BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God of the bible created the world

Of course no one can KNOW anything to 100% certainty without looking dumb. I get that. But I am as near certain as you can be with such a topic that. I'm not looking to prove or disprove anything, you cannot prove God exists the same way I cannot disprove his existence. Through uranium lead dating we can track the radioactive decay of uranium into lead with a minuscule margin of error is how we figure out how the age of the earth. If you doubt that process, I ask why. The age of the universe is figured by calculating the current speed of galaxy clusters with the current acceleration of the expanding universe and if you work backwards you get a number close to 14 billion years ago. Simple d/t graph. Again if you doubt this process I ask why. Now to there never being a first human. I'm not sure how well you understand evolution but humans are part of the great ape family. We evolved from Africa from apes into humanoid beings. A common one you might be familiar with "homo-errectus" there couldn't of been a first human because evolution works over a longer time line than we can easily imagine. There were gradual improvement over time and the changes at each step are almost indistinguishable. There was no simple change from apes to humans or a "black to white" type of change but more of a slow shade change resulting into white eventually. Now to the mistranslation. 'ha-adam' translates into "the man" or is a reference to mankind as a whole. If the 'ha' is missing then it translates into someone named Adam. In the original Hebrew there was an 'ha' before Adam so boom there you go it actually means man kind. I will now wrap your last three question up into one paragraph. When it comes to showing Christianity is man made I ask you, can you prove that it isn't? Since the Hebrew text was translated into English for any ruler to use. It has been reinterpreted many times over. Everyone and their mothers had a chance to come up with their own "flavor" of Christianity, which is why there are so many different kinds today. Not only is the bible historically inaccurate in the vast majority of cases, it cannot reproduce any prediction about the future or natural world that was found true. If the bible was the holy word of God shouldn't God be right every now and then? It makes more sense that some humans in the Middle East had some ideas that they tried passing on to everyone else and no body could say if they were wrong so everyone just went with it. The entire bible takes place in the Middle East. There aren't any mention of kangaroos or any animal that can't be found in a 100 mile radius of Jerusalem. It's quite obvious they just wrote a collection of stories and put them into a single book to me. God only talks about the human race on earth when there is probably life else where no matter how simple. Pretty important omission don't you think?
God of the bible created the world

Wait, what? You KNOW the earth was formed around 4 billion years ago and the universe was formed around 14 billion years ago? Where did you get that crazy idea? There was not first human? So humans always existed? Give us the Hebrew that is "mistranslated" as Adam and the nature of the mistranslation. Prove the Christian religion is man-made? Where does the Bible paint the earth as the center of all of God's interest? What makes you think the vastness of the universe has anything to do with God's interest?
God of the bible created the world

God was made up What does the bible say about God creating the world? According to the bible the world is around 6,000 years old (that is also the age of the universe according to the bible). Which we know is not true, the earth was formed around 4 billion years ago and the universe before it around 14 billion years ago. Wrong by a large magnitude. If you doubt how science can produce that number please do some research. I conclude that Genesis, which is the account of God creating the world, is grossly false due to its lack of coming up with any correct prediction of what the natural world was actually like. There was never a "first" human the way the bible talks about Adam. Adam himself is a mistranslation from I word adam (pronunciation: uh-dom) from I believe the Arabic religion meaning mankind. I believe all religion is man made and had human fingerprints all over it. What other idea would paint earth as the center of the all mighty gods interest, now knowing how vast the universe is, if it wasn't one made up by humans?
Lambos are rather superior compared to other types of cars.

There are several key reasons that you're voting CON. First, all of my arguments remain completely untouched, including my framework and burden analyis, as well as my analysis of what PRO needs to do in order to carry his burden. He has failed to do any of those things or to respond to any of my objections, so you're voting CON. Second, he claims that I should "state other cars to bear the Lamborghini. " This is a flagrant attempt to change the goalposts. The burden is on PRO to prove that lambos are superior to all other cars. It is not on me to prove that some other car is superior to the lambos. In order to win this debate - and PRO has no contested it, so you must accept it - is to prevent PRO from affirming the resolution, and by establishing the standards PRO would need to meet if he wanted to affirm the resolution (and the fact that he has failed to meet any of them), I have prevented him from affirming. Third, he claims I critique his writing. That is utterly silly. I'm critiquing his arguments and his attempt to make a broad generalizaiton as though it is objective without the slightest empirical of philosophical backing, both of which ought to be discouraged in a debate - as this is, after all, a debate. Fourth, he issues an ad hominem attack to the effect that I "know nothing about cars. " It seems that PRO is fond of generalizations, because this is nothing more than yet another generalization, and there's no way that he can glean this from my arguments where, again, I only negated the resolution.
Lambos are rather superior compared to other types of cars.

FRAMEWORK The resolution poses an affirmative statement to the effect of "X is superior to Y. " Therefore, PRO has the sole burden of proof in evidencing this claim. If he doesn't manage to prove this, or to establish a criteria by which we can objectively evaluate which car is "superior," you vote negative by default. PRO states, "Lamborghinis are both tough and fast. The tough is the Lamborghini Urus and Cheetah. The Cheetah was made to be in the military so it was very tough. And the fastest is the Venneno which goes 221 which is faster than the ferraris fastest, the Laferrari which goes 218. "There are, however, several problems with this argument: (1) There's no evidence for any of the claims he's making. His arguments can be taken as nothing more than statements of opinion or postulations, rather than hard evidence. (2) He discusses qualities that Lamborhinis have, but doesn't provide any contrast to other types of cars. Even if we buy his evidence-less assertions, he has no way to link this to the resolution without some meaningful contrast. (2) He assumes that possessing qualities of toughness and fastness - and, mind you, there's no reason at all to even buy these, because he provides no evidence - can establish a criteria for objective superiority. There are several things he needs to do in order to accomplish this: (a) Establish an objective criteria of objectivity superiority. This is where his case fundamentally fails because preferences are completely subjective, and we're left in a position where cars possess different attributes, but some will prefer one car over another for entirely different reasons. PRO may prefer a lambo for X reason, whereas I may prefer another car for Y reason, but neither of us is objectively right unless he can establish this criteria of objectivity. In the absence of that, he cannot link to the resolution and cannot meet his burden. (b) After establishing and defending that standards, he needs to provide evidence that lambos meet this standard. (c) He needs to provide evidence for why lambos are superior to other cars - how do lambos meet this standard, but other cars do not?
Lets debate Noahs Ark

Shaking off the whining* I made this debate 5 rounds, hardly needed for such a fairy tale but here goes.. btw I'm taking the "Your an idiot" approach since it will drive my point home! First I will say.. I always loved the giraffes head sticking out of the ark... I really do hope the giraffe did have substantial room as I imaging it was unpleasant..Anyways The story of Noah's Ark... Things weren't going so great for Gods beautiful creation. His most beloved children were running a muck (When I say a muck I mean a yucky muck) Didn't some angels get raped? Anyway, Instead of giving his children guidance (Like any loving father would do) He decided to heck with it lets drown these thugs and start over with a 200 year old drunk named Noah! So Noah gathered all of the animals from around the earth and loaded them up on a boat that is several football fields in length, and pretty freaking high as well! They began life anew resulting in an exodus story to teach us a lesson about rainbows or leprechauns or something! I'm going to now present a comedy bit done by Joe Rogen in 1999 A mentally handicapped 5th grader has a few Questions... Duhh umm That story has alot of holes in it!!!! Old man builds a boat in the desert? Where did he get the wood" 200 years old? Sounds pretty old to be taking on a project at that magnitude! Animals come from all across the world? Isn't the Earth 3,959 miles wide and covered in 3/4 water? All the animals on one boat? So were there 2 bears? or 2 Kodiak bears, 2 brown bears, 2 poler bears, to grizzly bears, 2 black bears? Also what did the animals eat? Don't animals EAT OTHER ANIMALS?!!! Noah.. Hes a white guy, if he repopulated the Earth, where did all the black people come from? Thanks Joe for helping me anger my opponent further. Your probably asking yourself if I used a comedy act as evidence just to rub salt in your wound. Truth is I honestly think that 5th grader raised some interesting questions that I would love to see you struggle with! Also.. How did the animals migrate back to there current habitats? Why do people believe this story to be history? Does this reflect the nature of all of the stories in the bible including the Jesus myth! Do you Hate the story of Job as much as I do? Are you getting angrier as you read this list? Does Tinkerbell give away her pixie dust in Heaven? Am I the Devil? ;)
Lets debate Noahs Ark

Or you could debate Noah's Ark instead of wasting your turn with anger management issues! The Debate was pretty simple.. I challenge you to bring a reality to Noahs Ark. Where I will then pummel you with my arguments! Sorry if im throwing salt in your game but I thought I made it clear that I was taking a stance saying that it never happened in reality for obvious reasons! We have 5 Rounds and we probably only need 3 so at ease brotha!
The destruction of Alderaan was justified

PrefaceIn honor the release of Star Wars: The Force Awakens, this a debate on one of the pivotal moments in the series history: the destruction of Alderaan.Resolution and BOPThe resolution for the debate is "The destruction of Alderaan was justified". The burden of proof in this debate is split - that means that Pro (myself) must establish that the destruction of Alderaan was justified, and Con must establish that it was not justified.Series canonFor the purposes of this debate, all theatrical Star Wars movies (Episodes I-VII) are considered as canon. Other Star Wars sources (like the the Expanded Universe, or the Legends series, or Clone Wars and Rebels TV shows) are not acceptable sources. By nature, this means this debate is a potential spoiler alert. Since the only sources are the movies, direct citations are not required.VotingVoting will use the 'select winner' system. A minimum of 2,500 ELO is required to vote. Voting standards for this debate are the new 'opt-in' standards (https://docs.google.com...). By accepting this debate, Con agrees to the use of this standard, and that these standards are in place for all votes. Rules1. No forfeiture. 2. No plaragism.3. All citations must be presented in the text of the debate.4. No new arguments are allowed in the final round.Structure R1: AcceptanceR2: Opening argumentsR3: RebuttalsR4: RebuttalsR5: Rebuttals/Closing statements
The USA should use a soft opt out system for organ donation.

First, thank for being my first opponent. :D Because of the way you structured your first argument I assume you already know that opt out is better than opt in. The only thing that has to be proven is the soft opt out vs the real opt out. 1: Moral problems The main reason why we need to have this safeguard is because many people have problems with the organ donation process. This is true because many types of religion and some peoples personal beliefs mean that they will opt out. The soft opt out is a political safeguard that will make it much easier to pass something like a better organ donation system. "The family have been involved with that decision, part of it. So why would their family want to wipe out what they were involved in creating?" This is not always the case. Deciding to be an organ donation right now is simply a box to check at the DMV. This is rarely a big decision and many people do miss it. The soft opt out will allow for those families to not be wronged. You talk about how poor it must be to have your life's work taken away but look at it as protecting the religion and beliefs that the family has lived by for as long as they have lived. "Presumably, if that person had changed their mind, they would inform their family or doctor and things could be changed." When people are dying these conversations do not usually come up. The doctors are trying to safe the patients life. Look to a scenario where a 25 year old man dies in a car crash. They cannot ask him but The fact that he has a family to depend on means that his family morals will not be infringed upon. I leave you with a poll on why the soft opt out works According to the survey, 82 per cent of people want the key role of the family retained; 2: The extra organs would not be needed anyway due to small quantity Singapore witnessed an increase of a massive 700 per cent in organ donations. The very small amount of people that decide to opt out their family members will not outweigh and will not cause a significnt loss in organs. We would have an organ surplus whether we decide to have a hard or soft opt out system(as we see in every EU country that has it). We need to keep the soft opt out to make it morrally acceptable without taking any of the losses that an opt in system would have. 1 http://www.thejournal.ie... We can see here that Ireland is doing exactly what I am stating the US should do. 2 http://bma.org.uk... I look forward to your arguments. :)
The USA should use a soft opt out system for organ donation.

Hello Con and thank you for your participation. I do not believe that family members should be permitted to opt out of a person's OWN belief. Someone has chosen to do something, and why should anyone choose for them to not do that thing. Now, let us consider the need for this. Supposedly when an old or dying person chooses to donate organs, their family are heavily involved. The family have been involved with that decision, part of it. So why would their family want to wipe out what they were involved in creating? Plus, this is the dying wish of that person, or perhaps their one wish for when they do die- how sad would it be to practically throw that out of the window? Presumably, if that person had changed their mind, they would inform their family or doctor and things could be changed. Maybe a 'hard' opt out system would be better- people need these organs, so you can't just go running away with them- instead we could have it where, if someone had wished to withdraw their donation, or similar, whilst dying, their family can appeal for opting out. I shall leave it here for now, I look forward to seeing your argument. Thank You.
The USA should use a soft opt out system for organ donation.

I would like to point out quickly that the opt out system means that they will automatically be signed up. This is where a lot of the problems in our debate come from. 1: Morals "You talk about how people may need to opt out for their personal reasons, such as religion or ethics. Well, in this case, they wouldn't sign up in the first place." The problem is that they are automatically signed up and we need the chance for family members to opt out in order to make sure that these family morals will not be infringed upon. "I believe it's more likely Joe Average wouldn't check this box, if you're given a form and this is an option, you'll just leave it blank, not really sure, you don't want any extra hassle." This person would have their organs harvested even if they did not wish it so. This is exactly the reason why we need a family presence in order to stop Joe Average from getting his rights taken away. "It is not up to his family to make those decisions for him; whether he is related or not to someone, that doesn't mean they can choose his personal morals." I am saying that if it is a big enough deal for someone to have wanted to pull back organ donation they would have discussed it and they would have come to a personal decision. Exact specifics on exemptions on other family members can be discussed later. If I can prove that family members at all need to be involved in this process then the soft opt out system would be in place. "There are no fundamental ethical or legal barriers to introducing soft presumed consent legislation in the UK." The same article also points out how the highest donating nation uses a opt out system in Spain. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2: You agree that we will have no shortage of organs. Your only concern is putting all the new organs we have in the proper place. There have been no problems with any of the countries in the EU that have tried this. Furthermore, this would not be a problem in the near future because of all the people we currently have on the organ donation list. http://pub.mtholyoke.edu... 3:"You can't have this system, because if someone believes in something, you simply can't take that choice away from them!" It is the normal opt out that takes away these options and violates these moral standings. I would like to make this argument to clear up a problem that we have. You say that families do not have these rights but when you look to our current organ donation system the family already has these rights. You are advocating taking away these rights of the family, robbing the family to uphold its moral code that they have built upon.
Easter needs an overhaul

You are saying that Easter should be moved because of the day. First off if you read the bible, it doesn't have dates, but the way it is is good. 1. If it was to be moved, there would be too much commotion over holiday changes. 2. Sunday's are good days because they are religious days and most people do not work and kids do not have school. 3. If holiday's were moved, after having been on the same day for so long, how many problems would that make? Think about if Christmas was moved. How many people would complain? How many Christians would protest? The same point of moving Christmas applies with Easter since it is a religious holiday.
Easter needs an overhaul

Every year Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ on the same day: the 25th December. It's never the 8th December or the 11th January, but Easter Sunday can fall on any one of the 35 dates between the 22nd March and the 25th April. [1] Now that's just crazy, isn't it? And why do they call the day that Jesus was executed on "Good Friday"? How did that come about? Possibly one of the scribes who wrote the Bible was walking through the suburbs of Jerusalem in AD30 when he chanced upon the Messiah: "Hello there Jesus! Are you having a good day?" "Well, I've been nailed to this cross for the last few hours dying a slow and painful death..." "Oh, yes, so I see…but apart from that, how's your day been?" "Oh good, you know, apart from being crucified it's been good." So we can see that there's neither rhyme nor reason to the celebration of Jesus' death – we are living in the 21st Century and quite simply, in today's modern world, the Easter festivities are not fit for purpose. Therefore, I suggest Easter is brought up to date. My idea is that the "Good Friday" and "Easter Monday" bank (public) holidays [2] should be amalgamated and renamed "The Festival of the Crucifixion" to form a two-day bank (public) holiday that is celebrated on static dates so that companies, educational establishments and other organisations can plan their annual agendas on the basis that all bank (public) holidays fall on the same dates each year (unless, of course, they happen to fall over a weekend in which case they will be moved to the nearest weekdays). Obviously the tradition of remembering Jesus' final miracle of turning a thief into a bunny rabbit as a punishment for stealing eggs will remain, but in essence, Easter needs an overhaul and I, therefore, urge you to vote Pro in favour of the resolution. Thank you. [1] http://www.assa.org.au... [2] There are currently eight permanent bank holidays in England and Wales and an additional one in 2011 and 2012: England and Wales. 2010 / 2011 / 2012 New Year's Day - 1 January / 3 January* / 2 January* Good Friday - 2 April / 22 April / 6 April Easter Monday - 5 April / 25 April / 9 April Royal wedding - ___ / 29 April / ___ Early May Bank Holiday - 3 May / 2 May / 7 May Spring Bank Holiday - 31 May / 30 May / 4 June* Queen's Diamond Jubilee - ___ / ___ / 5 June Summer Bank Holiday - 30 August / 29 August / 27 August Christmas Day - 27 December* / 26 December* / 25 December Boxing Day- 28 December* / 27 December* / 26 December * substitute day http://www.direct.gov.uk...
Love is nothing more than a chemical reaction in the brain

I don't have much more to add to this debate, other than to emphasize the point that St. Augustine makes: that being in love and loving someone is different. Loving someone means that you can't get bored with them, for the simple reason that they are who they are and you are who you are. I don't believe that love is just a chemical reaction in the brain: love is something deeper. Love is seeing an imperfect person perfectly. Love is complicated, yes, and is difficult to explain, and love certainly makes life complicated, but would you want to live without love? Every human being needs to feel loved by somebody. A feeling like that can't be just a chemical reaction in the brain: it needs to be something more. It IS something more. For all these reasons, I would ask that you vote Negative. Thank you.