BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution is more realistic than Christianity, and has Evidence.

Ave.Stating the PremisesPro's argument is more or less the following.P1: If evolution is true, Christianity cannot be true.P2: Evolution is true.C: Christianity is not true.Premise OnePro argues that there is evidence for evolution, and no good evidence for Christianity. The problem here is that Christianity and evolution are not incompatible. In order for the resolution to be upheld, Pro must provide evidence for this unproven premise. Until then, the resolution cannot be upheld.Christistianity and evolution are not incompatibleTo be a Christian, one does not have to believe in young earth creationism. In fact, the present Pope believes in evolution, along with important people such as the Archbishop of Canterbury. Francis Collins, the head of the human genome project, is a devout Christian and scientist who believes in evolution. There are many important and educated Christians who do not deny evolution.Consider this article from 2007:'Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith.''Please remember that this is not a case of religion making concessions to modern day science. Saint Augustine pointed out that the book of genesis does not have to be taken literally and creation needn't be a few thousand years ago. This came 1500 years before Darwin.[1] http://www.youtube.com...[2] http://www.nbcnews.com...Evolution as an argument for godAs Dr. Craig notes:'Macroevolution is actually evidence of design. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by Barrow and Tipler lists ten steps in the evolution of our species, each of which is so improbable, that before it would have occured by chance alone, the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and incenerated the earth. They estimate that the evolution of the human genome has an odd of four to the negative 180th power to the 110 thousandth power and four to the negative sixtieth power to the 110 thousandth power.'Evolution actually gives us a good reason to believe in a god.[1] http://www.youtube.com...Concluding StatementPro gives us no reason to believe that Christianity and evolution are incompatible. The claim that Christianity's evidence is only a book cannot be justified at all. The facts about evolution gives Christians a good reason to believe in a god.Premise 1 one of the argument is false, so the entire argument is invalid.Vale.
Evolution is more realistic than Christianity, and has Evidence.

Evolution, we know happened, and is still happening. This is not a debate on the Big Bang Theory, it is about evolution. This is also a respectful debate. Not a debate where we throw insults at people. Also, I want to say this is not a debate where all you do is disprove the other topic. You disprove, yet also have to provide EVIDENCE for your belief. One last thing, read the WHOLE debate before writing yours, and we do not judge on spelling mistakes or grammar. And here we go! There is evidence (notice I did not say proof because we can never really know.)for evolution. The only evidence for Christianity is a book. There is nothing else I know of. Evolution has Genes, Skeletons, and Genetic Information (And Text Books!). Now that we have the technology to look at DNA, we can see there is a about 5% difference from our DNA to a chimpanzee. Almost all out DNA is the same as a chimpanzee. We are around 20% the same DNA as yeast. We are also very similar to pigs. Here's an interesting story. They took a baby sheep Zygote and removed every single thing that made the eyes in the sheep. Then, they replaced those genes with the eye genes of a Fruit Fly. You would probably thing some sort of horrid mutation would come out of that, but it did not. The sheep grew perfect regular sheep eyes. The DNA of the fruit fly could evolve to become the sheep eye, or it already knew how to make a sheep eye. Skeletons can easily show the evolution of man. You can see the shapes of the humans grow taller and become more human. You can also see the same process with dinosaurs. You can see in Dino skeletons, the skeleton shape slowly morphing into different shapes over time. Using different methods for dating skeletons we can see that they evolved, and all of those skeletons were not all there at the same time. Chromosomes can show us that out chromosomes are almost the same as a chimpanzee's chromosomes. Chimps have 48 chromosomes, and humans have 46. How could this be? well, if we look closer at the chromosomes we can figure out that one of them is merged. We can see that they are two chimpanzee chromosomes merged into one, showing that we used to have chromosomes of a chimpanzee. That is my argument, thanks for reading. To make sure that you read the entire debate, print the word "Tiger" at the bottom of your debate, and a new word for the next person to write down, to make sure they read your debate. Again, thanks for reading!
Evolution is more realistic than Christianity, and has Evidence.

Ave.Premise One ObjectionsThe first premise of the argument was not justified for the entire debate. The first part of my argument remains unrefuted, and should be considered a win for my case when voting.Christianity and evolution are not incompatiblePro agrees with this point, so I extend it. The second part of my argument remains unrefuted, and should be considered a win for my case when voting.Evolution as an argument for godPro does not show us that time alone can eliminate such low odds as ' four to the negative 180th power to the 110 thousandth power and four to the negative sixtieth power to the 110 thousandth power'. He also does not answer the argument about the sun ceasing to be a main sequence star and incenerating the Earth.Concluding StatementPro does not justify his first premise, he agrees with my second argument, and his objections to the third come in his last round. Vote for Con.Vale.
Evolution is more realistic than Christianity, and has Evidence.

You are good at this! Sorry forgot about the third statement. You were saying that it is a very small chance that DNA and living cells could form and there is a very small chance in it. well yes there is a very very small chance in it happening. Thats why it took more than 500 million years to get the right combination. And even back then most organisms died off quickly because they were not "assembled" right. It took SO long for the organism to actually thrive. So yes its a slim chance, and thats why it took so long. Try reading the book "History of Nearly Everything, by Bill Bryson". That explains it better than I can.
Evolution is more realistic than Christianity, and has Evidence.

Ave.Premise One Objections'Well, I was hoping to go against someone who did not believe in evolution. If you agree that evolution is true then what is the point of this debate?'This debate is not exclusively about the validity of evolution. Rather, the resolution is whether evolution is more realistic than Christianity. You are taking the pro position, so you believe that this is the case. I've turned evolution around and made an argument for the existence of god, and by implication, a justification of Christian theism.Pro has not provided any justfication for P1. My objections stand at this point in the debate.Christianity and evolution are not incompatiblePro agrees with this portion of my argument. 'Of course it is completely compatible with evolution. God could have created the big bang or created the tiny little bacteria in the oceans easily.'There exists no conflict between evolution and Christianity. To speak about evolution being more realistic than Christianity is to assume that there is an intellectual conflict between the two.Pro agrees with the second part of my argument, so it stands.Evolution as an argument for godIn the last round of the debate, I provided an argument from Dr. Craig about how macroevolution proves the existence of god. Pro did not provide any response to this argument. There wasn't even an attempt to touch on this.The third part of my argument stands.Concluding StatementPro has not justified the vital first premise of his argument. Pro agrees with my second argument, and he does not address the third. All of the arguments I have presented in this debate stand, and I encourage the audience to vote Con.Vale.
Palestine Should be Recognised by the United Nations as an Independent Nation

"Can I get examples of this beyond the current situation? One example does not prove anything. If anything Palestine is an outlier. The Native Americans did not have an extreme ideology, and nobody beats them when it comes to isolation"Now I did link you to an academic paper on the subject [1] which I though would be enough but sure I can provide some examples if you want. After 1919 Germany was cut off from much of the rest of Europe. The treaty of Versailles humiliated Germany and made its people feel like they were being isolated. During this period an extreme form of national socialism flourished in Germany and in 1933 Adolf Hitler came to power [2]. Is that a good enough example?What about the Sunni population in Iraq who were cut off from political power after the US lead invasion [3]? Many of them are now welcoming the jihadist forces of the Islamic State as they swallow up more territory [4] .Are either of these examples plus the academic paper good enough for you?"This is pure speculation."Not it's not pure speculation if (and I hope you do now) you accept that diplomatic isolationism leads to extreme ideology then you can see there is some sense in reducing the diplomatic isolation of a country that is rapidly sliding towards extremism [5]."The people in the area have been fighting over that piece of land for many thousands of years." The source you used to back this up was a questionable link to questionable fundamentalist Christian webpage about a war that experts seem to agree never happened [6]. In reality outremer has had a relatively peaceful history, at least from between its conquest by the Ottoman empire 1516 and the first world war."There's no reason to think it would stop just because somebody got more representation at the UN."Well again we come back to the point that diplomatic isolation begets extremism."It could also cause the end of the universe. Stop making speculations without backing them up."My point was that "Giving Palestine the right to speak for itself during UN proceedings that directly effect it could change how things are done and help put an end to the violence." Now lets see, if there is anything to back up my point. In 1971 the PRC was given UN representation. Five years later the cultural revolution was over [8] and the PRC started taking the first tentative steps towards modernisation. Regardless you have not provided and arguments as to why Palestine should not be given UN representation. I know that you do not need to as I have burden of proof but I would like to see what you have supporting you. [1]http://www.brynmawr.edu... [2] http://hsc.csu.edu.au...][3] http://www.vox.com...[4] http://www.thedailybeast.com... (While this article is about how the Islamic State may have its population turn against it in the future the most important sentence for my purposes is "The support of local Sunni Muslims has paved the way for the ISIS conquests in Syria and Iraq."[5] http://foreignpolicyblogs.com...[6] http://ehrmanblog.org...[7] http://oaks.nvg.org... [8] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Palestine Should be Recognised by the United Nations as an Independent Nation

"When a nation is cut off from the outside world they tend to develop a (partially accurate) sense of isolation. This leads the people to become much more extreme in ideology."Can I get examples of this beyond the current situation? One example does not prove anything. If anything Palestine is an outlier. The Native Americans did not have an extreme ideology, and nobody beats them when it comes to isolation [1]. "If Palestine was to become less diplomatically isolated through membership of the UN there is a good chance that Hamas would be out of power in Gaza, the rocket attacks on Israel would decrease and stop. "This is pure speculation. The people in the area have been fighting over that piece of land for many thousands of years [2]. There's no reason to think it would stop just because somebody got more representation at the UN."Giving Palestine the right to speak for itself during UN proceedings that directly effect it could change how things are done and help put an end to the violence."It could also cause the end of the universe. Stop making speculations without backing them up. [1] http://www.cabrillo.edu...[2] http://www.accessv.com...
Palestine Should be Recognised by the United Nations as an Independent Nation

Ending the Rule of HamasWhen a nation is cut off from the outside world they tend to develop a (partially accurate) sense of isolation. This leads the people to become much more extreme in ideology [1] which in the case of Palestine has lead to the popularisation of Hamas. If Palestine was to become less diplomatically isolated through membership of the UN there is a good chance that Hamas would be out of power in Gaza, the rocket attacks on Israel would decrease and stop. This would mean that Israel would have no excuse for an invasion of Gaza every couple of years. Giving the Palestinian People a Voice Currently Palestinian is a sort of political football especially for some of the more radical Islamic nations. Giving Palestine the right to speak for itself during UN proceedings that directly effect it could change how things are done and help put an end to the violence.[1] http://www.brynmawr.edu...
Resolved: Just governments ought to require that employers pay a living wage.

I am against the government implementing a living wage ordinance. Please accept this debate only if you will take it seriously. Further, anyone who wishes to debate must understand that a living wage will replace the minimum wage for full time workers. Due to requests to do so, I will now provide definitions as to what each important word in the resolution means.Just: treating people in a way that is considered morally rightGovernment: This is open to interpretation. It can mean federal, state, or local leadership.Living wage: a wage sufficient to provide the necessities and comforts for an acceptable standard of living.This also refers to full-time workers, not part-time employees.Here is how the rounds will take place:Round 1: Acceptance, presentation of Pro case.Round 2: Presentation of Neg. case and refutations (Con) - Rebuttals and rebuild of own case (Pro).Round 3: Attack on opponents case and rebuild of own case (Con) - Voter issues, no new arguments (Pro). Thank you, and good luck! :)
resolved. public colleges and universites in the United states ought not restrict free speech.

Well thank you for this debate! I wish you luck ;) colleges and universities should restrict freedom of speech because let's say that there is a guy who gets picked on and called fat , ugly etc. And one day this guy says to kill yourself, then the next day you hear that one of your fellow students committed suicide. People's words can harm or make someone who wants to harm themselves. People need to think before they speak.
Jesus Christ Existed as a Historical Person and was Not a Myth

Mitras While I can concede that Mitras was not the sole inspiration for the Yeshua myth I think there are sufficient similarities to state that Mitras was at least part of the inspiration for the Yeshua story. Some of these similarities are:Both savior godsBoth active in the same region at the same timeBorn of a virgin (yes in some stories he was [1])I have seen zeitgeist and know the many fallacies and lies used in that film but there are some real predecessors to Yeshua and Mithras is one of them. Also if you want to claim that Christianity borrowed from Mitra then you have some real explaining to do. For instance how come Mitra existed as a fully formed religion 2000 years before the birth of modern Christianity (assuming the birth of modern Christianity to be around 400 AD with the conversion of Constantine) [2]?Also Zoroastrianism very much teaches about a heaven and a hell after death, in fact Zarathustra invented that whole concept [3].My Point About Mashiah'sMany of these messiahs very almost identical to how Yeshua was recorded. There are many who are generally considered to be lacking evidence for their very existence and yet we treat this one claimed mashiah (please note this is not a misspelling) differently from all of the others.Majority of ScholarsAre you disputing that we don't know who wrote the gospels? We can discus that if you want though it scholarly doesn't help your case. The reason I trust the scholarly opinion on the gospels is because I have looked over where that assertion comes from and find the argument reasonable.How Long Did Jews LiveI consider this my strongest argument and yet pro has not responded to it. Here is what I wrote in round 2: "The evidence I presented last round (that being the average age and the standard deviation) were not based off of the hearsay of a single person but instead off of a number of factors namely genetics, primary testimony and archaeological evidence. Sure there are outliers in any population but those outliers are a fraction of the total population. Also I'm sure that my opponent accepts that there is a time when you question the legitimacy of a primary source. For instance would my opponent accept a persons word that they fought in the mexican civil war? There is at least one person who fought in it living but that one person is very much the outlier and not the norm. The longest a person could be expected to live is 42 and so when you get past that age you require evidence that can be cross referenced with other earlier testimony and or archaeology."[1] Kangavar temple inscription Islamic Republic of Iran "Anahita, the Immaculate Virgin Mother of the Lord Mithras"[2] http://www.truthbeknown.com... [3] http://www.religionfacts.com...
Jesus Christ Existed as a Historical Person and was Not a Myth

Now I'm sure that you are aware that if the man now refereed to as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Christ did exist he was not called Jesus Christ/Jesus of Nazareth. He may have been called Yeshua (English: Joshua) though the chances are he didn't exist.SourcesAssuming that Yeshua was put to death around 33 AD (notice I am not conceding anything) and that for a witness to be reliable they must be around five years old at the time of the event (this is an extreme which probably wouldn't be trusted in a court of law). We know that the average life expectancy of a Judean during this time was about 26 years old [1], while I couldn't find the standard deviation of life expectancy then I can find figures for today (again this is massively on your side) those figures would be a standard deviation of 16 years [2]. So the oldest witness to the latest part of the life of Yeshua would be expected to die around 60AD (at the age of 42). Now the Tacitus account was writen a little after 100AD and the Jewish Antiquities of Flavius Josephus was written a little after 92AD none of these are old enough to have been derived from eye witness testimony.The GospelsThe Gospels are known to have been hugely tampered with making them less than reliable as evidence of the existence of Yeshua [3]. Furthermore all the gospels seem to be based off of Mark which was at the earliest written around 70 AD [4] (making it too recent to be from personal or eyewitness testimony). This also effectively negates that argument that the biblical authors couldn't have made it up as they didn't make up Yeshua in the cultural context of early first century Judea and the corpse certainly couldn't have been produced. Also I hate to break it to you but the bible is no Dostoevsky and even if it was that would be no reason to claim divine inspiration.Minimum ProofWell I don't think you can every prove he existed. A better question would be what would it take to change my mind on the existence of Yeshua. The answer to that would be a Historical account from the claimed life of Yeshua or from the life of someone who could potentially be an eye witness that mentioned relatively specific details (the names of a few disciples or that he was crucified on the behalf of the Jewish elders would do).[1] http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk... [2] http://answers.google.com...[3] http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com...[4] Harris Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985
Fast Food and Animals

Just because the truth is truth that does not mean it has to be the truth. We can change the truth and stop abusing our animals. I have many many many friends that I know who have all boycotted against fast food places knowing how bad it is and some have even become vegetarians. No living thing deserves to be treated this way even if it is for money or economic development. All living things deserve equal because they feel pain and suffering just like we do and no body deserves to go through such torture. My mom said her first McDonald's burger in the 1960s was great Without hormones or antibiotics or cardboard fillers or preservatives. And these fast food places don't have to abuse the animals like this. Like would you want to be thrown in boiling water alive? Or be put into a plastic bag to suffocate alive? I am not whining about it, it's just in issue I feel strongly about because I can't stand to know that millions of innocent lives of animals are being sacrificed just for fast food. Here are some more links sir. http://www.salon.com... https://secure.peta.org...
Fast Food and Animals

Again,I repeat that the cruelty exists and is unacceptable,and in actuality some fast food restaurants are allegedly trying to change. Most multinational fast food corporations however won't bother trying to change something that isn't in their economic interest. The US food and health administration is adamant that growth hormones fed to cows and other livestock are in minute amounts and are not harmful to human health. The FDA also stands by the fact that the meat is safe for consumption. I leave the legitimacy of their statements to your judgement. ( http://www.livestrong.com... ) Side effects have been attributed to them,however proof is as of yet mostly circumstantial. These animals,regretfully,were bred only to be slaughtered and made into food. It's a heavy thought,isn't it? It's the heavy truth of the matter though. Not too many people care about how those animals will be treated. Also,these are methods that have been working since fast food was conceived,and unless the public outcry is more expensive than the changes in methods,not much is going to change. The burgers may not be of the best quality,but when most people think cheap and tasty,they think fast food,and ignorant as it may be, its true at it's core. The same people that drink and smoke couldn't care less if their burger wasn't the healthiest meat available. Again,I understand the cruelty exists,you've said so extensively twice,so I ask, is there a way to realistically fix this issue in a way that can be accepted by these companies,or will you and everyone end up uselessly whining and protesting at their keyboards? I meant no offence obviously as this is simply a debate but you understand my meaning don't you?