BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution is a religion

My opponent is wrong about the understanding of evolution. When we are talking about biological evolution (which is what this debate is about), we are referring to the development of life. Indeed biological evolution does not even discuss the origins of life. Pro attempts to equivocate the word evolution and take 6 different theories and different scientific disciplines and make them into one. This is not how science works."If somebody has ever read the bible they would or learnt about evolution one would probably contradict the other they're completely different in logic eg macro evolution teaches that one animal can turn into another animal through the time of a few million years the bible teaches that the animals produce after thier own kind Genesis 1:24."I'm not quite sure what my opponent is talking about here. And no, evolution does not say that one animal turns into another animal after a few million years."Again please show me how fossils are evidence for evolution."To be clear, even if there was not a single fossil to ever have been found, the evidence for evolution would be overwhelming [1]. How does the fossil record provide evidence for evolution? They support evolution by giving us a unique glimps into the past and how animals evolved. The BioLogos institute writes (2): "Fossils provide a unique view into the history of life by showing the forms and features of life in the past. Fossils tell us how species have changed across long periods of the Earth’s history. For instance, in 1998, scientists found a fossil showing an animal at the transition from sea creature to land creature. This tetrapod had a hand-like fin, confirming a prediction of evolutionary biology. Though the fossil record does not include every plant and animal that ever lived, it provides substantial evidence for the common descent of life via evolution. The fossil record is a remarkable gift for the study of nature." My second argument was on genetics. My opponent has dropped this argument. ConclusionMy opponent has not met his burden of proof. He needs to show how evolution fits the definition of religion. Since he has not done so, the resolution is negated. I urge a vote for con! Sources1. Coyne, J. Why Evolution is True. 2. http://biologos.org...;
Evolution is a religion

Thank you con for replying to my points. I would first like to say I think my opponent has misunderstood evolution it does talk about the beginning of the universe eg stellar evolution it talks about the big bang theory which is part of the philosophy of how the universe came into existense. If somebody has ever read the bible they would or learnt about evolution one would probably contradict the other they're completely different in logic eg macro evolution teaches that one animal can turn into another animal through the time of a few million years the bible teaches that the animals produce after thier own kind Genesis 1:24 Again please show me how fossils are evidence for evolution. And for your second argument I don't know how to answer that. Source https://www.youtube.com... I hope it takes you to the actual page.
Evolution is a religion

Religion-A philosophy on how the universe came into existence, without any evidence. Since evolution is a philosophy on how the universe came into existence and it doesn't have any evidence it's technically a religion. The different types of evolution Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the "big bang" Chemical evolution: all elements "evolved" from hydrogen Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter Macro-evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another Micro-evolution: variations form within the "kind" Only micro evolution happens
Deathbattles suck and is overrated

'Uh, well this is a very literal site, and while in an arument, it is best to take your opponent seriously, ' You should have known what I meant when I said dare me to tell otherwise, if I wanted you to take that literally I would have only put 1 round 'Pro's basis for his unliking of the death battles on screw attack' Yet its taken off of video games and sprites..... the only time its actually good is when its in 3D or remastered 2D aniamtion is garbage when it comes to them http://www.cjcent.com... Even this animations better than their 3D crap One Minute Melee already shows how bad of animators they are Pro tries to provide reasons on why the death battles from screw attack suck, which are mostly based on his opinion. It is irrational to debate that his opinion is better than mine just because he doesn't like the animations and other minor details of the videos. It is also not fair to judge the videos strictly on their animations, because they provide great detail as well as animating their fights Did you listen to my other reasons? You know I didnt only talk about animation 1. It cant be used to predict the outcome of a battle IS A DEFINATE FACT weather you like it or not 2. It gave DBZ fanbase a bad name. 3. OUT COMES are inaccurate, most of those characters wnt go bloodlust at all, anything can happen, seriously people program fictional characters like their computers Whats wrong with having some opinions in debates?
Deathbattles suck and is overrated

How exactly did you win? Did you think I ment literally? Dude don't take things like this literally, that one rebuttal wont save you. How am I negating arguments? Please tell me, I dared someone to tell me otherwise on why it doesn't suck Lets keep it simple, Why Screw Attack/ DeathBattle Sucks (Mini Rant) Screw Attack is basically a fan made fight to please fanboys, it stops never ending wars that have been fled over the internet, and ..... they fail miserably, I still watch it tho, but it sucks to be honest. Don't you agree? There animation is garbage, the only animation that is ever good is when its 3D like animation, the 2D animation is garbage, its sad how they remove sprites from video games and use em in battle, which often makes them look fake as hell, seriously, characters with low durability are getting punched as if it was nothing. The outcomes are inaccurate And when I mean outcome I don't mean ' Oh batman lost so they suck' No..... Take Goku vs Superman, pretty inaccurate seeing how they messed up on Goku's stats. The two wouldn't even kill, they would get to know each power. And screw attack goes by feats and non canon judgement. let me tell you why feats don't work -. It can't be used to predict out come of a battle Idiot A: 'Saint Seiya has destroyed galaxies so he solos Naruto verse' I'm not saying Naruto can beat Saint Seiya, but using that garbage logic, Beerus can one shot anyone, nobody pays attention to how the attack will be executed, or how the other character will lose. You guys are acting like the characters are computers programmed by feats. By that logic any character who has done a feat and the other strong beings that have not are weaker than the one who did the feat - Not everyone is a computer -, It accuses the DBZ fanbase of being the worse of all fanbases when its not, deadpool mentioning butthurt dbz fans made me facepalm Trust me there are worse fanbases than DBZ Screw Attack Sucks
Deathbattles suck and is overrated

I accept. Pro proposes that Death Battles "suck", especially the one from screw attack. He also suggests that they are overrated. First and foremost, death battles are not overrated, and build up intense suspense and drama within the veiwer, that they simply can not stop watching them. Proposing that they are overrated suggests that people make them out to be more than they really are. Pro provides no proof whatsoever that anyone besides himself believes that it is overrated. ". .. , I dare someone to tell me other wise"He then dares someone to tell him otherwise. My Rebuttal: Death Battles do not suck, and the one from screw attack is phenomenal. Therefore, I have negated Pro's argument and have upheld the BoP. Pro's argument is that he wishes someone to tell him otherwise. This means that me telling him otherwise has negated his argument and won the debate for me.
Napoleon shouldn't be considered a warmongering villian like Hitler.

1. His main goal was not to conquer Europe, he just conquered those who attacked him. 2. I'm pretty sure people wanted him to become ruler because of his recent invasion of Egypt, which made him popular, and still, I rather have him as a dictator than the previous government, The Directory, which was an unstable oligarchy. 3. Name any nation at the time or any nation before his era that gave women equal rights. He didn't give women rights but didn't take them away either. Also, did you know he emancipated the Jews in the countries he conquered and gave made them full citizens?
Napoleon shouldn't be considered a warmongering villian like Hitler.

Napoleon did do some good stuff.The really question is did the people of France like him? Not really I mean he did stop the French revolution. But he went in a lot of wars many of his solders died he brought back slavery which that upset a lot of African Americans which there was no need for that. When he was thrown in jail he broke out went back tried to make him king again which probably who'd have worked if the people of France turned him over to Britain. Did Napoleon help France had help them find peace and equal right did he really reform Europe and change the history for good or bad . i can tell one thing with out him this world would be different will out him. https://en.wikipedia.org... , http://www.georgianindex.net... http://www.bc.edu...
Napoleon shouldn't be considered a warmongering villian like Hitler.

Russia DID do stuff to France. Before they were allies Russia fought France alongside Brittian, and when Napoleon beat them his peace treaty was very generous. All they had to do was to stop trading with Brittain (the country that funded coalition after coalition agisant France), so they could pressure them into peace, and instead they disobeyed him and broke his treaty. "When he was king he went to war a lot when he did not have to he wanted to have more power and when he did take over the country he made his son or his generals the ruler then killed people who disagreed with him he would killed them." 1. He didn't start any of the 7 wars he fought in other than the invasion of Russia and Spain. 2. Ok, where did you get this from? First his only son was only 3 when Napoleon was exiled and never was king, sure he made all his family members kings and queens because he was Corsican and in Corsica, family was very important. 3. Please show me a source where he ever killed anyone he disagreed with. Unlike Hitler, he listened to those who complained of his actions, he may not have always agreed with them, but he didn't go and kill just for someone being agisant him. "Oh the country who gave woman's rights was Greece!" Huh, I thought New Zealand was the first country to give women equal rights, which was in 1893, long after Napoleon.
Napoleon shouldn't be considered a warmongering villian like Hitler.

Yes he did attack other nations who attacked him But Russia did nothing to France but still attacked them. The people of France did not like him being king they were just fed up with the revolution they will do anything to stop it. That's When he saw his chance to take power over France. When he was king he went to war a lot when he did not have to he wanted to have more power and when he did take over the country he made his son or his generals the ruler then killed people who disagreed with him he would killed them. Oh the country who gave woman's rights was Greece!
New DDO members shouldn't be able to start debates right away.

Resolution: The Falcon Plan which outlines the procedure that a new DDO member must follow before being able to instigate debates is better than the current DDO system which allows new members to instigate debates as soon as they join. The Falcon Plan:1) Upon entering DDO, new members will be able to view a read-only version of all debates and votes. The comments section and the forums will be open for them to participate in.2) New members are encouraged to comment on existing debates, post forum topics, make friends and suggest topics that they want to debate on. They should provide RFDs in their debate comments. For the purposes of this debate, providing an RFD in the comments without actually voting will be known as a pseudovote. Pseudovotes can be counter-pseudovoted by established DDO members who must give a reason for doing so.3) After providing 5 forum posts and 5 pseudovotes, they must read the DDO tutorial and orientation posted in forum and answer a short multiple choice quiz based on the orientation or tutorial. 4) None of their pseudovotes must have been counterpseudovoted and none of their forum posts must have been reported for misconduct or trolling. Trolling results in an immediate ban whereas being counterpseudovoted leads to the new member being three pseudovotes down. 5) If they pass the quiz, they can start their debates challenging their friends or anyone that they met on the forums that has agreed to debate with them. 6) After one completed, non-forfeited debate, the member now will have full access to the DDO site including instigating open challenges. They can also vote on debates. If they forfeit a debate, they must complete two more non-forfeited debates before they are allowed full access. Definitions:New DDO member: A member who has just joined DDO and has no debates at all. Established DDO member: A member who has full access to all features of DDO. Better: The overall effect to the new member in question, other members and the website as a whole must be considered. Pseudovote: Providing an RFD in the comments section for each option. (Ex- Conduct to Con because. .. . Arguments to Pro because. .. . )Rules:Round 1: Pro lays out resolution, plan, and definition. Con accepts and clarifies. Round 2: Pro shows why the resolution is correct. Con shows why it is incorrect.
Choose Any Topic!

In R1 you will state 4 topics. I will then in R2 choose one topic and begin to argue my case. I must be Pro and you must be Con. Any definitions necessary must be provided by my opponent in R2. RulesNo Kritiks No semantics No trolling No forfeiture Depending on the debate the BOP may vary No new arguments in the final roundIf you break any of the folloing rules you automatically lose. Structure R1: Rules and definitions by me, you will state your 4 topics R2: I will choose a topic, you will define terms that can be debated by meR3: Arguments R4: RebuttalsR5: Counter RebuttalsDefinitionsThese will be provided by my opponent once the debate topic is decided.
Athiest view on god? anyone want to tell me why "god" is real.

That can be confusing indeed, i will provide answers chronologically. To begin with, we must agree upon a clear division line between old and new testament, since the old can also be classified as the Torah, and we are discussing Catholicism, not Jewish. It is still an important part of the bible, but it is a separate timeline from the new testament. Leviticus treats the times of Moses, how he lead a Jewish slave march through the desert to escape from Egyptian rule, now Moses had very radical ideals, but once the son of god is born, he clarifies in Mark 7: After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don"t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn"t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body." That is an adapted version though, if you would like to see the king james version (which to my point of view seems a lot less biased and more trustworthy in exact words) i will leave a link at the end. As to Deuteronomy 22:11, it once had a cause and was effective to society maybe hundreds of years before our fathers, but now it serves no purpose and has been declared obsolete by the highest divine authority in earth Catholics recognize, Pope Francisco, as has Deuteronomy 22:5 (which i will leave a link to). Now the last one has many deviations, i am from Hispanic origins, and my favorite physical proof that there is a god is the story of Saint Juan Diego, the miracle of the roses. In this event, this poor Mexican man is sent by the Virgin Mary to give the town's bishop a message, the man does not believe Juan Diego, after insisting 3 times the virgin directs him toward Castilian roses that were nearby, she asks of him to put as much roses as he can into his cloak and use it to carry them toward the bishop as a gesture, once he does as she asked and carried the roses to the bishop and he opened his cloak, the image of the Virgin of Guadalupe was engraved in the cloak itself, Juan Diego was a poor man and had not the money to do such a thing, and even if he did, it would have taken at least a day to make such a detailed portrayal of her, the cloak can be seen to this day in the "Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe". There is plenty of other proof and indicators that point the information conveyed in the bible to be truthful, but let us have in mind the oldest bible was found transcribed in ancient Aramaic, which was then transcribed to Hebrew, which was later translated into Latin, followed by a translation to each and every one of our current languages. All of those translations were based on the interpretations of the translators, so the bibles we currently have at our disposal are not completely accurate. above all of that, there is the main argument other religious people would have put their weight on, which obviously would be "faith" and blindly following the words in a modified and unclear book. i beg to differ, but i do see enough foundation to believe god exists.
Athiest view on god? anyone want to tell me why "god" is real.

First sorry I should have clarified which god. But yes you are correct. But my argument is why is he real. The thing is catholics don't even follow the bible anymore. Christians don't either. Like in leviticus 11:4 it says" Nevertheless these you shall not eat . . . the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you." which is saying you don't need to eat pig because its unclean. yet many christians and such break that rule. Also deuteronomy 22:11 "You shall not wear a garment of different sorts, such as wool and linen mixed together." this one is saying your not supposed to wear clothes with mixed linen and wool. christians and catholics break that alot. But my argument is that I want proof that there is a god.
Athiest view on god? anyone want to tell me why "god" is real.

Greetings, to my opponent and all who may be reading this. I will reckon the god you are referring to is the roman catholic one, which is Jesus Christ from Nazareth, in which case i accept the task of reaching a conclusion with you in the "why"s and the "what"s that Catholicism conveys. To clarify my stance in the topic: I believe that there is a god and that he is real, i also do believe that he gave us all the freedom of will, this meaning everyone has their own personality and choose what they want to do consciously, people who provoke and participate in armed warfare choose to do so or are lead by people who chose for them. It is not our maker's fault that there is evil men in this world, but their own fault, as they are the corrupt and have strayed from the divine. i await your first argument.
Faster Radioactive decay rates in the past is an unsound argument for young earth creationism

I have successfully made an argument that disproves the secular dating methods with radioactive decay rates. I argued that we have a more reliable source for dating- helium. It was predicted that radioactive decay rates were faster in the past, and then it was empirically tested and proven to be true. My opponent erroneously complains that this has to be a red herring because he cannot refute this argument. My opponent the confuses the difference between the surface of the earth (above ground) versus below the surface (anything in any rock layer). He continues to assert that radioactive decay should affect people. Firstly, he has never proven that his is even remotely possible. There has never been any correlation of people receiving exposure from radioactive crystals underneath the surface. Secondly, even if people were somehow exposed to these, he hasn't proven that it would be enough to cause problems, as his initial source argued that radiation is "hardly the most dangerous substance known to man." My opponents own sources disagree with him. My opponent then makes a new argument, with a new source, and I quote "Radioactive decay is determined by quantum mechanics " which is inherently probabilistic. So it"s impossible to work out when any particular atom will decay, but we can make predictions based on the statistical behaviour of large numbers of atoms."--Institute of Physics. This source is admitting that it's near impossible to use radioactive decay rates as accurate dating methods, but they can understand the behavior of radioactivity- something wholly different. CONCLUSION My opponent ignored my argument and erroneously called it a red herring because it refutes his claims. He has also twice sourced information that contradicts his arguments. My opponent cannot win this debate.
Faster Radioactive decay rates in the past is an unsound argument for young earth creationism

Pro: Please prove that the information given is unreliable from a non-religiously biased website.This is dishonest and irrelevant. I provided empirical evidence that you are ignoring. If you want to continue ignoring it, fine, as I have no idea how to convince you that you need to trust empirical evidence.Pro: Nope; that doesn't happen with Zircon Crystals because the uranium measured is part of the crystal structure and as stated above: it strongly rejects lead making your argument invalid.I provided empirical evidence that showed they can be conatimated. You continue to reject empirical evidence. You simply just asserted that it was otherwise.Pro: Actually the underlined line is a better description of con. That is because contrary to what con says; Zircon crystals are found all types of rocks meaning that it is NOT simply those deep inside the earth. Therefore con's argument is invalid.Pro, all of the crystals are found in rock layers. Not on the surface. These will not affect humans. This is a seriously embarrassing argument you keep using.Pro: Before the use of mass spectrometry in isotopic geochronology, helium dating provided most of the dates used in the early geologic time scales. Helium ages, however, tend to be too low because the gas escapes from the rock. A thermal event that will leave most radioactive clocks relatively unaffected may have a drastic effect on the helium radioactive clock--encyclopedia brittanicaThis only argues that there may be affects on the helium clock. This is not observational evidence of that happening. Secularists must try to explain away why the helium dates are much younger than the other dating methods because it demolishes their trustworthiness. If you want to prove that this is true, show some observational evidence of helium leakage.Actually, the group that tested the argon and helium rates made predictions before they tested them, and the predictions came true. (1). This is a very good argument in favor of refuting the claims made by my opponent. Also, my opponent argues that helium escaped faster in the past. But, if this is true, there should be 2000 times more oxygen in the atmosphere today, but there isn't.CONCLUSIONIn order for my opponent to win this debate, he must continue denying empirical evidence, because once he accepts it, as he can't deny scientific facts, than he must admit that his proposition is incorrect.(1) http://www.icr.org...