BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Deisim makes more sense then Christianity

I am probably going to end up forfeiting the next round, so yes I will have to wrap it up this round. Thanks to Pro for the debate. >> Re: The Bible Pro asserts that Christianity should conform to a literal interpretation of the Bible on the basis of (1) some random statement comparing the resurrection to the story of Noah's Ark, and (2) the claim that Jesus advocated a literal interpretation of the Bible. The first point is a blatant non-sequitur and thus should be dismissed; I have put forth an empirical justification for believing in the resurrection which has nothing to do with Noah's Ark. The second point is literally impossible because the Bible didn't exist until *400 YEARS* after Jesus died. Pro has no ground to stand on here -- Christian theology is not governed by the Bible. Prefer my framework for affirming Christianity. >> Re: Limited Knowledge Pro concedes my reasoning that our limited knowledge refutes the problem of evil (PoE). However he then attempts to turn this logic against me, saying that our limited knowledge would also invalidate my ability to make the rebuttal I made last round about how God probably wouldn't create us without some intent of interacting with us. However, what Pro fails to recognize is that in the case of PoE, we have plenty of reasons (provided by Christian theology) to believe that there is a larger-scale explanation of 'evil' which is beyond our comprehension. On the other hand, with the personal/impersonal issue, we have *zero* reasons to believe that God would bother creating us without any intent of interaction (Pro hasn't provided one, anyways). For that reason, my rebuttal does not fall into the same trap as the PoE. The wildly improbable existence of human beings serves as evidence for a theistic God far more than it does a deistic one. >> Dropped Arguments Pro never responds to my evidence regarding transcendental spiritual experiences, so regardless of whether or not you buy Pro's turn on the limited knowledge rebuttal, there is still ample reason to believe that God is a personal being. More importantly, Pro completely drops both my arguments supporting the resurrection, thereby conceding that the resurrection occurred. This serves as even more reason to believe that God is invested in human affairs-- coming back from the dead is a scientific impossibility, so some sort of supernatural force needed to have been actively involved to make it happen. It is clear that deism is false. >> Conclusion With deism soundly refuted, and all three fundamental premises of Christianity affirmed, we can conclude that Christianity is definitively more rational than deism.
Deisim makes more sense then Christianity

Thank you for responding. I need to let you know that I will not have internet assess this weekend, so I will not have an argument posted. So please try and wrap it up in your next argument. Rebuttals 1) Christinaties literal teachings should define that religion. If you deny a story like Noah's ark, then the reserection makes zero sense either. People back then had very little idea about what was happening, so they believed in religious Gods. As for how Christianity grew, some people believed that Jesus was the savior. How do we know? Also, where is the proof for any of this. Jesus taught that the bible was the word of God, and we should listen to God. Therefore, if you believe we should follow the teachings of Jesus, then we should follow the bible. The other point I would like to rebbut is the idea that the deistest's God not interacting with us is illogical. Well, you answered your own question. With my point about the little boy with cancer, you state that with our limited knowledge, we can not see why God did not save the child. That same point applies to my argument. With our limited knowledge, how could we understand why the God doesn't interact with us. Finally, I see no reason why God could not save a little boy. You state that God is omnipresent, so he has a reason not to heal them. But then why does he never help anyone? Also, if God is omnipresent, then he also could of seen that we were going to sin when he created the universe, but he still did not change anything. God also knew about 9/11, the holocaust, and world war 2 but did nothing about it. How can saving millions of lives be a bad thing?
Abotion as the solution of problem

Con initiated and argued first. That's confusing, so I'll just remind people that---even though I'm refuting---I am Pro. Con had the burden of proof, but he never really argued for the resolution. He didn't meet his burden of proof. Vote Pro. Even though I didn't have the burden of proof, I pointed out that there are times when abortion can solve a problem. Therefore, the resolution is defeated. Vote Pro. Con forfeited.
Abotion as the solution of problem

: Firstly, it goes without saying that abortion is terrible procedure. It goes without saying? Parenthood can be terrible. Being raised by parents who don't want you can be terrible. But how is it necessarily terrible for people who don't want children to not have children? Perhaps Con refers to the terribleness of the operation itself? Early-term abortion by D&C is pretty simple and non-traumatic. If we're calling surgery terrible, abortions can be much less terrible than, say, hip replacements or nose jobs. Even less terrible than tattoos. Are hip replacements, nose jobs, and tattoos so terrible that we should conclude that they are never solutions to problems? : I am personally against abortions, but I understand in some situations in which abortion maybe seen as an appropiate option. It seems appropriate because it solves problems, right? At least in some cases? Con has the burden of proof: He has to prove that abortion does not solve problems. But, with the above line, he has effectively surrendered. He has as much as agreed that abortion does sometimes solve problems. : I am a firm believer in God all that goes with it, but in my case it's not so much a religion belief as it is a personal belief. It's a point of view. Implausible and unsupported, but a point of view nonetheless. : I don't fully grasp the idea of harming an unborn soul because one would simply not want the responsibility. I don't at all grasp how Con thinks abortion would harm a soul. : There are many other options as opposed to aborting that are also much healthier. Yes, explain to a pregnant twelve year old that there are safer options. Explain it to her doctor. : As I have said many times before, "To each their own. "If your husband is killed, so you have to go to work and no longer want a baby; if you are raped, and never wanted a baby; if you got confused about what day it was, and neglected to take a birth control pill---in any of these cases, and countless others abortion can be the solution to a problem. Con initiated the debate and argued first. By ether standard, he has the burden of proof. He undertook to prove that abortion does not solve problems. He has failed to do so.
Abotion as the solution of problem

Firstly, it goes without saying that abortion is terrible procedure. I am personally against abortions, but I understand in some situations in which abortion maybe seen as an appropiate option. I am a firm believer in God all that goes with it, but in my case it's not so much a religion belief as it is a personal belief. I don't fully grasp the idea of harming an unborn soul because one would simply not want the responsibility. There are many other options as opposed to aborting that are also much healthier. As I have said many times before, "To each their own."
Corporal punishment

You stated " spanking remained a strong predictor of violent behavior. " A strong predictor and a fact are 2 very different things. Next, if you want some factual information, I will provide some: . http://www.nospank.net... . http://www.foxnews.com... . http://rightwardleaning.blogspot.com... . http://www.writework.com... . http://www.helium.com... . http://www.circleofmoms.com... . http://www.natchezdemocrat.com...These sources are from many different views. They actually relate the topic of corporal punishment to this debate almost directly. You asked for valid sources, I provided. Now then, as I know we can agree to disagree, corporal punishment is very effective. To do anything else would be to give the child rights to do as he pleases. In conclusion, I have provided an argument, and I have provided sources. My opponent has failed to use reliable sources and relate those sources to the subject matter. My opponent has also failed to refute my arguments.
Corporal punishment

You claim, "Your studies are non-extensive, and the details are not fully provided" How is this not fully provided and full of details? The study, led by community-health-sciences professor Catherine Taylor, was the first to control for a host of issues affecting the mother, such as depression, alcohol and drug use, spousal abuse and even whether she considered abortion while pregnant with the child. After controlling for all these factors — each of which can contribute to a child's aggression — spanking remained a strong predictor of violent behavior. "The odds of a child being more aggressive at age 5 increased by 50% if he had been spanked more than twice in the month before the study began," says Taylor. ……………………………………. Read more: http://www.time.com... Based on interviews with the mothers of about 3,000 children, researcher Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire found that corporal punishment is counterproductive, resulting in more antisocial behavior by children in later years. ….. Researchers analyzed survey data from 807 mothers of children ages 6 to 9, taken in 1988 and 1990. They compared levels of antisocial behavior among spanked and unspanked children over that interval. The more spanking a child received at the beginning of the study, the higher level of antisocial behavior at the end, according to the researchers. ……. Antisocial behavior was defined as cheating, lying, disobedience at school, breaking things deliberately, not feeling sorry after misbehaving or not getting along with teachers. ………….. Did you even read the sources I posted? Also how is posting evidence that corporal punishment doesn't work a failure to refute your arguments? I don't need to post an ideological rebuttal to your arguments (even though I did post one) because I posted factual evidence that shows that your arguments are invalid and incorrect You claim, .I again make the following statement: Corporal punishment works. but the fact is that ALL the evidence (dozens of studies) show that corporal punishment does not work and in fact actually increases violent, and bad behavior and harms a child's mental development. You may think that you saying corporal punishment works makes it true but the fact is that your argument has no evidence backing it up, and has already been disproven.
Corporal punishment

I thank you for your speedy response.However,Your sources fail to link the topics to the subject matter. Your studies are non-extensive, and the details are not fully provided. They also lack substantial evidence. One study showed that all people were connected by 6 degrees of separations but we know that its not true.You have also failed to refute my arguments. You simply tried to discredit them. I again make the following statement: Corporal punishment works. I await your attempt to refute my original arguments while providing factual evidence.
Corporal punishment

1)The problem is that corporal punishment only provides a negative sanction on the specific circumstance. For example if a child punches another kid then corporal punishment only provides a negative sanction for punching another kid instead of kicking another kid. The corporal punishment directs focus on the major goal which is that hurting people is a bad thing; and in fact since corporal punishment is a form of hurt corporal punishment actually helps defeat the goal to make children understand that hurting people is a bad thing. 2)You said that "You stated that the child would focus on the punishment and not on the reason they were punished. Then you took a leap and made the claim that they will not consider it bad behavior because they focused on the punishment.". I didn't actually take a leap considering the fact that I posted several studies that support my claim and its conclusion. 3)Again I did not just state that corporal punishment causes children to become desensitized to violence; I posted proof that corporal punishment causes children to become more violent and more likely to commit a violent crime. 4)You make the claim, "The older generation that was raised with corporal punishment show more respect for the individual and society as opposed to the child today". I'd like to point out that you saying something is don't make it true. All you've done is put out a claim with nothing to support it. And now ill post some evidence that your claim is incorrect. The fact that crime rates have been steadily dropping ever since corporal punishment has been decreasing contradicts your claim. http://www.census.gov... Also states/countries with corporal punishment have higher crime rates than those who prohibit corporal punishment. http://www.census.gov... http://www.nationmaster.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... 5)I also would like to reiterate that I posted proof that corporal punishment does not work; I posted proof that it increases violent and bad behavior, and is detrimental to the mental development of children.
Corporal punishment

Pro, thank you for your organized arguments.CounterA spanking does work.You stated that spanking children distracts them from the "real goal". You stated that the child would focus on the punishment and not on the reason they were punished. Then you took a leap and made the claim that they will not consider it bad behavior because they focused on the punishment. I think the first thing that must be clarified is the age of the children we are discussing. I will tell you this; when children under go corporal punishment, they MUST focus on the reason they are being punished because the child will always wonder what they could have done differently to avoid being punished. Also, take classical conditioning into count. Because the child recognizes a negative sanction to be in order every time a specific action will be performed, the child learns to avoid performing said action. You also stated that corporal punishment causes children to become desensitized to violence. I disagree, and here's why: If a child never experiences violence, he can never fully understand it and therefore becomes desensitized to it himself. If a child experiences violence, he recognizes it as negative and views it negatively. Ergo, the level of violence exposed to a child through spanking help to build awareness and character. Take a look at the difference in our generations. The older generation that was raised with corporal punishment show more respect for the individual and society as opposed to the child today who is disrespectful because he knows he can get away with it. That's the key here, getting away with it. If a child learns quick that a negative punishment will follow the breaking of a rule, the child will learn quickly to change his actions.I think we all can agree that nothing works better than a good old fashioned spanking.
Corporal punishment

My rebuttal and argument is that corporal punishment on children (Example: spanking) does not work. Spanking children distracts the child from the real goal; when you spank the children will than focus on the punishment and will not focus on the reason their bad behavior was bad; this means they will continue with that behavior because they don't consider it bad behavior. Corporal punishment also makes children view aggressive and violent behavior as acceptable increasing their chances of being violent. A scientific study has found that children who grow up in schools that use corporal punishment performed worse on tasks then those growing up In schools that did not use corporal punishment. Corporal punishment results in children not internalizing rules and standards meaning that the only reason they don't do bad things is fear of corporal punishment; children who do not get spanked are more likely to believe in rules and laws meaning they don't do bad things because they view bad things as bad. http://scienceblog.com... Another study found that spanking kids leads to more long-term behavior problems. Meaning spanking does not work but in fact increases bad behavior. http://www.cnn.com... Another study found the same results as the first two. http://www.time.com...
Life was made

You: First, though it does not affect the debate, Pro is incorrect about the most complex molecule known to mankind.i-propyl cyanide is more complex than DNA.Answer: Disagree. It may be complex in the pattern and connections, but DNA is the most complex in the sense that it contains code for the human body and other organisms.___________________You: Pro claims that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, which means that if you remove ANY part of the bacterial flagellum, then it can no longer function in the manner it is most useful for "[propelling] the bacteria through the micro world of the body."Answer: False. There are additional extra parts that can be removed, but once you remove them and are left with the minimal amount of parts needed for the function, that is when you can begin your removal and attempt to find a pathway for naturalistic evolution. Because your assumption was false, I can dismiss your argument from the NCBI.___________________You: Ok, well the people at NCBI, who may have a slightly better understanding of the flagellum's evolutionary history than Pro, noticed that "phenotyping data reveals a conserved core of motility proteins, which appear to have recruited many additional species-specific components over time."Answer: Let's assume that this is correct. It would STILL not be an argument against irreducible complexity, because you have provided no selection advantages for these specific parts that would lead to the complete structure, which is crucial for an evolutionary development model of the bacterial flagellum. You can't simply say, here are the parts, therefore it's not irreducibly complex, that way you would be invoking an intelligence to arrange those parts, what we are looking for is a purely naturalistic arrangement and origin of these parts due to natural selection.___________________You: Abiogenesis is a fact.Abiogenesis is the fact that life can come from inorganic compounds.Answer: I have seen what you have written to back up this claim, and I entirely disagree with you -- you have completely misunderstood the entire theory of abiogenesis and confused the issues, it's not at all the way you describe it. However, since this was not the topic of the debate, I won't respond to that. If you would like to discuss whether or not abiogenesis is scientific (absolutely not!) then you can invite me to such a debate afterwards.___________________
Life was made

The deoxyribonucleic acid is the most complex molecule known to mankind. It encodes information in the form of nucleotides for all life on earth, human, animal and plant. There are currently no scientifically sound naturalistic theories on the origin of the first cell, or the beginning of life -- however, I will not use this fact to argue for an intelligent origin of life in this debate. My argument will focus on irreducible complexity. Charles Darwin famously stated that if it could be shown that a system could not arrive step by step through natural selection, then his theory would basically collapse. Today we have enough information to propose several such systems in the cell -- I will be presenting the bacterial flagellum. The bacterial flagellum is a nano machine attached to a bacteria and it's function is to propel the bacteria through the micro world of the body. Here you can see the picture of this engine: http://www.evolutionnews.org... and here you can see a more realistic picture of this engine: http://www.talkdesign.org... The machine consists of approximately 50 components and it's impossible to assemble the machine step by step through natural selection, the parts would have to pre-adapt in order to fit with each other and perform their function. Therefore, only pre-planning could account for the engine, and pre planning comes from intelligence, not natural selection, which is a mechanism that is concerned with the present.
Life was made

In the final round Pro asks a legit question: Would you please clarify how this paper which is about the interaction of proteins does anything for you? My response:Sure, clarifying and explaining concepts like these is actually my favorite part of what I do, so yeah let's clarify! I posted the full article's link below, instead of the abstract, and if you look right before the conclusion they mention:"Indeed, we did find a weak, but statistically significant linear relationship between the number of interactions of an orthologous group and its conservation ratio among flagellated bacteria. ". https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...By deleting and keeping certain interactive motility proteins from flagella with a common ancestor (orthologs), they determined that there were core proteins from the common ancestor, and ones recruited over time, post common ancestor. .. step by step. Because the flagella conserve these proteins overtime, and we know that the flagella share a common ancestor, we can see which proteins are shared, and which ones were recruited; that's all. Pro asks:Exactly what proteins and deletion strains are we talking about? Be specific. My response:. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...I reject the claim that the flagellum is irreducibly complex, and that life was made given the vast amount of evidence for evolution just in this study. .. of course there is more evidence, but for this debate, what I have provided shall do.
Life was made

After carefully reading your text twice, I believe you misunderstood the conclusion of the research paper you provided and applied it wrongly to my argument. Would you please clarify how this paper which is about the interaction of proteins does anything for you? What they said is that they found 159 gene deletion strains to have reduced or killed the motility, and that they found 23 hitherto uncharacterized proteins involved in motility. It's not rare that people misread research papers. Exactly what proteins and deletion strains are we talking about? Be specific.