my fault. . You can change the word "money" to "$", "bill" etc. if you want. Note that it doesn't change the result. {2}: "Coincidentally" in mathematics "none"="nothing"=0. So, Pro is right, I handed them none i. e. , I handed them 0 dollars. As Pro admits here, I can hand them 0$. Pro: "0=0"Answer: 5*0=0*5=0=0+0+0+0+0=0 is also true! Pro: "3=1+1+1"Answer: 3*1=3=1+1+1 is also true! Pro:"sense=truetrue=answer=1"Answer: sense=ture=answer=1 -> sense=1? What does it mean? Pro: "1+4+0+8(1+4+8)=13"Answer:i) Let's write "true" instead of "1" and "false" instead of "0" to see if Pro's claims about 0 and 1 make sense:1+4+0+8=true+4+false+8=true+false+12=13? If we assume that true and false cancel out, then true+false+12=12. This shows that Pro's claims are contradictory to each other. ii) In mathematics, 1+4+0+8(1+4+8)=1+4+0+8*(1+4+8)=5+8*13=5+104=109. Pro: "add no sodas to no sodas. . you have not added anything anywhere"Answer: Mathematically speaking, by adding no sodas to no sodas I get no sodas. I can add anything to anything anywhere, including adding nothing to nothing (which gives nothing). CONCLUSIONI have refuted all of Pro's objections about my arguments. In addition, Pro has not yet provided any direct argument to prove that we cannot divide or multiply 0 by something. And according to rules, they cannot provide any new argument in R4.
cant divide or multiply with 0 and 1

you cant multiply nothing 0=false 1=true(something) pick up 0 sodas from the floor the value of money is false, the bill is true, and you handed them none 0=0 3=1+1+1 sense=true true=answer=1 1+4+0+8(1+4+8)=13 add no sodas to no sodas.. you have not added anything anywhere
cant divide or multiply with 0 and 1

1) 0 divided by xLet's assume that x is a finite non-zero real number. 0/x = 0 => Zero can be divided into x 0s and the result of which is 0, according to definition of division! Example:I have 0 money. Three people want me to give them money. So I share my 0 money to them by giving 0 money to each of them. My 0 money was divided into 3 zeros. That is the language of mathematics. You don't say I can't give you anything, because I have nothing. Mathematics considers that "nothing" as "something" and tells you that you can divide that "nothing" into as many "nothing"s as you want. . Does that make sense? Of course it does. => Therefore, we can divide 0 by any finite non-zero real number! 2) 0 multiplied by yLet's assume that y is a finite non-zero real number.0*y=0 => We can add y 0s and the result of which is zero (OR y times as big as zero). Example:10*5=10+10+10+10+10=50. 3*5=3+3+3+3+3=15.1*5=1+1+1+1+1=5. Similarly,0*5=5*0=0+0+0+0+0=0! => Therefore, 0 can be multiplied by any finite non-zero (this is not necessary though) real number! Please recall that I win this debate if I show that we can at least do one of the following operations:a) Multiplying 0 by something. b) Dividing 0 by something. c) Multiplying something by 0. d) Dividing something by 0. I showed and explained through examples that we can do (a), (b), and (c). Therefore, Pro looses the debate if they don't refute y arguments for (a), (b), and (c), regardless of what they argue about (d).
cant divide or multiply with 0 and 1

I accept! I asked Pro under comments to remove "1/0(1)" part and change the title to "Can't divide or multiply 0 by 1. " They responded (6th comment):"hm i grant that if you can beat the headline on any level you win". So I will argue that we can divide or multiply 0 by any non-zero finite real number, including 1. DEFINITIONSDivide (v): To divide X by Y means to separate X into Y equal parts; the result is the value, quantity, etc. of one of those parts. Multiply (v): To multiply X by Y means to increase the value, quantity, etc. of X to Y times as big as itself or to add Y of X. If Pro has any objection to definitions given, then we can discuss them under comments and reconsider any point. Pro can directly post their arguments if they agree with given definitions. No new argument is allowed in last round.
I will not contradict myself.

My opponent has ignored all of my clairifactions this far. He is instead shortening all of my answers to their base, unjustly, to make it seem as if I had contradicted myself. My opponents contradictions revolving around animals are void because I said "Yes, I like some animals" This does not imply I like all animals on earth (Serial Killers or Boobs [Stupid people]) Defending myself.Female, as defined by google, is "Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova)" I cannot do either of these tasks, so I am not a female by the most common definition of female.As google defines girl, it is "A female child." I do have friends that are female children, however, I am not in a relationship with a woman, who is defined by google as "An adult human female." I do not know any adult females, in fact.As for my opponents third contradiction, I state that all of my friends are actually young females. I am not in a relationship with a woman by any degree, nor a boy. Therefore this contradiction is also void.The RulesMy opponent insinuates that the answer "I'm not sure" is not adequate enough to excuse a yes/no answer. But how is it not? I do not know the answer for sure, and I was doing Con a favor by not staking my luck on an answer I did not know. Plus, my moral code prevents me from lying. To do so would be surely innapropriate.But I didn't answer my opponents question 1 of last round, so I lost. Clever enough, I guess. GG
I will not contradict myself.

Notice what I added to rule 2: Clarification may be added to any answer.This means that I am allowed to add specifics to my answer if (but not only if) the question given was too broad, such as "Do you like animals." My opponent cannot simply ignore my clarification, I did say that I liked some animals, but not all. My opponents contradiction is therefore void.His claim about me breaking my own rules is obnoxious. How could I answer a question I don't know the answer to? I do not know, and cannot answer because I have no answer. Both yes/no would be innapropriate, because I am not entirely sure that either answer is correct. I did not break my own rules.Still on the point of rules, my opponents Round 2 Question 3 violates rule 12. His questions are not allowed to refer to either themselves or eachother. You also ask an additional question, but I suppose this is a typo and will let it slide.1. Is the next word you're going to say no?Neither answer is appropriate. I would force myself to lie if I gave you either answer. The question calls for an imediate contradiction.2. Are you a female?No3.Are you going to answer most question with "yes" or "no" as your answer?Violates rule 12.4. Do you like perfection?Yes5. Do you enjoy duffNo, I do not enjoy "decaying vegetable matter covering the ground under trees." [1]6. Have you ever being engaged?No, I have never been engaged to a woman to be wed.7. Do you have a friend who is a girl?Yes, I have a friend who is a girl.8. Do you emit waste?Yes, I emit waste.9. Do you have friends?Yes, I have friends.10. Do you have a boyfriend?No, I am not in a relationship with a boy.
I will not contradict myself.

Ok, lets start, First my opponent answered my question with a yes or a No; however, he added explainable as to why his answer is a yes or a No. In the rules, it was made clear that all that is required in this debate is a "yes" or a "no". With this said, I will only address my opponents yes or No answer and not his included explanations. To add to this, I will like the readers to take note that my opponent goes against his rules when answering my fifth question, He fails to answer the question with a yes or a no, and also fails to provide an explanation as to why either answer would be incorrect. His only justification as to why he didn't answer this question is that he "wasn't sure", ladies and gentlemen, this does not in any form qualify as an explanation as why either a yes or a no is not acceptable for answering the question. Under this conflict with the rules, my opponent automatically looses the round. A re-post of my opponents last round with only the REQUIRED answer: "1~~>Are you gay? No 2~~>Are you a male? Yes 3~~> Do you enjoy failure? yes. 4~~~>Do you like Animals? Yes 5~~~~>Are you batty? {No appropriate answer provided by my opponent} 6~~~~~>Do you have a beard? No 7~~~~~~>Do you have a Girlfriend? No, 8~~~~~~~>do you like boobs? No, 9~~~~~~~~>does every Woman have a bird? No, 10~~~~~~~~>do you like serial Killers? No" Contradictions: I ask my opponent the question, "do you like animals" in which he answered yes. i then asked him the question " do you like serial killers?" His answer this time was a no. How is this a contradiction? Human's are animals and belong to the kingdom Animalia ---- http://biology.buffalo.edu... --- With this said, my opponent does contradict himself by stating that he likes Animals but does not like Serial Killers who themselves are also animals. The second contradiction made by my opponent occurred when asked the question "do you like boobs?" His answer being a No is contradictory because "boobs" in the American English defines a stupid person. This is contradictory as ones again his answer to "do you like animals" was a yes. In stating that he does not like "boobs," he is also saying that he does not like Animals. My next ten questions 1. Is the next word you're going to say no? 2. Are you a female? Are you going to answer most question with "yes" or "no" as your answer? 3.Are you going to answer most question with "yes" or "no" as your answer? 4. Do you like perfection? 5. Do you enjoy duff 6. Have you ever being engaged? 7. Do you have a friend who is a girl? 8. Do you emit waste? 9. Do you have friends? 10. Do you have a boyfriend?
I will not contradict myself.

1~~>Are you gay?No, I am not a homosexual2~~>Are you a male?Yes I am a human male3~~> Do you enjoy failure?Sometimes, yes.4~~~>Do you like Animals?Yes, I like some animals5~~~~>Are you batty?I'm not sure, so neither answer is appropriate. Good try though :)6~~~~~>Do you have a beard?No I do not have any signifigant facial hair7~~~~~~>Do you have a Girlfriend?No, I am not in a relationship with a woman.8~~~~~~~>do you like boobs?No, I do not like the breasts of women.9~~~~~~~~>does every Woman have a bird?No, not every woman owns a pet bird (like a parrot, or raven)10~~~~~~~~>do you like serial Killers?No, I do not like serial killers.
I will not contradict myself.

Thank you, this should be fun. My questions: 1~~>Are you gay? 2~~>Are you a male? 3~~> Do you enjoy failure? 4~~~>Do you like Animals? 5~~~~>Are you batty? 6~~~~~>Do you have a beard? 7~~~~~~>Do you have a Girlfriend? 8~~~~~~~>do you like boobs? 9~~~~~~~~>does every Woman have a bird? 10~~~~~~~~>doy you like serial Killers? :D