BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God is Irrelevant in Today's Life

You can't rule out my sources just because they don't support your argument and are therefore "biased". You ignored the flood arguments and did not attempt to counter them at all. In order of your arguments: The similarity of human DNA to existing primates means nothing. House cats and man share about 90% in common DNA wise. A cow shares about 80%. Even the fruit-fly shares 60% even though they do not resemble men in any way. (http://genome.cshlp.org...) I too am equally concerned about your belief about Allah and God being one, especially as you worship neither ;). In seriousness, there are indisputable differences between Allah and God. Allah promises 72 virgins and rivers of alcohol for martyrs. Yahweh promises eternal life in perfect communion with him. Allah does not have a son. The core belief of Christianity is that Christ is the son of God and is God. As far as the big bang goes, I would not say that the math behind it is flawed. It is possible that when God spoke the universe into existence he did so in a way that resembles an explosion, although I can not say for sure. As before I can only say that there had to be something that started the bang, as well as matter already around to do so. For hundreds of years Darwin was considered the heretic. Just because the majority support a certain point of view doesn't make it so, it's called the "argumentum ad populum" fallacy. I have no problem with facts. Most scientists are atheist or interpret facts with an atheistic perspective. We know humans and monkeys have common DNA, but scientists take it a step further claiming that because our DNA is so similar we must have evolved from them. This is not true science. Fact must be based on observation, not a hypotheses of an observation. (On a related note, how funny would it be if one day man could be tried for killing a monkey as if he had killed another human, but with "science" and politics this may not be that far away, we have already seen a that a dog can inherit a man's fortune). Crime rates and religion may go hand-in-hand, but that does not mean that religion incites crime, rather poverty incites crime and religion. If the law-breakers read the Bible they would know it condemns their actions. The Bible condemns murder, thievery, adultery, tax-fraud, and more. My arguments have been directed at the proof of God-created moral instincts. There may not be any physical proof, but there are alternative perspectives which I have pointed out about morality which do not hold water, including Atheism. Thanks for the debate. I enjoyed it. Good luck on your next one.
God is Irrelevant in Today's Life

You cite a few examples claiming to prove the Genesis flood, but real scientific evidence comes from multiple independent sources. All the links you pasted have the same Christian bias. If the worldwide flood actually occurred as little as several thousand years ago, we would be tripping over evidence.Ironically, biologists are tripping over evidence when it comes to evolution. And just so you don't make this mistake again with other debaters: humans and chimpanzees share 98.8% DNA. Here's a link to the Smithsonian's website: http://humanorigins.si.edu...And Christianity and Islam share the same Abrahamic God. It's troubling that as a Christian you aren't aware of this...http://articles.chicagotribune.com...And as neither of us are astrophysicists, I'll let NASA prove the Big Bang to you: http://science.nasa.gov...Scientific consensus is achieved when you publish your findings and no one can prove you wrong. And scientists do try. To prove a theory like evolution or the Big Bang (which is not a hypothesis) a majority of scientists must support it. Climate Change is suppported by 97% of climatologists. Reporters actually located the 3% who disagree and found they had connections to Russian oil companies. There is no faith when it comes to science. There are only facts. When facts change, the science changes. The same cannot be said of religion. And that's the biggest difference.Moving on, social standards are based on right and wrong. That's the whole point. Different societies have different standards, which we can debate which is more just. But you can't deny the facts. The more religious a society, the higher the rates of crime.Finally, it seems we've come to the crux of our debate: You believe moral instincts are from God. Obviously I can't disprove that. It's called a non sequitur. Like, what if I said that moral instincts come from my invisible friend Tony? A scientist would ask for my proof for which I'd say there is none. And that scientist would start laughing.
Young Earth Creationism Is Not Possible

Full Resolution Young earth creationism is possible. BoP is shared. Definitions Young Earth Creationism: ". .. the religious belief that the Universe, Earth and all life on Earth were created by direct acts of the Abrahamic God during a relatively short period, sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago. "[1] Please accept the idea of a six-day creation account. Possible: "Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances. "[2]Rules 1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed. 3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering. 4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be posted in an outside link. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person. Debate Structure Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by pro) Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments) Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments) Sources [1]: . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]: . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
no using the letter "e"

An unusual paragraph: How quickly can you find out what is unusual about this paragraph? It looks so ordinary that you would think that nothing was wrong with it at all, and in fact, nothing is. But it is unusual. Why? If you study it and think about it you may find out, but I am not going to assist you in any way. You must do it without coaching. No doubt if you work at it for long, it will dawn on you. I don't know. Now, go to work and try your luck. [Celebratory Haiku:] This is victory. Pro again admits his loss. Award Con all points.
no using the letter "e"

[My opponent: "I lost." He conceded, all I have to say.] Contrary to Pro's opinion, 'this', notwithstanding what 'this' may subsist as, isn't worthy of this illustration of ‘sucking', as is Pro's claim. Though, I will grant Pro that 'bailing' is a good thought; it's first-class of him to admit a loss. Still, I shall play fair with Pro, and maintain my position as Con, to confirm that it is not a difficult or irrational thing to ask to uphold such laws. As far as his skill with haiku, allow I, Con to palpably show off my ability: I am still winning. Pro said in fact that "I lost". All 7 points Con.
no using the letter "e"

This sucks, I should bail. But I will pray that con will crack the laws. I am angry, look at my haikus, it's fun. This is boring. I lost. I cannot think of anything to say. XBox rocks. Call of Duty is fun. Shooting and killing random antagonists, it is joyous. This is short, but so hard. I am watching football. Galaxy vs. Chivas.
no using the letter "e"

Assuming that my opponent is allowed to make an introduction, I will make one as well, in the spirit of fairness; I'd like to clarify something: The only time that it is acceptable to use the letter 'e' would be when referring to an opponent's argument (meaning that you're pointing out someone else's use of the taboo character; because, obviously, one has to be able to momentarily make use of the letter 'e' to point out the opponent's use of said letter; but, as a stipulation, it must be enclosed in brackets -> [ ], and does not count as part of the 300 characters needed for the argument. [My opponent has already used the letter 'e' once: "but it will probably take until 12:30 to finish. " Notice that, in the word 'take', the last letter is clearly an e; therefore, even if I were to use a word with e in my following argument, my opponent has already made the mistake, in round 1 of all things; so really, no matter what I say, even if I typed a stream of letters composed entirely of 'e', my opponent would still lose for using the letter 'e' first; however, despite the fact that I have already won the debate, I will act in the spirit of fun and fairness, and post an argument anyway; keep in mind, though, that, even if I inadvertently use the letter 'e', my opponent has already lost the round. So, in layman's terms: [Inside Brackets] = not a part of the 300 characters, used to point out flaws or out-of-context statements concerning the framework or opponent's arguments; can use the letter 'e'. Not inside brackets, apart from Round 1 introductions = part of 300 character limit, CANNOT use the letter 'e' (though my opponent already has). ] [My Argument:] What Pro says ought not subsist as an assumption of truth in our round today - it is, in fact, not 12:03, but is, actually, without a doubt, 12:30 AM, which, obviously, thoroughly confirms that it is, I am now hoping that my antagonist opts to part with his wish for victory, as I think that I can think of nothing original to say. I pray that my rival will now distinguish among all of his A-B-Cs in any additional clash of logic.
no using the letter "e"

Excluding this introduction, each person must write at least 300 characters without using the letter e. If you use the letter e, you lose. If you decide to be a cheeky bastard and decide to be against not using the letter e, you lose. If you do not write at least 300 characters in each argument, you lose. Here is my first argument. This is difficult. Why did I do this? It is midnight, and I should catch z's, but I am doing this. It is midnight now, but it will probably take until 12:30 to finish. Dammit i'm mad. It's now 12:03. My mind is stuck. This has no point, I am just rambling about random stuff. 12:06, 23 to go. This is so hard. I think this is 300, I should stop soon. How about now? This works.
Kylo Ren vs Luke Skywalker

If you notice what Pro said,he said that it would be an interesting fight if Luke would use the dark side. In in this case,i think he would. In the comics he used whatever means to stop the performer again,even by joining his side. So in this case,where Kylo Ren is really dangerous and killed more people than Darth Vade,r(most likely)than I think he would tap into the dark side. He is very very powerful with the light side,but Kylo Ren is stronger than him in the dark side. But if Luke would to tap into the Dark Side and use it,then he would beat Kylo Ren there. In fact as I mentioned earlier,he became pure force. If you become so powerful on the road to the Jedi to where you become pure force,you can't really fight that. My opponent stated that Leia did have force heritage,and while I realized this IS true,then I can't really fight that argument. Han Solo would then weaken the midichlorians when they had Kylo Ren,but that means Padme' would weaken it for Luke,and as I clearly just stated,Luke is plenty powerful with the force. So sadly,my opponent wins this part. Pro said that Luke might be more powerful than Kylo Ren when it comes to light sabers,and that Luke probably showed him his skilled. But you see,Kylo Ren most likely quit before Luke showed him everything and took up training from the Sith. So Luke didn't show him everything before he left. And when he says that Kylo Ren is more trained than Luke,this is not true. He's had 30 to train between the movies,and some of the most powerful Jedi are self trained. Some self trained Jedi have gone among big threats. See the wiki for more. Now Obi-Wan did give Luke that spark withing him to help him become a Jedi. And then Pro says that force rage is a powerfully attack that strengthens him,I counter this. When Anakin lost his limbs and got his suit,he raided his agility for strength. And then As you see in the sixth movie,Luke clearly had enough strength within himself and use the force to help him when he needs.You see this from the fourth movie and then on when he uses the force to launch the torpedo that blew up the Death Star. And remember,he can access the dark side to if he needs that to strengthen himself.
Kylo Ren vs Luke Skywalker

I think my opponent is trying to enter the hypothetical on Luke tapping into his dark side energy. It would be interesting, but in order for Luke to tap into that power, he is going to have to get insulted. Luke tapped into his dark side, because Vader said he was going to lure his sister into the dark side. I don't think Kylo Ren would want to test Luke, and as my opponent stated Luke has had 30 years between return of the jedi, and force awakens. That would mean Luke would probably have a firm philosophy by now. Well, I am glad I win on the force part. I think my opponent tried to make an analogy to the revenge of the sith battle, but Luke is not Obi-Wan. Luke gets overwhelmed immediately whenever he encountered Vader. Kylo Ren would do the same. Kylo Ren would just overwhelm Luke. This battle would go a lot like the empire strikes back battle as I have said previously. Ren would immediately overwhelm Luke with force rage. Luke would just hold back until his inevitable defeat. If Luke accesses the dark side, Ren would probably have experience with dealing with dark side people. This is because Kylo Ren is the master of the Knights of Ren A master is another way of saying you are better than everyone else in that group. I think it is clear that Kylo Ren would win this fight.
Humans DID evolve via evolution as science currently teaches

Hats off to magicaintreal. That was such an impressive post. Clearly the depth of knowledge on the Pro side is vast. I will say that the evidence, though extensive, does not show enough information to prove the link. With the burdon of proof on Pro, it can't just be said that evolution is likely to have happened or may hand happened. I will grant you that the absence of connecting those dots (filling in very key fossil gaps) does not disprove evolution. But without evidence of those large transition moments, evolution cannot be proven either. Science fills in the gaps with their best guesses. There is a huge flaw with science filling in those gaps because they are operating in a bias way. They are taking point A and point D and then saying point B and C must have taken place. The flaw is that they are already starting with their conclusion. Had science hypothesized points B and C prior to discovering A and D we would have a different subject, but it did not take place in that order. Here is some information to offer: "Gaps remain, of course, in the fossil records of many species, although a lot of them shrink each year as new fossils are discovered. These gaps do not indicate weakness in the theory of evolution itself. Rather, they point out uncertainties in our understanding of exactly how some species evolved." (Miller, Kenneth, Levine, Joseph, Prentice Hall Biology, 2008, p. 383.) "Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series." (Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, What Evolution Is, 2001, p.14.) "Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion "it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved. "Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational evolutionary intermediates between documented fossil species." (Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89.) "People and advertising copywriters tend to see human evolution as a line stretching from apes to man, into which one can fit new-found fossils as easily as links in a chain. Even modern anthropologists fall into this trap . . .[W]e tend to look at those few tips of the bush we know about, connect them with lines, and make them into a linear sequence of ancestors and descendants that never was. But it should now be quite plain that the very idea of the missing link, always shaky, is now completely untenable." (Gee, Henry, "Face of Yesterday," The Guardian, Thursday July 11, 2002.) I think that's enough for now. And with that I turn the debate back to Pro
Humans DID evolve via evolution as science currently teaches

*No round rules *No acceptance round; just start debating 1st round. Resolution Humans DID evolve via evolution as science currently teaches. Pro Has the Burden of Proof and 4 sets of 10,000 characters to demonstrate that what science currently teaches about human evolution is CORRECT and refute Con. Con Has only 3 sets of 10,000 characters to refute Pro and make any counter claims. *Definitions can be changed, in the comments section, before posting your first argument, as long as both Pro and Con agree. Otherwise *Definitions below are agreed on by posting your first argument. Definitions human - A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...... evolved - developed over successive generations, especially as a result of natural selection. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...... via - by way of; through http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...... evolution - the process by which different kinds of living organisms have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...... science - the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...... currently - at the present time http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...... teaches - shows or explains to (someone) how to do something. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com......
Marijuana Medicine

this was fun- my first debate ever. well here it goes- Maybe marijuana isn't as harmful as it is rumored to be, however, does not take away the fact it is still harmful. it causes hallucination, lung infections, and obstructed air ways.heart race and anxiety, just to name a few. Overall, you have made a very strong argument on legalization on marijuana as a recreational drug. However, you have completely missed the focal point of the debate- marijuana as medicine. You have provided no evidence of how marijuana could be used as medicine. My closing statement is that as you have no evidence supporting your claim, we may not assume that marijuana is a medicine without solid evidence.
Marijuana Medicine

Did you not see my last link to the 10 facts about marijuana? Marijuana does not cause cancer. As a society we know and see the effects of these hard drugs such as heroin and no one in their right mind would legalize a drug of that danger. My brother is in prison for heroin use, maybe if we instead treat the users as they are sick instead of criminals it would help. By the way we already know what banning alchohol did. Instead of allowing criminals and cartels to profit off of these drugs (marijuana is the biggest cash crop in America all though its illegal) we actually collect taxes and help fund the government. Instead we throw people in jail for simple possesion charges and waste much needed tax money. If we keep weed illegal the criminals profit. If we make it a legal recreational drug and let people use it medically we would stop their profiting and limit them to the point of destruction. My closing statement: No one ever died smoking weed, Layne Staley the lead singer of Alice in Chains (my favorite band) died with a syringe in his arm weighing in at 81 pound and 6 foot 1 inch. I fear my brother will face the same fate. Your rebuttle?
Marijuana Medicine

caffeine and alcohol may be more addictive, but that doesn't mean marijuana isn't addictive. (if it were up to me I would ban alcohol) Marijuana's effects are more harmful than caffeine. It causes memory loss and cancer. Legalizing marijuana is a slippery slope. what next? heroine? Meth? Ecstasy? drugs allowed to be sold to minors? As responsible humans, we must draw the line somewhere. ps- it's caffeine, not caffiene :)
Marijuana Medicine

Marijuana has helped several people, there is even emerging evidence that THC helps destroy certain cancer cells. Now my question is why do you think it shouldn't be legal? The only reason it is a gateway drug is because you have to associate yourself with dealers who usually are shady mofos and when you're dealing with shady law breakers you usually get more trouble than you bargain for. You sit down and hang out then Johnny crack head enters while you're high and asks if you wanna have a free hit. That's why it is a gateway drug because it is illegal in the first place. Legalize it and see what happens. Why not just try it? Why is this such a wimpy p*ssy country!?!?!
Assault Weapons Ban

For the assault weapon debate it is important to mention what is definite as an assault weapon, so we understand what it is exactly that we are trying to debate. According to the NRA-ILA, "Assault rifle by U.S. Army definition, a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. If applied to any semi-automatic firearm regardless of its cosmetic similarity to a true assault rifle, the term is incorrect." Understanding this, the term refers to a weapon, which the trigger is held down and sprays many bullets. This type of weapon is highly unsafe and can cause serious injury. As a result, a safer option would be the pistol because it is smaller and there is a less likely chance for an accident. The purpose of the ban would be to increase overall gun safety of individuals, which would keep more lives safe. Regarding your 4th point, it would not be unconstitutional to regulate the criteria for bearing weapons. By regulating the 2nd amendment, it is not being changed because citizens would still be allowed to bear arms just not all types. Sources: 1. http://www.nraila.org...
Assault Weapons Ban

I will be arguing AGAINST the proposed "assault weapons" legislation promoted by Diane Feinstein. If you accept this debate, you are expected to complete it. Thank you, and here are my opening arguments. 1. The ban would not reduce crime. We have already had an "assault weapons" ban in 1994 and no academic study has shown it to have reduced violent crime. 2. The ban affects guns based on their appearance, not their functionality. 3. The ban is misleading in its name, as it affects NOT machine guns, or other military weapons. It affects legal, civilian, SEMI-AUTOMATIC versions of these guns. 4. The ban is unconstitutional, as it would affect a huge number of legal civilian firearms used almost EXCLUSIVELY for lawful activity. These guns are protected by DC v. Heller decision. (This point is not very important, but it is the reason the ban never would have lasted.)