BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is unlikely that God exists

You mentioned that antibiotic resistance in bacteria can have its drawbacks. My question: So what? Nearly any evolutionary change is going to be good in some environments and bad in others. The evolution of legs in early amphibians was beneficial for their new lifestyle of walking on land. But for a more aquatic lifestyle, legs would be useless. You ignored all of the studies that I cited that showed that new species had been observed evolving and that beneficial "information increasing" evolution has been directly observed. I believe that if you do not answer these, you deserve to lose this debate. You mentioned the Cambrian Explosion as unexplained. This is false(1). You said that all that was found of Pakicetus was a bit of a skull. This too is false, since more recent discoveries have turned up a near-complete skeleton of pakicetus(2). The article you cite in the comment section on Ambulocetus is full of error(3). But in discussing evolution we have gone off on a tangent. You STILL have not sufficiently responded to my argument from evil or my argument from complexity against the existence of God. Overall, you've railroaded a debate about God into the subject of evolution, which ISN'T what we were originally supposed to debate, and in debating evolution, you've shown that you haven't done any serious research since you're parroting arguments from jailbird "Doctor" Hovind and have not cited any peer-reviewed articles, recognized Biology textbooks or reputable educational websites in doing so. In short: you haven't even earned enough knowledge to discuss evolution intelligently. Sorry to be so harsh, but that is the truth. References 1. http://www.talkorigins.org... 2. J. G. M. Thewissen, E. M. Williams, L. J. Roe & S. T. Hussain, "Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship ofwhales to artiodactyls" Nature Vol. 413 (2001). Accessed at: http://www.thisviewoflife.org... 3. http://aigbusted.blogspot.com...
It is unlikely that God exists

Mutations You have stated that "mutations are the raw materials that selection acts on". I disagree. In my opinion, most, if not all genetic mutations, have negative consequences. For an example, it is noted that bacteria can become immune to antibiotics(1). However, when the antibiotic resistant bacteria is mixed back in with other bacteria, it quickly disappears. It cannot survive as well as other bacteria. Although it would be true that if the resistant bacteria would survive antibiotics while other bacteria wouldn't, the resistant bacteria would still be handicapped, and would not be able to survive long after that. For an example, let's say there was an armless man, in a population of people with arms. If people were to come and handcuff half the people there, the armless man could not be handcuffed, so he is neglected. It would be good for the moment, but later on, he would still be handicapped. Also, a good example would be fruit flies. Fruit flies have a very short life span, so change from one generation to the next can be quickly observed. In fact, fruit fly generations have been studied longer than the presumed time that man has lived on the earth, which is a little over a million years, according to evolution. Scientists have used X rays to speed up the mutation rate of fruit flies. However, after years and years of research, and seeing 400 different kinds of mutations, fruit flies always remain fruit flies(2). Richard Goldschmidt himself fell into despair, realizing that the changes were so hopelessly small, and if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species(3). Anyways, all of the mutations seen in fruit flies were negative. Four winged fruit flies, for an example, lost the ability to really fly, and can only survive in laboratories. Mutations, for the most part, are a loss of information, not an increase. You have left a link to an article stating that there was a mutation that allowed people to digest milk even through adulthood. So what? I doubt that this mutation would have enabled them to survive, and others to not. Despite the many theories, it would be better to find some real, observable, scientific evidence proving that mutations are always helpful in the long run.. Fossil Evidence As for the " fossil evidence" for macro evolution, I would like to see some real evidence for that. Much of the "evidence" is flawed. For an example, the Cambrian Explosion, which turns Darwin's tree of life upside down, is never explained. Scientists also say that whales evolved from other animals. Scientists say that Pakicetus was a transition from whales to land-walking mammals. All that they found of Pakicetus was a bit of the skull. The legs and arms that scientists say Pakicetus had, were of pure imagination. Ambulocetus, another "transition" was said to be a whale-like animal. Yet, all the crucial pieces were missing. I will speak more about the flaws in the "fossil evidence" later.
It is unlikely that God exists

You are somewhat correct in stating that natural selection is like quality control. And you are also correct that natural selection, ALL BY ITSELF, will not create anything new. But you forget about mutations, which are changes in the genetic code. Those provide the raw material for selection to act on. Selection and Mutation IN CONCERT are what creates new things. In my references to my opening statement I provided several observed examples of this happening, but Con ignored and did not respond to them. You stated that macroevolution is not proven by science. This is blatantly false. Numerous fossils as well as information from genetics, biogeography,and anatomy show that all animals have a common ancestor and have evolved over millions of years(1). Macroevolution is proven because it is the best explanation for so many phenomena in nature and because it makes falsifiable predictions which have held up. Good and evil proves a moral standard. Sure. But you call this a moral law and say that it needs a lawgiver. No. Just because you call something a law does not mean that it is like a congress-passed law and must be explained by a "law-giver". i.e. the law of identity: things are what they are and are not what they are not. This is called a "law" and yet it obviously doesn't need a law-giver. It is self-evident and we can intuit that it could never not be true. You say that if God were to give us free will it would "only make sense" that there would be some evil. I disagree. The actions of human beings are determined by what they can do, their knowledge of the options available to them, and by their desires.Humans choose the option that they believe will best fulfill their desires. I find this view so sensible and intuitive thatI don't think it needs defending. If that view is correct, then God could have created humans with pure desires, thereby determining that their choices would always be good and evil would not exist. But all humans don't have pure desires, therefore God does not exist. You say that just because we can't explain God does not mean that he does not exist. True. But it does not erase the argument I've given that shows that the existence of God is initially improbable, and so one needs extremely strong evidence to show that God exists(2). You say that a complex creation points to a creator, but you don't seem to realize that you are using circular reasoning by calling the universe a "creation" when the very issue at hand is whether or not it was created! Maybe you didn't mean to use circular reasoning. Maybe you just meant that complexity requires an explanation. But if that is true then God would require an explanation because he is complex. But since God cannot have an explanation (God-by definition-cannot have been created or evolved) then he is unlikely to exist for the same reason that you think a complex universe is unlikely to exist without God.
It is unlikely that God exists

Natural Selection I agree that natural selection does exist. However, all we can say about it , is that it selects. It does not create. Natural selection is like quality control. In a factory where cars are produced, the cars that cannot function as well as the other cars, are taken away. There may be some changes, but how long would it take for the cars to turn into airplanes? It wouldn't happen. It is true that the dark colored mice would have a better chance of surviving, and that the majority of mice offspring will be dark. However, that does not explain how they evolved from another animal. Micro evolution, variation among the kinds is proven by science. Macro evolution, when different kinds of animals evolve into others, is not proven by science. Darwin noticed that in the Galapagos islands, that finch beak sizes would change over time. That was a good observation. Darwin then decided that all finches had a common ancestor. That was a good inference; it was a bird. But then, in his book, The Origin of Species, he decided that finches and bananas share a common ancestor, by stating that all organisms share a common ancestor. That was a bad inference. Natural Selection cannot prove that evolution is true, much less that there is no God. The Existence of Evil You have stated that the existence of Evil proves that there is no God. The act that there is good and evil, proves that there is some sort of moral standard, or moral law. Th fact that there is a moral law leads to the belief that there is a moral law-giver, or God. Anyways, the existence of evil does not mean that there is no God. If God were to give humans free will, it would be only reasonable that there is evil. This problem leads to the belief of a judgment of our actions. As for the statement that God needs an explanation, the fact that we cannot find an explanation, does not mean that God does not exist. A complex creation points to a creator. In the same way, the fact that my television exists, proves that an intelligent designer, or manufacturer also exists. Information must be created. That is why I believe that it is very likely that a God does exist.
It is unlikely that God exists

Hi JC, Just to let you know, the numbers in parentheses are references. I will post the references in the comment section shortly. I agree that something of "ordered complexity" is highly unlikely to form by "accident". However, natural selection is a far cry from an "accident" or mere chance. Here's an example of natural selection: It was noticed that Populations of mice that live on dark, volcanic rock tend to be dark, simply because they blend in with their environment. Lightly colored mice are easily spotted against the dark backround by birds and other predators, and so they have a lower chance of survival. Since more dark colored mice survive, the next generation will have a higher percentage of dark colored mice because there are more dark mice making babies. Since the genetic variation which causes a dark colored coat will likely be passed on to most or all of the dark mices' offspring, more dark mice will exist. So the environment determines (or selects for) the characteristics of a species based on what characteristics allow a greater chance of survival.(1) So as you can see, this process is not chance. The genetic variations that allow individuals a better chance of survival and reproduction are the ones that become most common because individuals with good genetic variations are the ones surviving and reproducing. Perhaps the colored mice example seems trivial. That's OK, because I was only using it as a simple example of how evolution works. There are many more examples of very complex, new traits evolving before scientists eyes in the laboratory and in the wild(2), not to mention plausible explanations of the evolution of the eye, to name one example.(3) You seem to contradict yourself when you say that God does not fall under the category of "ordered complexity" but also that he is infinitely complex. Wouldn't the mind of God be extremely orderly as well as complex? If so, then he is a being of ordered complexity. I suppose it is *possible* that such a being could exist without explanation. Then again, ordered complexity is extremely unlikely to exist without an explanation, therefore making God unlikely. Now, you seem to think that the laws of nature, energy, space, etc. must have an explanation. I don't agree. These things don't seem to possess the characteristic of orderly complexity, and therefore they would not be unlikely to exist without an explanation. If there is a completely good, all knowing, and all powerful being (God) then the world will not contain vast evil. A good being always removes as much evil as it can, that it knows about. An all powerful being could remove all evil. An all knowing being would know about all evils. Therefore God would remove all evil. But evil exists. Therefore, God does not. I don't claim this argument undoubtable,I only claim that its premises are more plausible than their contradictories, and that it is therefore a good argument which counts strongly against God.
It is unlikely that God exists

Ordered Complexity Seeing that you have already bested someone already on the matter of the existence of God, I would like to take up the argument that it is likely that God exists. First of all, I would like to say that I agree that a TV requires an explanation, in terms of "ordered complexity". We see that the parts of a television are ordered in order to carry out a certain function. The explanation is that someone, or some company built that machine, for a certain function, which is to entertain the watcher. We cannot assume, however, that the TV was formed by accident, that it formed naturally over millions of years. That would be a poor explanation. In the same way, humans fall under the category of ordered complexity. And, we must have an explanation. A logical explanation would be that someone created humans. A poor explanation would be that we were formed by evolution, evolving over millions of years. An explanation outside of the creation If I were to look at my computer, looked inside of it, analyzed all of the data, I would learn a lot about that computer. However, the explanation for the origin of the computer would not be inside of it. It would be outside of it, pointing to some outside intelligent being; the manufacturer. In the same way, the explanation of the existence of human beings would not be within our selves, but would point towards some outward being; God. God and ordered complexity I also object to the statement that God falls under the category of "ordered complexity". We, as humans, are subject to things, such as time, the laws of nature, etc. However, it is possible that some greater being would be outside of time; outside of the laws of nature. Infinitely complex, and incomprehensible. There is no explanation on why God was there. He just exists. Anyways, the fact that I cannot explain the origin of God, is nothing, compared to evolutionists and atheists not able to explain the existence of matter, energy, space, time, the laws of nature, etc. I say that God exists, and created the world around us. To me, that is the most logical explanation.
It is unlikely that God exists

"[According to Christianity] we originally had perfect desires, until sin comes in…" But if our actions are determined by our desires, knowledge, and abilities, as I have argued, then human beings would not sin because their desires would be good and therefore so would their choices. I also disagree with JC's assertion that the mind of God would not have to process information in a regular way. He doesn't really defend this assertion. It seems incomprehensible to me that a rational and coherent mind (as God's would be, if he is sane, rational, and so on) would not work in a regular way. Computers, calculators, humans, and every other rational thing we know of does so by working in a regular way. Things that don't work in a regular way, are, to my knowledge, always disorderly. So JC's assertion doesn't really stand up. Overall, I don't think JC defeated my argument from evil or my argument from ordered complexity against the existence of God. Furthermore, I think his arguments against evolution were weak, cited poor sources, and were soundly refuted by material I cited in the comments. This debate has been a slam dunk for my side. I hope my opponent and all those reading our debate have enjoyed this, and I thank him for the opportunity. [END]
It is unlikely that God exists

The existence of evil Well, according to certain religions, such as Christianity, it is believed that we originally had perfect desires, until sin comes in, but that's a different matter. You asked that if God exists, why he isn't administering perfect justice. I suppose that might be to give mankind a second chance. After all, perfect justice can be quite frightening, if you think about it. Ordered Complexity As for your question, if someone did not understand how a television works, if it would remain under ordered complexity. My answer would be that it still would. However, I think you've missed my point. You are assuming that God, if he exists, would pertain to a regular sequence or regular way of processing information. I would disagree. What I meant by God being incomprehensible, was that he would not be like us; his mind would not follow a regular process, or sequence, as ours do. I don't think that the argument for ordered complexity would hold true, when trying to prove that there is no God. Closing Comments I would like to thank my opponent for accepting my challenge for this debate. This being my first, I've had fun, and learned a lot from this experience. To sum up, I believe that there is a God, who created mankind. I believe that all logic points toward it. I understand that it would be difficult for an atheist to accept that, just as it would be for a christian to accept atheism. However, I believe that the only way to get anywhere, would be to push back all bias, and to see which side really makes sense. Again, I thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and anyone who's taken the time to look through it. Thank you.
It is unlikely that God exists

I don't know how you got the impression that I would "write off" all creationist material as false simply because it is creationist. I cited articles explaining just why those creationist articles were false. When I say that something is "reputable" I mean that it comes from the kind of source that a majority of practicing scientists would trust. Peer-reviewed articles fall under this category, and so do textbooks that are used by accredited universities. Websites may not fall under this category because people who have never done experiments and no qualifications can make websites, and there is no assurance that what they write will be true or well-researched. A majority of scientists would not simply trust something off any old website because they know that quacks and cranks exist who write without knowing what they are talking about. When I say that the mind of God would be "orderly" I suppose that's more of a metaphor than anything else. I'm saying that an intelligent and coherent mind would have to work in a regular way and that it would have to consistently process information in a regular way. You say that "An orderly complex mind would be possible to understand, and possible to comprehend". How do justify adding that to my definition? By your definition, who is it that must be able to understand something before we can say it possesses ordered complexity? Is it you personally? Well, what if you had been born with an IQ of 60 and did not have the ability to understand how a TV worked. Would it then not possess ordered complexity just because you didn't understand it? You also say that God could get rid of evil by administering perfect justice. I guess I agree, but if God exists, then why isn't he doing so? And why didn't God create all people with prefect desires so that they would always choose good actions?
Rape Should Not Be An Exception In Abortion Policy

Perhaps abortion should be generally legal, perhaps it should be generally illegal. But if it is illegal then rape should not be allowed to be an exception. If abortion is illegal that is predicated on the fetus being a human person with inalienable rights. If the fetus is a human person with inalienable rights then killing it because its father raped its mother is punishing the child for the actions of the father, and is immoral and a violation of equal protection of the law and due process. This debate does not concern itself with whether or not abortion should be illegal in the first place just that if abortion is illegal then rape should not be an exception.
Rap battle

(Okay, first of all, you literally just stole lyrics from Epic Rap Battles of History there at the end. Please at least TRY to be original?) First of all, you should use original rhymes That's from ERB-- you behind on the times? Secondly, you didn't know me until now So saying you kinda liked me is something I won't allow. Thirdly, all of your raps sound the same. Switch it up, please, or go wallow in shame. Saying you'll destroy me again and again Isn't making it happen; I don't feel any pain. So please take a seat and stop all your rapping For me, audiences stand up and start clapping Because I'm calling you out and adding some feeling While you're just looking up videos and stealing.
Rap battle

Man you really bad ,I hope you can pull through And this was something you shouldn't have got into Before this, you seemed cool I actually kinda liked you And I don't wanna be the person you commit suicide to But I guess I got make you feel horrible I'm gonna destroy you and I don't mean metaphorical Man you can't compete with my vocabulary Cause compared to you I'm extraordinary So when you die I will be bury you at the closet cemetery And ain't no one gonna miss you cause all your friends imaginary
Rap battle

How can you insult me when you Don't know me in real life, you know? You try so hard to rhyme that It loses all its flow. I'm on this website looking for a decent debate But instead I found you, so I'll wait For someone who actually know what they're doing Until then, don't hit submit! I suggest reviewing Your raps because they lack half decent rhyme and flow. You want to be a "rap God"? You gotta keep it slow.