BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Creationism is nonsense

1. I did not dismiss your argument for being wily. I only complimented it as such and gave the information previous to the compliment as my reasoning for my dismissal. Please reread the following clearly: The person who commented on my resolution knows exactly what I meant by, "Creationism is nonsense" and I presume that an intelligent person like yourself knows what I mean as well. Further, the explanation beneath the resolution explains thoroughly what I mean. So, while I admit the angle of your approach to this debate was indeed wily and dare I say ,"creative," I must say that it fails to hold much ground. 2. Anticipation of the meaning I was going for is unnecessary because I did explain what I meant exactly under the title. Have you ever picked up a newspaper or read a magazine article which read a title that could be interpreted a few different ways? If you have ever picked up a newspaper or magazine you'd know that titles can be interpreted many ways a lot of the times and you must read on to understand what is meant by the title. 3. You continue to use "nonsensical" to mean, "without senses." I have already told you how I'm using it but heres what Webster has to say about it: 'nonsensical - senseless or illogical. The opposite of rational' Creationism is senseless because there is no good reason for it to exist. Creationism is illogical because it flies in the face of a monumental amount of evidence. Creationism is evidently the opposite of rational because so many rational people end up debating creationists. To me, Creationism is a disease. It is wrong and downright abusive to teach children these lies. There is no way a creationist can contend in the world of scientists. Therefor to teach our children (and I say our children because you must remember this idiocy for the most part is uniquely American) Creationism is to take them out of the global competition early. They will have no chance to compete with reasonable thinkers from China, Japan, Germany, Russia, and all modern developed countries. There is a good reason that evolution truth is not uniquely American or atheist. It's because it's the truth! Because it's the truth, it renders Creationism complete and utter nonsense. 4. Please reread my initial argument! You are responding as if I never said anything I've said in my initial argument. I have presented you with facts and reason based on those facts.
Creationism is nonsense

OK. It's important to understand that you can't simply dismiss someone's argument for being wily. Semantics are important since semantics are how we express ourselves. We can't simply anticipate pragmatic definitions for words since what's pragmatic is subjective even though semantics have objective definitions. The reason I picked up your debate wasn't to prove creationism either. It was to show you where creationists are coming from and how to properly critique them. If you call a creationist nonsensical and leap to the conclusion that a creationist is wrong, then your critique will be wrong. To properly critique a creationist, you must refer to rational thought and remind one that just because one is sensationally impressed by the natural beauty of the world does not mean the world was necessarily created.
Creationism is nonsense

You're very welcome for this opportunity and I'm elated and pleasantly surprised that I'm debating a person that is not a creationist. I chose the title, "Creationism is nonsense" specifically to get a creationist to debate me. I understand your deductive analysis of my resolution title, however, I will have to say that your understanding of the word, "nonsense" in this connotative expression is a bit skewed. The person who commented on my resolution knows exactly what I meant by, "Creationism is nonsense" and I presume that an intelligent person like yourself knows what I mean as well. Further, the explanation beneath the resolution explains thoroughly what I mean. So, while I admit the angle of your approach to this debate was indeed wily and dare I say ,"creative," I must say that it fails to hold much ground. I said it once and I'll say it again, "Creationism is nonsense."
Creationism is nonsense

Hello. :-) First, thank you for the opportunity to debate this. Second, let it be known that I'm not a creationist, nor do I believe anyone should be a creationist. Third, let us remember what this debate is about. The resolution is, "Creationism is nonsense". This does not mean, "Creationism is wrong," "Creationism is disagreeable," "Creationism can't be understood," or "Creationism shouldn't be understood." The resolution at hand involves the making of sense. This is very important because as the teleological proof of God shows, creationism is quintessentially built around making sense. That is the natural innate beauty of the world that is used to define intelligent design directly comes from sensation. People look, hear, smell, taste, and touch the world to derive their impressions of beauty, and it is from those sensations that it is judged that creationism is proper. Again, to be clear, the resolution is not arguing that creationism is wrong. If it did, then I would agree, understand, and sympathize with pro. However, that is not the resolution, and it is very important to understand the difference between that which is nonsense versus that which is wrong. What's right is not merely derived from our senses.
Creationism is nonsense

There is not one other country in the world besides USA that has such a large population of creationists. The overwhelming populations of people from different religions (or lack of religion), ethnic groups, backgrounds, and regions around the world accept evolution as fact. In every intellectual circle around the world, the overwhelming majority accepts evolution. The only remaining legitimate debate in the global scientific communities about evolution is whether random mutation or natural selection takes precedent in the evolutionary process. So why is creationism popular at all? Creationism is a bogus pseudoscience with no material evidence backing it. It is completely based on faith and a flawed interpretation of a flawed book; the Bible. The Bible would be an enchanting and wondrous collection of fictional stories that has enormous relevance to human societal issues, but since it is taken literally, it is a catalyst for manipulation of ignorance and perpetuating agendas. If in 3000 years, DC comics are taken as gospel truth, an ugliness will come about such as Creationism once again and degrade what is otherwise an enchanting and wondrous collection of fictional stories that ha enormous relevance in human society.
Death Penalty

I am very sorry to see that my opponent has forfeited this last round especially because his first rule was "No forfeiting rounds." I am also sad to see this because I was looking forward to having a nice debate with him but it seems that will not happen. But putting both those aside let me say that we must extend all of my offense seeing as it hasn't been negated whilst leaving my opponent's offense behind because I have negated all of his claims whilst he has not defended his and thus I see no reason to vote Con. So without further ado, I urge a Pro ballot. ~~Peter
Death Penalty

It is Pro's responsibility to show why it is right to use the death penalty and it is Con's responsibility to show why the death penalty is wrong. Both of us will share the BOP for this debate. Round 1 will be for acceptance, rules, and definitions. Rounds 2 and 3 will be for arguments and rebuttals. Rule 1: No forfeiting rounds. Rule 2: Please no personal attacks or rude comments. Rule 3: Post all sources and citations in the comment section. Rule 4: No posting new arguments or sources in the last round. Failure to adhere to these rules will result in losing all seven votes. The death penalty: A sentence of punishment by execution.[1] Good luck to whoever accepts this debate.
"First of all its quite easy to make 2+2=5 using simple algebra..."

Take a look at my opponent's argument. "Say x=1 and y=1 ok." This means that because [1 - 1 = 0], [x - y = 0]. [The (x-y) on both sides cancel each other out.] Because [x - y = 0], you can't use dividing by [x - y], because this goes against division by zero. http://en.wikipedia.org... "Under the standard rules for arithmetic on integers, rational numbers, real numbers and complex numbers, division by zero is undefined." In fact, Wikipedia was so kind to point out my opponent's fallacy, and why it doesn't work. http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent's argument was one that tried to disguise the division by zero by dividing by a difference of zero. Therefore, my opponent's logical argument is entirely flawed, and [2 + 2 = 4], by the property of addition, and [2 + 2 =/= 5], because [4 =/= 5], because two different numbers have two different values. http://www.google.com...:*:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7DKUS_en (I apologize for the broken link. Please copy the part that wasn't included in the original hyperlink into the window opened up by the hyperlink. Cheers.) "I have just shown that through algebra 2 can be equal to 1 without any flaw in the math." You made one of the biggest mathematical flaws in the history of mathematical flaws. You divided by zero in a sneaky, underhanded way. "We really didn't need three rounds bud." Yes, we will. In my second round here, I point out the flaw in your logic. You then make some defense for your logic. I point out that your defense is, in itself, flawed. You hang your head in shame. "Make what you want of it." Your argument is flawed. There. "Cheers for the debate anyway." Cheers.
"First of all its quite easy to make 2+2=5 using simple algebra..."

Say x=1 and y=1 ok. So x=y If we were to multiply both sides by "x" the equation would still be correct. xï¿½=xy correct. Now if i was to subtract "yï¿½" from both sides the equation still remains correct. xï¿½-yï¿½=xy-yï¿½ correct. And this is equal to (x-y)(x+y)=y(x-y) correct. The (x-y) on both sides cancel each other out. Leaving x+y=y or 2=1 Ok so lets take 2+2=5 Right lets take the 2+2. I have just shown that through algebra 2 can be equal to 1 without any flaw in the math. So 2+2 becomes 1+1 Now lets take a look at 5 5= (2x2)+1 And since 2=1 that becomes (1x1)+1 Which is equal to 2. So that leaves me with 1+1=2, which was originally 2+2=5. So by manipulating 2 to become 1 using algebra I have brought the two sides to be equal. We really didn't need three rounds bud. Make what you want of it. Cheers for the debate anyway.
"First of all its quite easy to make 2+2=5 using simple algebra..."

My opponent claimed the above in the comments section of this debate: . http://www.debate.org... I think that this is absolutely impossible. [2 + 2 =/= 5], because if [2 + 2 = 5], and [2 + 2 = 4], then [ 4 = 5], so [X = X + 1], so all numbers are equal. This would be ridiculous. Algebra - a branch of mathematics concerning the study of structure, relation, and quantity (. http://en.wikipedia.org...)
Trump is a better candidate than Clinton for President

Pro has dropped all of my sources and arguments proving that Donald Trump lies more than Clinton. Since Pro says a liar would make a bad POTUS, by his own standards, he thinks Trump would suck for president. I have proven that Trump is pro violence, and wants to escalate violence in the Middle East which costs lives and money. He says Clinton wants to use violence too. But in the last round he said Clinton was too soft on the Middle East. My opponent has used contradictory arguments and said Clinton is too soft, and then she would be hard. He cannot have it both ways. In the last few rounds I proved that Clinton would only use responsible violence against terrorist threats, and Donald Trump would provoke violence with his anti-Muslim rhetoric, and the fact that he is a war monger and spend lots of money on the military and bomb the military to smithereens which his supporters cheer for. Pro drops my points from the last round about Trump's problematic aggressive foreign policy. Pro says that experience does not matter, but that is not true. Experience gives exposure and the knowledge and foresight of what to expect and how to handle it and be good at your job. Pro dropped my point on all of the living former presidents (who have experience and know what the job entails) agree that Trump would make a bad POTUS. Pro says Clinton flip flopped, but so has Trump, many many times. And I have proven that all Abrahamic holy books are violent which I have shown with sources. Throughout this debate I have proven that Trump lacks the experience to be president and the temperament. While Hillary Clinton lies, Trump also lies and lies more often (they both flip flop). He is a bigger liar and does not know what the job entails or how to be good at it. Trump is war hungry and Clinton is more strategic in her foreign policy. Clinton is for social freedoms (social liberalism) which I explained is a positive thing. I have also proven that Trump's economic plan is bad, worse than Clinton's, and that Clinton does not want to waste money on a wall that would be bad for freedom and the economy.
Trump is a better candidate than Clinton for President

Pro says "Uggggh guess not" when I said I proved that Donald Trump lies more than Clinton. Then he posted a YouTube that has her lying for 13 minutes straight. Please extend my point that Trump lies every 5 minutes over 4.5 hours of speeches and press conferences. The sources I've shown (which Pro does not refute) show that Trump has lied more, along with the political fact checking website which showed that Trump lies more than Clinton. Pro drops all of this. http://www.politifact.com... http://thehill.com... http://www.aljazeera.com... http://www.vanityfair.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Fact checkers say that Trump lies between 76 and 91% of the time. http://www.politicususa.com... http://www.usnews.com... I have shown lots of sources proving that Trump lies including to his own supporters. Con says "citation needed" but please see every single link I have just posted above in this round along with previous rounds. Con says I haven't given proof that Trump is pro violence. Refer to the last rounds where I gave sources and links to quote Trump talking about how he wants to beef up security and get involved in more conflicts. Here are more sources. Trump is okay with committing war crimes (see my last round explanation) along with going to war with Mexico, Syria and extending combat in the Middle East. http://www.democracynow.org... http://www.salon.com... http://thehill.com... I pointed out that the last 5 presidents all agree Trump would be bad for the job, whether they are Democrat or Republican. Pro says I have ignored Ronald Reagan's commentary. Uhhhhhh RONALD REAGAN IS DEAD and died long before Trump ran for president this time around, so Reagan cannot comment. Extend my point that the last 5 presidents (who have experience and know what the job entails) unilaterally agree across the board that Trump is unfit to be POTUS. Con drops every single one of my points proving that Hillary has more experience. Con says Kim Jung Un (evil dictator) doesn't like Obama. Big deal. Con refuses to acknowledge that Trump flip flopped on gay marriage (the way he has flip flopped on so many other things I pointed out in the last round). Uhhhh sorry Con but Trump is now opposed to gay marriage, just as I said. http://www.hrc.org... Does it hurt to be so wrong, or no? Anyway, Con suggests Hillary will not protect us from terrorism. In the last round I showed sources quoting her exact quotes on how she would fight terrorism along with context. Con has chosen to ignore this and pretend Hillary is okay with radical terrorism, just because she recognizes the Constitutional right to free speech and free religious expression... of course Con dropped all of those points. Donald's plans would make us less safe at home and cost money and lives. Con dropped those arguments as well.
Rap Battle

The rules look good except for the "offensive phrases" part. If you don't want cuss words, I respect that, but the thing is it's a BATTLE rap, not a FRIENDSHIP rap. The point is to offend. But it's no problem, cause it's all in good fun, I *usually* don't mean any of it... but I guess I'll try to lay off a bit... Good luck to you, but no mercy to beginners.
Rap Battle

.. No cursing, or offensive language/phrases-- thank you Other things to be quickly noted: These are the quarter finals. Whoever wins this debate will move up to the semi finals then proceed into the finals if they win semi finals as well. Last thing-- Good luck to you, JimShady (not that you need any, seeing you have won a few battles and this is my first. .. you seem like you know pretty well what you're doing, but good luck to you anyways! )
The rise of feminism has negatively impacted relationships

This is not about legal equality: I am not arguing that women should have different rights to men. I am saying that its better for males to be in the 'driving seat' when it comes to relationships. Women are typically less stable, reasonable and rational than their male counterparts and also struggle with handling power to a greater degree than men. They typically lack the level of personal responsibility that males posses and thus can become emotionally charged more easily and are more likely to make rash decisions that detriment the family as a whole. Womens intrinsic value of having vaginas and wombs was offset against the males value of being productive, strong, protective and of possessing leadership qualities. Now however women have the upper hand and men are becoming increasingly obsolete and thus are being treat with increasing disdain from their female counterparts. People are less happy than ever in relationships and my argument is that the rise of feminism has played a major role in this change. My view is that women are predominantly better suited to housekeeping and parental duties over work in the workplace. I also argue that they are typically happier in the home environment than in the workplace. I also argue that separate duties within a household produce a more stable relationship and a better environment for raising children. I argue that feminism, though valuable in providing rights for women, now has a negative impact on relationship satisfaction and stability. The idea that men and women are the same is the misconception at the heart of this issue.
The 2nd Amendment shall not be infringed upon

I know that the NRA runs the country in the USA, with 36 billion dollars in revenue last year, the NRA has the government in their pocket and with the antiquated 300 year old parchment called the Constitution that was written when USA was the wild west and you needed guns to survive. Well times have changed in 300 years. And we don't need guns. Only in America do we have a gun death every 11 minutes, rampage school shootings, well people have finally had enough. And it's about time. All those stubborn NRA loving people with the mentality that "Nobody is taking my guns away" well we don't have to, we will just hit you where it matters, your pocket/wallet. I applaude Deerfield Michigan to be the first to outlaw assault rifles, and if you are a trailer park, confederate flag waving, redneck who says he is not giving up his guns, well we will fine you $1000.00 a day!! I'm pretty sure that welfare check and those moonshine and meth proceeds of crime won't be enough to cover that fine every day, so it's time to get rid of guns, this is the first step. Way to go Deerfield!! People have had enough with Columbine, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tec, Orlando Nightclub, Florida school, on and on, enough is enough. The wild west is over, there are grocery stores for food, we have police forces, FBI, ATF,, State Police, city police, we have enough police presence to protect the public, now lets get rid of the guns, so stop your paranoia and get rid of the gun or be fined $1000.00, how does that catch yea hillbilly? https://www.cnn.com...
Cancer is good for the United States of America

-- Rebuttals -- 1. "I said that just in case somebody thought I was talking about the disease." I see absolutely nothing in post one suggesting that the discussion topic is not about something you can be a victim of, hereby a disease. 2. "It is not a contradiction, I was stating [in round 1] that I did not want to offend anyone in case they thought I was talking about the disease." This is, again, false. "Resolved that Cancer is good for the United states of America. I will argue the pro side. I do not want to offend anyone who knows cancer victims, or any cancer survivors. I thank my opponent in advance for accepting and would like him/her to start with arguments." How does this make anyone think that it is not the disease cancer that is being talked about? 3. "The first and the wrong, definition." How can I provide the wrong definition, when my opponent never indicated that it is the wrong definition, nor came with one himself? 4. "Good point, but which would you rather have, a person with good traits living for 60 years, or a mean person living for 90." The consequences on being born in the alleged "Cancer" period are not just being mean, or anything similar with regard to personality. "Cancerians are said to be liable to breast cancer and to suffer from pleurisy, dropsy, piles and varicose veins. The excitability mentioned above can lead to weak digestion, gastritis and other stomach ills, and there is a tendency to coughs and weakness of vision."[1] Breast cancer, for example, is not a danger to lives? -- Conclusion -- My opponent played a bad game with me, and presented no valid arguments, nor rebuttals. I provided the first definition, and he did not indicate any other whatsoever to invalidate mine before I posted it. In fact, even with his own definition, and assuming that his arguments are valid, he has still presented a contradictory argument/source, and an erroneous one. I have explained it above. Vote with the right judgment to whoever you feel has won this debate. -- Reference -- [1]http://www.astrology-online.com...
Cancer is good for the United States of America

I will refute my opponents arguments as he numbered them. 1. I said that just in case somebody thought I was talking about the disease. 2. It is not a contradiction, I was stating [in round 1] that I did not want to offend anyone in case they thought I was talking about the disease. 3. "I provided the first definition" The first and the wrong, definition. 4. Good point, but which would you rather have, a person with good traits living for 60 years, or a mean person living for 90. --Conclusion-- My opponent thought this debate was about the disease cancer and not about the zodiac calendar, I clearly was trying not to offend anyone who had clicked onto this debate and automatically VOTEBOMB ME because of what side I took on a topic that seemed like I was promoting death. My opponent accepting this debate said "I will surely start!" clearly showing his eagerness to start a debate for an easy win on a topic that he did not consider to look into in his haste. Therefore we can conclude that haste makes waste, and pro wins.