BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God is the best explanation rather than Science

"If that was true why aren't Venus and Uranus spinning the same way?" Because other celestial objects hit them, changing their direction of spin. http://solarsystem.nasa.gov... "The Big Bang also ignores Law of Thermodynamics : matter cannot be created or destroyed." The first Law of Thermodynamics deals with energy, no matter. The Law of Conservation of Matter states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. The Big Bang theory does not suggest that matter suddenly appeared out of nothing (like creationism), but instead that a very dense, tightly packed particle exploded. (It's a bit more complicated, but that's the basic outline). http://chem.wisc.edu... http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... "It also ignores the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Everything tends towards disorder." Actually, it doesn't. At first, it was all in one place, orderly. Then it exploded, expanding, and entropy (disorder) increased. It does not ignore the Second Law of Thermodynamics. "How did my house get here?" By people building it. My opponent seems to have a false idea about the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory does not suggest that once the explosion happened, houses, schools, people etc. were already there, ready to function. The Big Bang theory says that everything exploded outwards, slowly coalescing into planets, stars etc. then, evolution took its course and created the living world we know today. This happened (according to Big Bang theory along with evolution) over billions of years. Hopefully that clears some things up. "Natural Selection is flawed. It may explain some species but shouldn't it explain it all? It doesn't explain birds? Birds are thought to began to evolve wings. Doesn't add up. How did it evolve wings? How could it adapt to its environment with a stubby wing?" I do not see how natural selection is flawed, and yes, it applies to all living organisms. Of course it explains birds. Natural selection is basically: 1. Genetic mutation occurs, causing organism to have "defect". 2. Organism survives and reproduces. 3. Organism's offspring are isolated. 4. New gene pool is created, which essentially means the creation of a new species. 5. If the original genetic mutation was favorable, then these organisms will survive. Same with birds. I do not see how they are any different. "There's so many flaws in both of those theories." Please name some. Unlike most of creationism, evolution/Big Bang has logic and proof behind it. On to Pro.
God is the best explanation rather than Science

First and foremost I would like to say I am not against science or anything. Lets get to it. Big Bang Theory explains that the universe was created from a single point. Now that single point spun rapidly until it exploded. If all matter was composed into a single dot how did it get there? Where did this energy come from? In an environment with without friction you would have this dot keep spinning so fast that it would explode. If this was true all the particles would have been spinning in the same direction as the dot they exploded from. This is called Conversion of Angular Momentum. This matter which was to create everything including Planets. If that was true why aren't Venus and Uranus spinning the same way? The Big Bang also ignores Law of Thermodynamics : matter cannot be created or destroyed. It also ignores the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Everything tends towards disorder. The only explanation is that God put it there. How did my house get here? Did it magically assemble itself there? Of course not! It took builders to build it. Also to your comment you made about the lightning strike. Evolutionist believe that including Charles Darwin its called Single Cell Complexity. Evolution is next. Single Cell Complexity is a theory that says we came from a single cell in a pond. How did the cell get there? Scientists say that lightning struck pond water and it caused molecules to rearrange causing them to combine and turn into a living cell. Sounds crazy right? Natural Selection is flawed. It may explain some species but shouldn't it explain it all? It doesn't explain birds? Birds are thought to began to evolve wings. Doesn't add up. How did it evolve wings? How could it adapt to its environment with a stubby wing? There's so many flaws in both of those theories.
God is the best explanation rather than Science

Scientist have heavily flawed explanations as to why we got here and why we are here. The Big Bang Theory for an example. Everything have today started as something small a particle This particle happened to explode and give us all the amazing things we see. Evolution also tells us that we started out as a single cell. This single cell happened to get struck by lightning in a pond and divide. That sounds asburd to me. However, God, on the other hand is not so asburd.
It is unreasonable to be a vegetarian for these reasons

Tofu TurkeyYes, these vegetarians have a taste/desire to eat a turkey. However, they are appalled by the idea of killing a turkey. However, they are not appalled by the idea of having a desire to eat a turkey. They will glasly make an imitation turkey. Shouldn't these vegetarians be appalled by having the taste/desire to do something they are so morally against. Imagine one with the desire to murder using a cadavor to chop up with a knife to feed his bloodlust or a human eating a human flavored tofu dish to feed his desire. Someone should be ashamed/appalled about a desire to do something immoral. It is admirble that they do not commit the actual crime, but they should not enjoy cutting up a corpse or eating human tofu. If someone did this they would keep it private until they cured their immoral desire. I never said eating tofu turkey was immoral, I argue it is unreasonable for a vegetarian to take pride in eating an imitation dish of an animal they are against killing. Shouldn't they be quite ashamed for having an immoral desire? Health My opponent claims that he is only defending the status quo. This status quo is that all vegetarians only eat healthy foods. Now again, my argument says that it is unreasonable for vegetarians to be strictly against meat while they may indulge in other more unhealthy junk food. It does not make much health sense to be strictly against meat, while enjoying a chocolate bar or twinky every once in a while. Wouldn't it make more sense to be strictly against meat/twinkies and just try to avoid meat.Perhaps I had a wrong view of vegetarians (I am not one, and don't know that many). I thought that vegetarians never eat meat, while still indulge in other unhealthy foods chocolate/twinkies ect once in a while. I am in agreement that it is reasonable for a vegetarian to stricly ban meat as long as they also strictly ban all other foods more unhealthy then meat (sodapop, doughnuts,candy ect). However, I think there are many vegetarians that strictly ban meat, while still indulge in other unhealthy foods. I posted my arguments in the 1st round to avoid confusion. My opponent has to justify the position for vegetarians the are strictly against meat, while more laxed on other unhealthy foods. Again, I posted my arguments in the first round. Why would my opponent accept the debate, just to say he does not need to defend against this. If my opponent felt this way he should have brought it up preferalbly before the debate, or in round 1. Not wait to round 2.ConclusionI have provided a solid argument why it is unreasonable to be a vegetarian for health reasons and one for moral reasons. I have argued well. This should be a pro vote.
It is unreasonable to be a vegetarian for these reasons

due to time restraints this will be short. Just because it looks and tastes like turkey doesnt make it immoral.....a taste and the actual meat are two different things.....there not killing the animal to get the taste but is instead imitating it. There is nothing wrong with this. No animals were killed for that taste. Also obviously not every nonmeat food is healthy. But im only defending the status quo in witch vegetaians do eat healthy witch excludes those examples that my opponent has given. Also not everyone are vegetarians for health reasons. It really depends on the persons motives.
It is unreasonable to be a vegetarian for these reasons

Tofu Turkey Okay, human do eat foods shaped like humans. They eat sour patch kids, humans on cake, gingerbread-men ect. But these foods don't rise to the realism of a tofu turkey. I do not see a contradiction in vegetarians eating animal crackers, gummy-worms, gummy-bears ect. Tofu turkey is meant to taste and look and close to a turkey as possible. Take this quote from the description of a tofu turkey "A tofu turkey will not shape into a bird, but it can replicate the taste of a roasted turkey nicely."[1] They are happy that the tofu tastes like a turkey, but slightley displeased that the turkey does not look like a turkey. They try to immitate the turkey exactly. I don't see how someone would want to immitate the exact dish they are morally against eating. While ginger breadmen, sour-patch kids look like humans, they don't try to immitate the exact taste and texture of a human. Imagine if someone served a tofu human. Hey look what I found. Somebody once marketed the concept of human tofu (hufu) as a joke [2] Imagine that. I would feel kinda iffy about eating hufu, because I am morally against killing humans. I still don't see how vegetarians are okay with trying to imitate the taste and texture exactly of a being they are morally against killing. HealthOops. I made a typo if round 1. I meant to say "some vegetarians believe that eating meat is unhealthy."My argument generally was that meat maybe moderatly unhealthy, but there are some extremely unhealthy foods that are still allowed under vegetarianism such as lard, gravy, drugs, sugar, cake, fudge. It seems that if one is going to start completly banning foods that they should completly ban the really unhealthy foods before they ban the moderatly unhealthy foods. For example a vegetarian who eats meat once in a while is more healthy than a vegetarian who eats lard, drugs, or syrup. Now, i do see that vegetariansism can be healthy. But, doesn't it seem unreasonable that they take such a strict stance against eating meat. I could understant if they just tried to avoid meat. But by strictly banning meat it seems like they are labeling meat as more unhealthy than potato chips, sugar ect. If a vegetarian forgets to pick off pieces of chicken on a pizza it is a BIG DEAL, but if they indulge a whole cake, it is bad but not as bad as eating meat. I still feel that is is unreasonable to be strongly against meat, while not being against other more unhealthy foods. It seems almost arbitrary. [1]http://vegetarian.lovetoknow.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
It is unreasonable to be a vegetarian for these reasons

Hi, I will be arguing that it is unreasonable to be a vegetarian. This is a relaxed, half-joking debate. It should be fun. The arguments I am making are a tad fickle, and are not meant to be taken that seriously. I definatly won't be doing any research or using any sources for this debate. I am presenting one argument for people who are vegetarian for health reasons, and one argument who are vegetarian for moral reasons. I will argue for these two points and my opponent's job will just be to refute these arguments. I am starting my arguments now.4000 characters max, 72 hour response times, 3 roundsThe argument of the tofu turkey (moral reasons).Some people are vegetarians for moral reasons. They say that it is inhumane to eat animals. They identify with animals, are friends with animals, and do not want animals killed. Often, these vegetarians will eat tofu instead of meet. They often make a tofu dish designed to look and taste like an animal. For example, they make a tofu dish, that looks like a tofu turkey. Now, I am strictly against cannibalism. I identify with humans, am sad when I here of a human death, and am friends with many humans. However, I would NEVER dress a food dish up, to make it look and tast like a human. I would never make a tofu human. This, in my opinion is a sick twisted unapealing idea. Yet, vegetarions have no problem, eating immitation animals? It is unreasonable to dress a dish up, to make it look like the animals that you are morally against killingNote: I understand that my opponent could claim that not all vegetarian eat tofu turkey ect. Please, for the sake of fun, do not make this argument. Please, argue on behalf of the vegetarians that eat tofu turkey and try to justify their actions.The argument of cocain, lard and straight sugar from the bowl in moderation (Health Reasons)Some vegetarians do not believe that eating meat is unhealthy, so they completely eliminate meat from their diet. It seems strange, that of all the unhealthy foods, to completly eliminate, they pick meat. Vegetarians are allowed to eat sugar straight from the bowl, french fries and gravy, lard, poison, cocain, heroin, cooking oil, dougnuts, cake, pop and energy drinks. Compared to these foods meats are relativly healthy. It seems unreasonable to complelty ban some moderatly healthy foods, while allowing some extremely unhealthy foods. Its like having the death penalty for manslaughter, while only 20 years for murder. Vegetarians are allowed to eats cocain and lard in moderation, but can never have an ounce of meat? These rules are skewed and unreasonable.I wish my opponent luck and look forward to this debate. Again, I will argue these points, my opponent's job is to refute them. Let's Go!
The Messiah loves everyone and the world? Wrong; HE does not love everyone, including the world!

My opponent replies by stating that the topic is about the Bible. However, the Messiah is only talked about in a part of the bible, making the topic about Messiah, not the bible itself. We are not exactly discussing how the Messiah dies to save the world, as my opponent ended up directly insulting me, as well as talking solely about who the bible is for and how Christians should stop relying on man for biblical information, or "man made thoughts". Unfortunately, she has wasted all her rounds doing this, and she has never debated on topic throughout this debate. =Conclusion= My opponent yet again denies that she is willfully off topic, even though she does not talk about the Messiah at all and how he does not love anything.
The Messiah loves everyone and the world? Wrong; HE does not love everyone, including the world!

My opponent shows poor conduct by directly using ad hominem. Also, she does not address the fact how she is off topic or contradicting herself. I will explain here. =Why my opponent is off topic= 1.) She does not even use the word "Messiah", and she only debates about what or who the Bible is for, and what it actually says, without at all referring to Messiah. 2.) She says I only believe in Satan, which is also off topic, so I'm not going to address it much. All I have to say for this is that I am a Buddhist. 3.) My opponent finally states that I do not have any idea what I am talking about because I do not provide any evidence. However, this does not have anything to do with the topic. Also, just because I'm not providing evidence doesn't mean I don't know what I am talking about. 4.) At the very first part of her R2, she exclaims: "Right, and that is the reason why you can't even provide any evidence to back up your argument". However, there is no clarification as to what the reason is. =Conclusion= My opponent shows extremely poor conduct, as well as not addressing the fact that she is off-topic. I urge the readers to considers his in voting.
The Messiah loves everyone and the world? Wrong; HE does not love everyone, including the world!

Can someone go against my evidence? You must debate against me with biblical evidence, not man made thoughts or man made doctrine. In church they teach "Christians" John 3:16. John 3:16 first off has nothing to do with this world, let alone every individual. If you so called "Christians" actually read the bible and would stop depending on man, you would know that there is more than one world. You would also know that the bible is not for everyone, only for the HOUSE OF ISRAEL!
Prison is not as beneficial as other legal action

I must move on to a different scenario, two in fact: One; Even the hardcore criminals do not deserve to go to maximum security prison, they deserve death. why spend money on their lives when we just get rid of them from this earth? it sure would put them out of their misery, too, unless you're religious and believe that they have ANOTHER prison to go to (hell) but that's a different subject. Two: Rapes do happen in minimum security prisons. Now, there are punishments, but does that unrape the victim? And be honest, would you rather be whipped, or sent to prison? For the criminal, they would prefer prison, as prison is like a home to them, however, an ordinary citizen would obviously prefer the whipping, as it only lasts 10 minutes.
Prison is not as beneficial as other legal action

I disagee with the prison system altogether. Now many of may be asking, "why is that?" "Why should we care what criminals have to go through?" however, one, and society, must care what criminals go through as it determines whether or not they will committ these crimes again. Prison, in the long run, is harmful to society the way it is currently being used, for the following reason. First off, prisons put criminals in with other criminals, who are often a bad influence on each other, and often lead to the radicalization and hardening of criminals. if you had robbed a bank, and your best buddy in prison also robbed a bank, and he didn't feel guilty one bit, what do you think would happen. Now imagine if thousands of inmates are like that, and some have committed FAR WORSE crimes than some of these other people. An example of this is the conversion of black men in prison to islam, as the extremists who go to prison end up converting the prisoners to something more extreme, giving them great purpose. What criminal doesn't feel happy that an entire religion (it doesn't really) hates the civilization that put him there? Furthermore, prisoners are subject to abuse, not by the guards, but by their fellow inmates, making life in prison a living hell. They must constantly deal with beatings, blackmail, and rape on a daily basis, and now on to my next point. The criminal justice system in the United States is so cruel, it puts mentally ill people in prison, which can not be tolerated by a country that stands for human rights, as mentally ill people are obviously not fit to be in prison, when even ordinary people are not fit to go to prison (by that I mean no one WANTS to go to prison). To continue, the prison system drives inmates insane, what with the solitude, being locked up in a small space with people that constantly rape you, having nothing to do or no one to talk to, being subject to intense discipline by the guards, etc. it has been proven to drive people insane, leading many to hunger strikes. Also, there are punishments to replace these punishments, such as flogging, death, house arrest, fines, and forcing a thief to work for the person he stole from, and mental rehab, the most underutilized of all. Lastly, there are tow types of criminals in prison: one, the hardcore criminal with nor regrets, such as by murdering a gang rival, or the misguided one, who made a stupid mistake one day and is an otherwise normal person (such as the tax evader ) but is thrust into the worst hell on earth (worse than the religious hell, if you ask me). Do you really wanna mix these two groups? Are they really the same?
right+intent=morality

First of all, the Bible is a historic document (rooted in reality) that teaches morality, therefore is relevant and capable of supplying morals by itself. Second, the word "wrong" has multiple meanings. You clearly didn't understand or ignored what I said. I wasn't saying the word "wrong" was different from itself, only that it has multiple meanings, like quite a few other words.Thus far, you've given no real evidence to support your claim, other than that you're very sure of your correctness, so I'm rather glad this debate is now over, it was quite the waste of my time talking to a brick wall...
right+intent=morality

true, anything is bad without balance good is bad without balance its not illogical to do it just because it tastes bad, becasue it helps me, and i might need it if i take it no morality can exist from the bible alone, it dosnt explain anything, you have to look at reality to compare, sense trumps bible, bible presuppose sense bad is bad.. not not bad there is no difference to the word wrong and the word wrong
right+intent=morality

Pain isn't necessarily bad, and joy isn't necessarily good. If you're taking a medicine that tastes horrible, but helps you, is it bad? and if you derive pleasure from stealing from people, is that good? Man has some rough sense of morality, but it can only truly be refined by the Bible.Again, you've still failed to spefify whether by "bad" you mean morally evil or factually incorrect. Both carry different meanings, which changes the argument drastically.
right+intent=morality

pain is bad, joy is good.. would you like me to smash you hand with a hammer real fast sir, prices are really low today to contrast.. because i DIE from eating a deadly poisonous mushroom, its a bad idea to eat it if i am trying to stay healthy.. right is right.. wrong is wrong obviusly the choice is mine and not the apples, but the apple dosnt have a choice about it being healthy and me going to eat it also
right+intent=morality

Logic doesn't determine wether something is right or wrong to do. It can tell you what will happen (For example, a logical syllogism: Poisonous objects are harmful to consume, poisonous mushrooms are poisonous, therefore poisonous mushrooms are harmful to consume. That doesn't tell you wether it's a good idea or not to consume it, it just tells you what will happen. If you want to draw conclusions [like that eating the mushroom is bad] based on that logic, it's entirely you making that choice, and not the logic), not whether something's moral or not.
right+intent=morality

you said right and wrong, is it right to smash your computer with a hammer to turn it on? you said you cant tell wrong and right without the bible no? logic is simply cause and effect, reality is logic, my old defintiion of logic was the implication of matter against matter, but you can mention any cause and effect example and see that i am right eating a poisonous mushroom is bad if you do it to stay healthy.
right+intent=morality

I think there are a few differences between computer problems and moral problems. One, the Bible is not a manual to fix computers. Two, (no matter how many times I say it, you never cease to make your claim or provide evidence for it) logic, without the proper foundation to build off of (in this case, moral knowledge) is completely morally neutral. It can't tell you that eating a poisonous mushroom is bad, it just tells you that it will harm you. You make the decision that being harmed is bad, so it isn't the logic that determined that that was wrong, but you.
right+intent=morality

so if you have computer problems do you look in the bible for instruction? just curious logical is right, and illogical is wrong bible presupposes sense, which makes the claim that the bible somehow tells me the truth and not my sense can only be invalid as i see it logic determine right and wrong, becasue i dont pick it up and eat it when i notice it was a deadly mushroom i just picked up from the stack of apples, where as if i had grabbed an apple i was going for i might eat it logic is the Measurement of resonable, i determine its right to not close my eyes right now to read on with my eyes, if i had transparent eye lids thou.. cause+effect=logic the healthy apple is the cause that its right to eat it, if it was a healthy apple dipped in poison it would be wrong thou, unless dying is my intent and its justified somehow..