BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
creationism is not backed by science like evolution

My opponent has created his own definition of creationism with no further evidence to support it. Current creation views are not in fact creationism, current creation views are of the offshoot of the idea of thiestic evolution aside from contemporary creationism. We are here to debate creationism, not whatever interpretation con derives. I am not here to debate why God could have created evolution, i am here to debate why creationism is not scientifically supported. Creationism has very little to any scientific evidence to support it. Creationism may be the answer to how we came about but that neglects the fact that you cannot scientifically support it like the big bang or evolution. The singularities origins are still being debated about among the scientific community. There are many theories on how abiotic substances became biotic substances. Evidence includes http://en.wikipedia.org... where they created organic compounds using lightning and a mixture of primative substances that would have been found before earth. To explain how molecules became man, we must realize that these changes occurred very gradually, over the spans of billions of years. The evidence you have provided is incredibly biased as implied by the name of the website (institute for creation research). Neanderthals according to much of the scientific community is a separate species, the scientist you mention are of creation research and may have to be accounted for bias. Yet again, Con, i'm am not trying to point out why evolution is perfect. I am trying to point our why evolution is justified by the majority of science, that is a fact. Creationism yet has pointed out much of these "gaps." also if he tries to present new evidence in the final round, that is incredibly abusive to debate since the final round is mainly reserved for rebuttal and conclusive species aside from new evidence. To conclude, I would like to point out the the fact that con has been constantly pointing holes into scientific theories and has never proposed reasons why or how creationism is scientifically supported. If in the event that he does decide to present these reason in his final speech, you must vote pro otherwise your supporting bad debate practices. According to credible definition of creationisms, there can be no creationism if there is evolution, they are distinct. My opponent throughout this debate has been arguing for theistic evolution, not creationism. My opponent therefore is not on topic and because he is not on topic, there is no point in him giving his final speech since he will be arguing for something i am not debating against.
creationism is not backed by science like evolution

Cre·a·tion·ism noun \-shə-G6;ni-zəm\ : the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect(http://www.merriam-webster.com...)Creationism cre·a·tion·ism Pronunciation: /krēG2;āSHəG6;nizəm http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...; data-src-ogg="  " target="blank">http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...; Definition of creationism in English:NOUN The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... According to two well known dictionaries, it is implicit that these two things are in fact opposites. Con has no evidence to back up his claims or evidence. Con is trying to argue for the theistic revolution, which are views that "regard religious teachings about God as compatible with modern scientific understanding about biological evolution." http://en.wikipedia.org...Most of Con's claims are invalidated due to the fact that creationism and evolution cannot coexist. Therefore, i have not won this debate.Science supports macroevolution because macroevolution is a part of the scientific theory of evolution. Scientific theory is based upon extensive evidence. Some evidence for macroevolution include fossils of homo erectus and homo neatherthalensis which have very close ties to humans. I don't understand what con describes as "large-gaps" but i suppose. My argument is creationism is not science based, it is almost entirely faith based. To con's question of how did something come from nothing is answered with scientific theory, it all came from a singularity that exploded and became our modern universe. Any other scientific critique he threw at me is already solved for in science. science is dynamic and changes as we learn more and more. I believe this debate is already won, con failed to understand what creationism truly is. His "creation proponents" are part of the theistic revolution aside from the ideas and beliefs of creationism.
creationism is not backed by science like evolution

Some creation proponents argue that the big bang theory and evolution are processes of creationism. Therefore, this opening argument is ill constructed. Certain views of creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Views of creationism and the logical opposite, atheism, do not necessarily depend on one's view of evolution. The big bang theory does not satisfy the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" The big bang is a theory that explains a portion of how the process may have happened, but it does not have anything to do with what creationism claims. How did the transition of nothing (meaning "not anything", no properties at all) to all that there is come about? So, the big bang could very well have happened, but that does not in any way argue against creationism. It could have been a process that a deity used to create all that there is. At this point, I would argue that the argument is already lost because creationism and evolution are not necessarily considered opposites. However, I would like to take the debate to a different level and consider the unlikelihood of macro evolution. To what degree has science supported that macro evolution is a fact? I would argue that in order for there to be strong support that evolution is the likely process that caused the universe to come about, there cannot be any major unexplained issues in the explanation of the process. (I am now using the word universe to mean all that there is, which can also include the multi-verse scenarios.) I would like to name a few issues here. I would point to a lack of a unified theory in abiogenesis (non-living to living matter), the inability to explain the origin of many celestial bodies including stars, etc., and the lack of an explanation of large gaps in molecules-to-man evolution, as major issues that cause macro evolution to have a lack of support. Even if the abiogenesis problem is solved, the gaps in molecules-to-man evolution are not explained. The fact is, there are far too many gaps that we currently have to be able to conclude that evolution is the vehicle of how the universe arose. In my next argument, I hope to expound on these evidences to show that macro evolution has major problems that it must overcome before we can conclude that it was the vehicle for how the universe arose. Even if it is the vehicle, it does not follow that creationism is invalid. Before I continue, I will give my opponent a chance to respond, so I can know where he/she would like to take the argument. In my second argument I hope to develop the problems with evolution in more detail, unless my opponent chooses to argue in a different direction.
self-harmers should not receive medical attention

Millions of people in the world are suffering; millions who are not able to get a decent medical care; millions who are suffering as their bodies are tearing themselves apart because of horrible conditions and horrible medical care. These people didn't get a say in their life. They were born into this Hell and misery; yet my opponent believes that we should pity the people who had everything in their lives and decided to go on and harm themselves. They have devalued their own life by making such a selfish move as to cut or hurt themselves. A smoker shouldn't have priority over the kid who got run over by the drunk driver. The kid suffering, he deserves more care and respect then the pitiless smoker who chooses their own individual faith. When a poor kid is crying in the emergency room because he has broken his leg severely; should he sit their in agony and torment to wait for some person who has caused themselves injury for their own selfish gain. In terms of money; do you know how much money we must waste to take care of people who have harmed themselves? Imagine that "x" amount that we could be devoting to help people in OUR OWN COUNTRY WHO HAVE PROBLEMS GOING TO A HOSPITAL. Yet my opponent beliefs that these people should wait in line behind the people who commit self-injury. A self-injurer is a selfish person who only in extraneous cases it can be proven that their is an actual reason that warrants the pity and comfort of such a person. Personally, I pity the kid who has to suffer from a disease, because his parents can't afford medicine; rather than the kid who cuts themselves to make themselves feel better. It's the same thing with smokers; they made their own rational choice to smoke and thus they deserve their own fate. For every cause their is an effect; nobody deserves to wait in line behind a smoker or a self-cutter when they are suffering in agony from causes that they can't even control. For these reasons I stand strongly behind the Pro side of this resolution and I will now pass over the debate to my opponent.
Athenian Democracy

First of all we are not discussing women's rights, we are discussing whether or not this is a democracy. And about the fear, that does not define what a democracy is. a Democracy is equal justice to all, which is a judicial system. People vote, which they did no matter how few, and people make laws. Also, having a council to do so, and they had that as well. How is it not a democracy when all these things are fulfilled. Whether their methods are fear, love, or being proud of your country and its representatives, is all insignificant.
Athenian Democracy

I calculated that only 28,828 people could vote. You didn't mention that women could not vote and you also didn't say anything about people's rights. If people truly had their rights, which is part of a democracy, would they promote fear? "Fear is our chief protection against this, teaching us to obey the magistrates and the laws." which is quoted from Thucydides in "Pericle's Funeral Oration". Fear should not be instilled in the people because fear doesn't equal free.
Athenian Democracy

Your numbers are out of proportion. Yes, only 12% could vote. but did you look at the categories of people who were listed? 80,000 of this number were as presented slaves, 25,775 people were Metics, and a whopping 74,750 were children. Do you really think foreigners, and children have the right knowledge, and know whats best for the country? And the reason for the military training for the men is because if you are willing to die for your country, you would also make the right decision for country, in picking the right people.
Athenian Democracy

Is the Athenian Democracy really a Democracy? Yes, it is. Their constitution favors many instead of the few. If you are to look at the laws, they give equal justice to all. Social class has no say in your skills, and qualifications, and poverty doesn't get in the way. The democracy has made its self a master of everything, and administers everything by its votes. All of the military Treasurers, Commissioners, and Superintendents are elected by vote, including all military officers. Therefore making it a Democracy.
Sibling incest should be legalized in the United States.

You may be disappointed in what I say because I kinda half agree with you. I do believe that it should be legal but it should be illegal for them to reproduce and have children. It is common knowledge that if you half sex with a family member and have offspring it has fairly large chance of being mutated. So... basically I think it should be legal if they always use protection or have surgery to stop them from having children.
Sibling incest should be legalized in the United States.

I have set a few rules for having an open-minded debate about a controversial taboo. - The first round will be accepting the challenge only. - The final round will be our closing arguments, and no new evidence will be brought up. - Incest will hereby by defined as sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden by law to marry. - Sibling will be defined as each of two or more children or offspring having one or both biological parents in common. - We will not personally attack each other or resort to ad hominems. Attacking me and calling me a pervert will not further your argument. - Data must be backed by credible sources.
Sex Education in High Schools

Schools should have the class and give students the opportunity to take it or not. Regardless if they do take it, the child should be informed of becoming educated on the matter of sexual inter course. Simply giving them the knowledge of becoming pregnant, getting a possible STD or STI, and informing them on how to be safe should be at least helpful to one teen. The class itself is not promoting to have sex, but to give teenagers and insight of the subject and how to be safe.
Abortion topic

A women's only choice doesn't have to be abortion, there also is adoption. A women should not kill an unborn fetus just because she "feels incapable"of taking care of it. 94% of women who gave birth said that abortion would not be a good solution resulting from rape. " I was an innocent victim of a horrible crime. I was not to blame for what the rapist had done to me. But in choosing to abort, to kill an innocent child growing within me, I lowered myself to the level of the rapist. http://prolifeaction.org...
Abortion topic

"Without publicly funded contraceptive services, there would be 40% more abortions each year in the US. The rate among teens would increase by 58%. The teen birth rate and births to unmarried women would both increase by about 25%." This means that without publicly funded contraceptive services abortions each year would raise as well as teen birth rate and unmarried women. Also "14,000 women have abortions following rape or incest" which means that abortion doesn't mean that a women has sex then goes into abortion, it sometimes means that a women is forced into sex or the man leaves her, the women shouldn't have the responsibility to herself to take care of the child herself and with abortion she has other options to help her with the problem.
Abortion topic

The pregnancy is the result of carelessness on the mother"s part. If she did not take the proper precautionary measures to effectively prevent an unintended pregnancy she should have to deal with the consequences. 'Despite the use of local anesthesia, a full 97% of women having abortions reported experiencing pain during the procedure, Compared to other pains, researchers have rated the pain from abortion as more painful than a bone fracture, about the same as cancer pain, though not as painful as an amputation." So Abortion is not only hurting the unborn fetus but the mother as well this shows instead of causing harm to one life its two. Also abortion can leave the mother in a higher risk for breast cancer around the age of 45. Women with a family history of breast cancer are more likely to get it. "All 12 women participating in the study who had abortions before 18 and had a family history of breast cancer themselves got cancer before age 45. [102]" http://www.nrlc.org...
Abortion topic

Abortion should be legal because some women who have not fully ready to have a child and to take care of the child then they should abort the baby. "19% of teens who have had sexual intercourse become pregnant each year. 78% of these pregnancies are unplanned. 6 in 10 teen pregnancies occur among 18-19 year olds. From the Alan Guttmacher Institute Facts in Brief on Teen Sex and Pregnancy." http://web.mit.edu...
Abortion topic

Abortions should not be legal because it is harmful for the fetus if it is beyond 10 weeks. "Bernard N. Nathanson, MD, the late abortion doctor who renounced his earlier work and became a pro-life activist, stated that when an abortion is performed on a 12-week-old fetus, "We see [in an ultrasound image] the child"s mouth open in a silent scream... This is the silent scream of a child threatened imminently with extinction." Scientists say during abortions the fetus flinches and is experiencing some type of pain. According to the Victims of Violence Act which was "to protect unborn children from assault and murder" anyone trying to intentionally kill an unborn child should be punished. "38 states have passed similar fetal homicide laws" this shows that the states care about giving the unborn child a chance at life. http://abortion.procon.org...;
is the riddler better then the joker

"the riddler reads peoples brains,"Do you not understand?THE JOKER CANNOT HAVE HIS MIND BE READ.In the links I gave you, his mind cant even be read by Sceptre. "and the riddler is the best escape artist in the comics batman never actually finds him and puts him in jail."I don't see what escaping will do for you when you have been shot in the head. (refer to round 4)"he also has machines which control people so he can easily get control of the joker"I searched up this "Mind control" that the Riddler has, and this is the only link that turned up.http://legobatman.wikia.com...Not only that, but i have already proved that The Joker cannot have his mind controlled, read or manipulated.And if for some reason, Enigma could control his mind, (even though I proved he couldn't) he still has one final trump card: his joker venom. He's immune to the stuff, but Enigma isn't. So no matter what, Riddler is going to have to go bye-bye.[1]Most fans prefer The Joker:http://murderousautomaton.deviantart.com...http://www.quotev.com...http://www.escapistmagazine.com...http://www.quibblo.com...Thats not even the beginning.[1]http://batman.wikia.com...;
is the riddler better then the joker

has machines that can look into their minds and deduct" Wont work. The joker is unpredictable, doesn't follow a plan, nor can he be affected by those machines (or any mind reading).[1] [2] the riddler does not need to use guns" Guess what? The Riddler is a bag of bones. Since he can't read the jokers mind, he's just a sitting duck- a dead sitting duck. [1] http://dc.wikia.com...(New_Earth) [2] http://poetry.rapgenius.com...
is the riddler better then the joker

The Joker does Liu He Bafa, Aikido/Hapkido, Muay Thai, and Street Fighting. [1]From the past information I provided, it seems as though the Joker can beat the Riddler in hand-to-hand, and ranged. "walking stick/cane which has various inventions in it such as hologram, security bypass" Which are useless. "Oh hey! I can use my hologram to kick butt!""the riddler has escaped even matched bat man in battles"Because, who wouldn't want the villain to get his a55 kicked in the first few seconds? The Joker actually fights, and is good at it. Like I stated in my first sentence, he uses a variety of fighting styles.Take a look at this, this is just one of many comic vine battle forums in which everyone thinks that the Joker could easily curb-stomp the Riddler:http://www.comicvine.com...Why The Joker Hates Batman:While The Red Hood Escapes from Batman, Batman accidentally gets The Red Hood in a vat of chemicals. Emerging from a reservoir later, he removes the hood and sees his reflection: bleached chalk-white skin, ruby-red lips, and emerald green hair. These events, coupled with his other misfortunes that day, drive the engineer through the massive personality shift that results in the birth of the Joker.ALSO:None of your information is trustworthy, since you fail to cite your sources.Nearly all of the weapons you listed require prep, (traps)I also doubt you should be taking weapons from video games.[1]https://ca.answers.yahoo.com...
is the riddler better then the joker

although the riddler is obsessed with bat man it is not random like the joker the riddler aka ed nigma was fired form enterprises for creating a device to show movies in his mind. Bruce the very man he looked up to and idoled told him it was mind manipulation and fired him.. to get back at Bruce he was going to kill him but he figured out he was bat man by using a truth device so that is why he is obsessed with bat man not randomly but broken hearted riddlers weapons cross word throwing nets exploding puzzle pieces secret tell device walking stick/cane which has various inventions in it such as hologram, security bypass and an electrical blast automatic handgun that shoots bubbles if a person is hit he inflates like a balloon the riddler has escaped even matched bat man in battles he is also an almost perfect escape artist so when he is put in jail he does not stay their for long
is the riddler better then the joker

"the joker is a mad man randomly obsessed with destroying the batman"I'd like you to take note that the Riddler is also obsessed with Batman[69]The Joker doesn't want to destroy the Batman. Take this quote:Batman: Then why do you want to kill me?The Joker: [giggling] I don't, I don't want to kill you! What would I do without you? Go back to ripping off mob dealers? No, no, NO! No. You... you... complete me[1]I also wonder how you could possibly associate The Joker with "a random person trying to hunt down batman"Physically, the Joker can beat the Riddler, Remember how he has killed the robin at least twice?[2](Red Hood and A Death In the Family)The Jokers Arsenal-Remmington 870-Cupid OTF blade-SAW M76-Nickle top Glock 18 + 33 Round magazine + Silencer-RPG-Magnum-Grenades-Joker Venom-Razor Sharp Playing Cards-Jester Cane Sword [3] Riddlers Arsenal-The Riddlers CaneWhat Could Be the Riddlers DownfallThe Riddler has a COMPULSION to leave clues as to where he is at. Not only that, but its proven that the Riddler doesn't kill, he has to put them in a deathtrap to see if he can devise a life and death intellectual challenge that the hero cannot solve and escape. Lets not bring up how many times the Joker has escaped from arkham.[1] http://m.imdb.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3]http://batman.wikia.com...'s_weapons[3]http://forums.superherohype.com...[69] http://villains.wikia.com...(Batman_Forever)