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

Also I would like to reference two websites due to their included material within the oppositions counter-argument: [1]CreationToday. org and [2]TruthInGenesis. com (URL's will be provided at the end of this submission). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The first point that defines religion as a philosophy on how the universe came into existence seems to be a lacking one particular aspect of religion: that of the worshipped being or beings around which the religion is based. Also the statement that religion is a philosophy is questionable, as religion is fundamentally a belief system (or man-made doctrine dependant on personal opinion) where as philosophy is a critical assessment of the theories and beliefs that are available therefore religion and evolution are not philosophies they are subjects that philosophy seeks to explore through reasoning. The rudiments of this explanation for those interested are explored on the Qcc. cuny website. [3] The idea that only micro evolution (out of the list that you provided) happens is wrong. Observations for example of stellar evolution including the birth of new stars has been observed and the birth of new stars continues to be observed by astrologists and astrophysicists worldwide. Stellar evolution happens, present tense. Evolution being a theory may be proved or disproved according to scientific research, evolution has been monitored, assessed and theorised through the use of fossil collections and genetics using scientific evidence. Evolution, however macro or micro, is a scientific theory based on years of research of tangible things, religion is not. Religion being a belief system seeks to withstand by it's very nature the challenge of proving it right or wrong because the act of believing in it means that it exists, it's continued existence is dependant on someone choosing to belief in it, the same cannot be said of evolution that will continue to happen whether we choose to believe in it or not. My apologies that I am out of time for now and have a lot of work, I look forward to the next round. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References from my opponents argument: [1] Creationtoday. org. (2016). Six Meanings Of Evolution | Creation Today. [online] Available at: . http://www.creationtoday.org... [Accessed 10 Aug. 2016]. [2] Truthingenesis. com. (2016). The Six Meanings of Evolution. [online] Available at: . http://www.truthingenesis.com... [Accessed 10 Aug. 2016]. [3]Qcc. cuny. edu. (2016). What is Philosophy of Religion. [online] Available at: . http://www.qcc.cuny.edu... [Accessed 10 Aug. 2016].
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 Also I would like to touch on what you said about the earth being millions of years old because. The orbits the sun slow it is receding away from the earth leaving us a couple of inches per year, which means the moon use to be closer but if we bring the moon in closer it would create a problem because the moon is what causes the tides, if the moon was closer the tides would be higher there is a law called the inverse square law if you brought the moon 1/3 the distance and square it you get 9 times the gravitational pull and if you were to do the math you would find out that the earth and the moon would be in contact just over 1 billion years ago the gravitational pull would have been too strong for life to exist on earth due to the heat it generated.
Evolution is a religion

The creator of this debate believes that evolution is a religion due to there being a lack of evidence to support it's existence (with the exception of micro evolution). First, let me provide just two definitions of the terms: 1. Micro evolution: Evolutionary change involving the gradual accumulation of mutations leading to new varieties within a species. (a. Minor evolutionary change observed over a short period of time.) 2. Macro evolution: Major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa. (a. Major evolutionary change, especially with regard to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time.) Evolution on a macroscopic scale, a wholly scientifically explainable process spanning millions of years is the backbone of modern biology and one only has to do a couple of minutes of searching on the Internet, or at a library to discover credible sources determining it's importance in the existence of life. I would now like to take this chance to ask my opponent to share the their reasons behind the statement "evolution is a religion" so I can gladly submit counter arguments.
WAR DEBATE: India vs. Pakistan

July 11th : Nawaz Sharif grants assent to Operation Khalif. Pakistan Air force base at Lahore and Karachi are armed with heavy artillery.The navy base at Karachi is also prepare for any sudden attack by indian troops outside the city. July 12th: Two Pakistani submarines PNS khalid and PNS Humza reach Bombay high. They fire successive torpedoes to destroy the entire Oil rig. This oil well 176 km from Mumbai which gave 45% of India's petroleum and natural gas has now been destroyed. Operation Khalif still has something left. Pakistan occupy several towns and villages in Kashmir. They urge separatists in Kashmir for aggression against India. Violent protests take place against the government. Meanwhile, the petroleum from Bombay high has been blocked by pakistani navy. The Employees on the sagar samrat are also held as hostages. Later, Nawaz Sharif makes a press conference and he said- "And those of you who report to that scum named India.. Go and tell your Government that even we know how to play this GAME !!". July 15th: Prez results are announced as gen. Musharaf is again elected as president. Pakistani troops intrigue into India and take control of Kargil. They yet again capture tiger Hill second time after the Kargil War in the 90s. India struggles to come at them from all angles but pakistan has the upper hand as they can see everyone from the peak.. July 18th: Sharif visits Beijing to meet president Xi Jinping. China makes sure that they will help Pakistan in any all missions against India. China states that such actions by India are unprecedented. Sharif and Jinping make a joint statement saying that China lends 20 fighter jets to pakistan. July 22nd: Seeing that India pays no heed toward the attacks by Pakistan, They take control of half the territory of Kashmir. India gets agitated and kills several pakistanis in Lahore and Karachi. Pakistan makes many plans to evacuate citizens from the two cities. Pakistan yet again shells in Punjab in India . July 27th: Just one day before the hearing, Islamic countries take pakistan's side in the case along with China. July 28th: Its Judgement day and pakistan comes up with all evidence against pakistan. Dawood Ibrahim confesses that he was working with the Indian Government to defame Pakistan . The court gives charges on India. Middle eastern countries impose economic sanctions on India. The OPEC denies sale of oil to India due to their unexpected aggression.
WAR DEBATE: India vs. Pakistan

.. And i will be the Islamic republic of Pakistan. .Pakistan's firepower. .. Manpower- total population:199,085,847Manpower:95,000,000Artillery: tanks:2924AFVs:2828SPGs:465towed artllary:3278MLRSs:134Air force: Total aircrafts:197Fighters:304fixed wing attack:394Transport:170Helicopters:306Attack Helicopters:52Naval Strenght: Total naval strenght:197Frigates:10Submarines:5Coastal defense craft:12Mine Warfare:3main Resource:Petroleumdefense budget:$7000000000:::June 18th:Pakistan denies their involvement in the bombings in India. June 19th:ISI intercepts an encrypted email hailing from Kabul,Afghanistan. Musharaf stands for Presidential elections. June 21st:After 2 days of investigation, ISI declares that the message was from Dawood Ibrahim. .and the most shocking news is that the mail was sent to the Indian Ministry of Defense. Nawaz Sharif calls for a press conference. . he makes a historic speech on the rumors that other countries especially India is spreading about them. Pakistan takes India to the International court of justice in Hague for two reasons:1)False charges on Pakistan for hosting dawood Ibrahim.2)For unexpected attack on the Indo-Pakistan BorderJune 25th:Pakistan launches an military operation for safeguarding its border with IndiaTanks and other artilleries are posted on the border. Camps were set up near the border if any immediate medical help was needed. June 28th:Shelling takes place near Wagha Border resulting in the deaths of many. Pakistan blames India for starting the struffle and thus arms itself heavily. Nawaz Sharif threats India and Mr. Modi that if further alligations are seen Pakistan will be compelled to take severe action against India. July 1st:Sind and Punjab regiments of Pakistan Occupy the city of Lahore because of certain bomb threats in city halls. ISI bring Dawood Ibrahim to Islamabad for further interrogation. Currently he will be kept in prison till the date the hearing at Hague is announced. July 2nd:UN announces date for Pakistan-India hearing at the Hague. It is to take place on the 28th of July. Pakistan Parliament annouces its final candidates for the prez race. . with Musharaf leading at top. *****
By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels

Please accept if you are willing to have good conversation I stand to negate the following: "Resolved: That, by 2040, the federal government should mandate that all new passenger vehicles and light trucks sold in the United States be powered by alternative fuels." 1. To start of, the fact that we are changing to alternative fuels is bad and means no improvement of the status quo : pollution and oil shortage; What happens is that when you introduce these new vehicles with their alt. fuels, is that these are still fuels. To get them will cost more CO2 and they themselves won't solve much. What we need is alternative energy run cars: solar energy, not onother CO2 producer. 2. The resolution calls for "alternative fuels", thsi i presume to be all types of fuels other than oil. Nuclear energy is a type of alt. fuel and it in itself is the worst idea of the century, imagine cars runing on nuclear fuel. My oponent has to defend all types of alternative fuels which is in itself a suicide. 3. The resolution asks for 2040, as long as I prove it could be 2041 or 2039 etc. I ought to win. There is nothing special about 2040 and this fact alone negates the affirmitive resolution Thanks and good luck. Ps if you don't by any chane believe in any of my claims, just ask for the source in the comments, i really don't have my files on me, thanks.
Israeli School Trips to Auschwitz Should be Banned

Thanks for challenging me to this debate Emilrose. I'm sure that we can both agree that all the Nazi concentration camps across the Third Reich were an egregious moral atrocity to mankind, unable to be convincingly defended in any way whatsoever. So, not making light of this topic, I am interested in hearing why you think Israeli students should miss out on the opportunity to go to one of these camps, namely Auschwitz, and see for themselves this place where so much horror occurred.
The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin

My opponent must show that the Bible does not label homosexuality as a sin. . . . pretty cut and dry given: any story of the Bible is historical fact Contention 1: Sodom and Gomorrah These were two cities that were utterly destroyed by God killing all within save for one man. The sin that God was punishing? Homosexuality this alone makes it clear that the Bible outlaws homosexuality ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contention 2: New Testament also labels it as a sin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality, [Amplified Bible] It is clear that the Bible does NOT allow for homosexuality, it is wrong and no church should turn a blind eye towards it. NOTE: I made this debate because I am VERY angry about the Episcopal church and some Catholic denominations allowing homosexuals to be ordained. . . .it is a sacrilege and causes unbelievers to be confused about what Christianity really is. . . . I believe that those churches who allow such practices are not Christian churches. . . but rather merely a religion that picks and chooses what sounds good and throws out what doesn't fit into society. In essence they merely are a way to make people feel good about their sins and give them false hope. . . . also, I was recently speaking with a Muslim who has converted to Christianity, he said that the biggest problem him and his family fad in accepting Christianity was our apparent allowance of homosexuality. . . . needless to say this made me very angry (not at him) . . .. I'm sick of people acting as Christians only in name and thinking their safe or good. . . . its just giving real Christians a bad name
The earth is a sphere, or a spherical shape.

First, I apologize for the flight to India remark - we stop in Europe due to lack of fuel. But the point still stands - read my pilot's testimony. That itself went unrefuted. On Gravity, my opponent says "oh nobody has proved it" but we observe it everyday. This makes no sense whatsoever. Extend my points still. Even if the South pole is in 4 places, the point is they aren't that far apart. If you believe my opponent's map, the distance between those two points on Antarctica are 10x more far away from each other than California and Texas. And that's just bullcrap. No map of a flat world will ever make sense given circumnavigation, and as I said, that's the easiest way to vote aff. Remember I only need to win one point since my opponent only has defense, and never made an argument why a spherical Earth is impossible. He only showed alternate interpretations. This means this one point is game over already. I have to agree with you on the pictures though - they do look faked. I'll concede that much, but like I said, I've still won. So you can vote for me on Flight Paths, Circumnavigation, or Time Zones. My opponent's map makes no sense - the globe is legit even if NASA isn't.
The earth is a sphere, or a spherical shape.

The argument against gravity goes back to as far as tesla. I would be ignorant if I didn't say that what goes up must come down per se. It is the kind of gravity that we can't prove or observe that I am against. You know the part that says that the sheer mass of an object will attract make stick to or make orbit around it. Until this can be shown or demonstrated in a real world environment, it remains a theory. Honestly I feel my opponent either didn't understand, or didn't bother reading my entire argument against gravity in relation to celestial bodies. Please, explain what force pulls the earth back to it's outer orbit that it makes in the winter solstice. You can't rest your case since you have not even addressed the argument.http://peswiki.com...'s_Dynamic_Theory_of_GravityFlight paths. This map made sense enough to use it as an official map for flight for years. The south pole has been put in 4 different places by Wikipedia, which begs the question, do they really know? http//en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_PoleAs most people know the poles are not flyable with reports of approaching pilots being shooed with threats of violence. (which is why you didn't fly over it) The south pole is not geomagnetic, only the north pole, and any pole they place on the ring of Antarctica is only theoretically a pole.https://youtu.be...https://youtu.be...http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com...Why would you go through Europe, which is north of India, when India is southeast of cali? Intellectually embarrassing indeed. NASAYou admit that NASA uses Photoshop to help create their images of earth, but you fail to recognize the fact that this can be done on a flat earth also anyone can take a flat surface scan it and use Photoshop to turn it into a ball.Oh you saw a movie that proves the earth is a sphere? I thought when I was younger, because I saw it on a movie that a giant gorilla was climbing towers and kidnapping white chicks. Intellectually embarrassing indeed. Links to the NASA photos are below. As for words in clouds, the odds are tremendous an animal, yes, symbols and maybe what might appear to some as a letter, but that word? In the instant NASA decided to take a photo? No. I thought surely, since you accepted this debate, that you were competent enough to either recognize or research these images yourself, and find out they are official, but here you go.https://www.nasa.gov...http://www.nasa.gov...http://climate.nasa.gov...https://www.nasa.gov...Stars.I know you were discussing the distance to the stars, but I was, and they fall into the realm of the Law of Perspective. Again this is not a theory, and is not debateable.The only aspect of this argument would be the distance to the starshttps://en.m.wikipedia.org...(graphical)
The earth is a sphere, or a spherical shape.

OK, let's go down the arguments. 1: Gravity My opponent tries to disprove gravity. Seriously? Jump up right now. You came back down. I rest my case - gravity is legit. The reason we don't fall into the Sun is because while we accelerate toward the Sun, our velocity is not in that direction, so we move in a circle (http://www.physicsclassroom.com...). And I'm sorry, you denying gravity does not make it false. So that's enough to affirm right there, but I'll adress the other points too. 2: Flight Paths First of all, that map makes no sense. People have found the South Pole. It is not on that map. Why? Because a flat Earth is nonsensical. I have gone from California to India, and no, I did not go over the North Pole. I went through Europe. My opponent's points are completely inconsistent and intellectually embarrassing. 3: Pictures from Space NASA does use Photoshop, but not to make up their photos - just to interpret the feed from their devices. But even if you think NASA fakes their stuff, ask the people who filmed Gravity - they got their shots from outer space itself. And I'm sorry, any source that claims the Illuminati is real is probably not credible. Also, can you link the photos, not just paste them? Maybe these photos are made up - but by a third party source, not by NASA. As for the clouds saying sex, people see stuff in clouds all the time - dragons, bunnies, whatever it may be. Doesn't mean it's faked. Randomness can be beautiful. I mean, we are all random too. 4: Circumnavigation I already touched on this, that model has no South Pole when we have clearly found one, so it is faked. This is the easiest place, but not the only one, to vote aff in this debate. 5: Horizon My opponent talks about perspective. But that's only true when there is something higher that blocks your view. If you look across a flat lake, you should be able to see the next city. But if you try this when you go to the beach, you won't see across the ocean because the Earth curves. So good try, but perspective only applies in certain cases. 6: Stars I'm not talking about distance here. I'm talking about how the Southern and Northern hemispheres have different stars visible. You can see the Big Dipper in the North, not in the South. My opponent doesn't cover this at all. Easy vote for me here as well. 7: Time Zones Once again, looking back at my opponent's map, I've shown why it's nonsensical. I've driven around Australia - a mile there is the same as a mile here. To suggest the distance there is larger is preposterous. So all my points stand, (unless the Illuminati is real, then all but one stand) which means this is an easy affirmative vote.
Small dogs are better than big dogs

I'd like to start by countering your arguments 1. Not all small dogs are cute, I've seen many ugly small dogs. Also, the idea of cute and cuddly is very subjective and therefore irrelevant. The standard of appearance is different depending on individuals. 2. The ease of picking up a dog doesn't determine how good the dog is. You provide no justification for this as a determining factor; it's not important. 3. The damage caused by a dog is not necessarily determined by its size but is more accurately determined by its the temperament, or personality. A dog's personality is not determined by it's size. Your statement is not true. 4. Dogs are often stinky because they eat poop and lick themselves or they roll in poop, but according to my experience of breeding both small and large dogs, they both eat and roll in poop. Dogs and humans have lived together for a long time (60,000 years ago). Walk in the forest, walk in the mud, walked over the city. We learned to live a clean life. It has become a natural and familiar task for us. But dogs are different, so their naturalness is different from ours. Dogs originally lived in forests and fields, and some still do today. It's natural for them. According to animal scientists, their favorite smell is the smell of mud and poop. For dogs, the smell of mud and poop is like peppermint. They think it is clean! So the standards of clean and smelling pleasant is not shared by dogs. Now my main argument for large dogs being better is that large dogs are more useful. As you know, police dogs and military dogs are all large dogs. Seeing eye dogs for blind people are also large dogs. Farm dogs used for herding sheep are large. St. Bernard dogs were used for locating people trapped in snow; they are large. A large dog can also save your life. Let's suppose that your house is on fire and you can't escape. Your loyal large dog can save your life by pulling you out, but a small dog won't be able to do a thing expect bark. Of course, there are many reasons we breed dogs. But a dogs usefulness and it's ability to save us is also one of the most important reason we raise dogs. For these reasons, large dogs are better than small dogs.