BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible cannot be taken literally, and cannot be a viable source of evidence

You say the bible cannot be taken seriously. That is false. I do take it very seriously. I base my whole life on it. And I do not consider myself different. The bible just has given me a very different perspective on life.And I have never seen anything in human behavior that the bible did not clear up for me. You say that a man cannot be raised from the dead. And yet God raised Jesus from the dead.And how do you prove he did not. You have to take by faith he did not. Since you were not there to see with your own eyes that he stayed dead.God says the carnal mind is at enmity with God , and is not subject to the knowledge of God. You, being carnally minded cannot believe it. But if you were to ever become spiritually minded, you would see very clearly.I believed that Jesus was raised from the dead in 1974 and have never had any doubts about it since. You say Adam and Eve could not have existed because there is no evidence they ever existed. Of course not. There has been 6000 years of history that buried any evidence of them. Even a world wide flood.The house I grew up in has been torn down and graded over. There is no evidence it ever existed either. Just a memory. And you say that 2 people over a space of 6000 years could not have produced that many offspring. Just to clarify that , it was 8 people left after the flood. That was 5000 years ago. If you were to take one kernel of corn on the first square of a chess board and doubled it every square, What do you suppose the number on the 64th would be. Off the charts.It was not but a few decades ago that there were just 5 billion. I seem to remember that in the early 50's I heard the U.S had a population of 180 million. Now that is almost doubled. And that after killing 60,000,000 in the womb. It has never taken man long to populate anything. And again. You say that dirt cannot make a body. But if it was very well put together dirt, like enough of all the right elements put together. That would work very well.And for a being ( God) who operates on 100% mental capacity that would be no big trick . Now that body did not have life in it till God breathed and spoke life into it. Then man became a speaking spirit, housed in a material body.If the man ( spirit) leaves , that body will fall down and start to decay in a matter of hours. The life left to spiritual environment.And return to the dust it was made of. Nowhere in the word does it say God told Noah to bring any fish in the Ark.And why do you think he had to bring full grown animals and birds in.I don't know how big the ark actually was, but it was sufficient. He did not have to bring in all the different cats and dogs. Just one of each species. Here you are , a being operating on at most 5% of all available knowledge with only at most 20% mental capacity telling a being that operates on 100% knowledge with 100 % mental capacity what he can and cannot do. Does anyone else see what is wrong with this picture?
The Bible cannot be taken literally, and cannot be a viable source of evidence

Doing so, you disagree to the title, and making changes during the argument will be considered unfair. Here are a some logical fallacious from the Bible. "When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons"-Mark 16:9 Once a human being is dead, he is dead. There is no coming back if there is a total chemical death. The only time when people can come back from dead is 4 minutes prior to the heart stopping. If doctors can figure out a way to revive the heart in 4 minutes, the person can very much be alive. If jesus was dead for 3 days, there is no way he can come back to life. "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. "-Genesis 1:27. (Adam and Eve) We know that these characters are not real and mythical because we do not have any evidence for them. 2 people are not enough to bring a population of 7 billion. There is not enough genetic diversity. Adam and Eve disproves evolution, and since evolution is a fact, we know Adam and Eve are mythical. "Then the lord formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. "-Genesis 2:7 Again, god cannot be quantified so we know this statement is false. There is lack of evidence. There is no biological way that plain dirt, can turn into a fully functioning man in one breath. "Dirt" does not contain the proper elements to create a human cell, let alone a fully functioning body. "And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you to keep them alive"-Genesis 6:19-6:20 It is said that Noah brought 2 of each species that living thing of flesh. That is completely mythical because a 450 food long wooden boat cannot possibly carry 2 blue whales and 2 of every other "living thing of flesh". Its is a physical impossibility. Furthermore, the titanic was 882 feet and made out of parts of metal and it sank. A wooden boat carrying 2 blue whales alone would sink, let alone 2 of each species "By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. "-Genesis 2:2 Again, since there is no evidence of god and he cannot be quantified, he does not exist, We know the Earth, moon, and sun cannot be created in 7 days. It is impossible. And since day and light was created BEFORE sun and moon, it is impossible. Plus it took him a longer time to create the Earth than the Sun"Which is irrelevant. Furthermore, I would like to add that the Bible has gone through many changes. History can be modified and twisted by mankind. (Source-. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org...) (. http://www.greatsite.com...)
The Bible cannot be taken literally, and cannot be a viable source of evidence

I am telling you, there is no evidence that the house I grew up in is there.And if a record was put in the ciourthouse, then that is the same argument I have about the bible being evidence that Adam existed, The bible was written maybe starting 2000-2500 years after the flood. We have records of people that lived that long ago.So that is my recorded evidence. And I was thinking about how long it would take to populate the earth starting with just 8 people. 4 men and 4 women.I had 4 kids within 11 years. Would have had more if we had stayed married.But from our union there are now 13 grandchildren, and I great grandchild. And would have been even more if one of my kids had had children. That is 16 people from 2 in just over 30 years.And for most of history, that would have been an very low number.Now even if you gave that number to those eight, that would have been 56 from those 8. Now those 56 each reproduced 16 children in just 30 years, now you have 886 plus the 56.. That is just 60 years after the flood.Now you still have 4940 years to go.Why can't you figure this out. Is your mind that closed to just simple math. And once again I will say this slowly. God told Adam to take birds, animals, and everything that creeps on the earth. Earth is not water. God is not operating on less than 20% mental capacity like you are.He kind of figured during a flood, even one of that magnitude, fish would survive. Or anything else that lived in the water. You really are beating a dead horse to keep bringing that one up. And you say that Jesus could not have been raised from the dead because scientists say he couldn't.Just because they cannot do it, does not mean that our creator can't.That is still a lame argument. There are different blood types, but you cannot tell who each type came from. Or what race.The bible does say that man is of one blood.And we do not know for sure what diet and climate did to people. And as far as different languages, God did that.To slow down the evil that was building up at babel. So, you and the wizards of smart do have an idea what started life. Just the right pressure and the right time and the right composition, life would begin. Well, lets hop to it. But you do have to have faith in that theory to even try.Start your osmosis or whatever else you may come up with to create life.Wet dirt did it, according to you.So, until you do , then my conclusion is you are not yet as smart as wet dirt. Or any other combination of elements that started the first amoeba. That has to really disturb you spontaneous, unintelligent, No purpose start to life, people.You and all the other wizards of smart people have no clue whatsoever how life started.And never will. I do have faith in that statement.
The unemployment situation has gotten better since Obama took presidency.

Finishing This UpThis debate broke down into silly quibbles about schemantics and what the definition of the unemployment situtation really was so I'm going to make this short.January 2009 - 7.8%April 12, 2012 - 8.2% Percent change - .4% (+)February 2009 - 8.3%April 12, 2012 - 8.2%Percent change - .1% ( - )Unemployment Under the Last Days of Bush was .4% lower than today under Obama - end of story. Simple, the numbers are right there. Whichever way you spin it, we are worse off now than we were under Bush and are the same AT BEST under Obama as when he took office. Obama has managed to "improve" the unemployment rate by a mere .1% since Feburary and has seen an average unemployment rate far higher than what it is today.The average unemployment rate under Bush was roughly 6% - under Obama it has been roughly 9%.While this debate may have gotten tedious I want the voters to sit down and think carefully and ask themselves if the unemployment rate today is really better than it was before Obama came in.The unemployment situation under Obama has been abysmal.
Arguments on the Framework of Morality: A discussion on if we need God to define good & evil.

I want to start this round by expressing my gratitude to my opponent for graciously allowing me to remain on an even level through his choice to not argue further in his third round.Let's get right into things...My arguments for the position of God as being necessary to concepts of morality:If one is to accept that morality exists, one must presuppose that morality is equally and universally applicable to all people everywhere. For if it is not, then it is by definition useless, and conceptually not worth considering. Obviously, proving that something is useless does not prove that it does not exist; however, the only reason people ask what morality is, how to define it, and how we can divine it is so that we might apply it to societies and peoples for their and our benefit. Thus, what this argument will come down to is whether God is necessary for absolute truth--the absolute truth in question being the concept of morality. I argue that everyone holds a belief in a non-dependent reality, however that manifests itself. This non-dependent reality informs the creation of our theories, such that theories may be completely incompatible from the outset if they follow from conflicting non-dependent reality. When dealing with abstract concepts such as reality, then, the non-dependent reality necessary for morality to exist as a metric by which we judge others' actions is necessarily external from ourselves. Morality cannot exist as an external and eternal entity unto itself, it is dependent on someone or something to determine it. This thing is God.An argument for morality as being derived from human perception suffers from culturally and temporally shifting definitions, such that our actions are not comparable, e.g., one may not call another's action always wrong. (i.e., immoral.)
Arguments on the Framework of Morality: A discussion on if we need God to define good & evil.

In the comments my opponent says they want to stay in the debate. To keep it as fair as possible, I will not post an argument here. I ask those who are voting to vote to their conscience, but please don’t hold it against Pro. As for the remaining rounds, I will modify the debate structure: Rounds: 1) Acceptance and stance 2) Initial arguments to support your stance and BoP, any questions for the other side etc… 3) Skipped Round for Con, Pro initial Arguments* 4) Rebuttals to each other’s arguments 5) Rebuttals and brief closing statements, no new arguments *I will ask that Pro state only initial arguments, and not post rebuttals to anything posted in my initial argument yet. Act as if for you this is round 2 please.
Arguments on the Framework of Morality: A discussion on if we need God to define good & evil.

I hope it will be beneficial for both of us, and for all readers of the debate. I accept my opponent's terms, understanding them to mean that I am to define the two terms, and to state my stance. (I assume you will offer your definition of Good/Evil in the second round, as you have not yet done so)My Stance:God is necessary in all matters of morality and relating to good/evil. These may only be rightfully applied to all individuals if a universal standard exists. Such a standard is unable to be determined by secular logic, reason, and science alone. Definitions:Morality: In a posteriori form, would be the standard, or code of conduct, by which society and individuals may uniformly judge the behavior of any given individual or group of individuals in order to determine that behavior's standing as correct/right or incorrect/wrong. Good/Evil: The two endpoints on the scale of morality, ranging from Good, or "most conforming to the standard of morality," and Evil, or "most transgressive of the standard of morality," such that there exists degrees of Good and Evil, yet a discrete separation between Good and Evil. I look forward to beginning the debate.
Arguments on the Framework of Morality: A discussion on if we need God to define good & evil.

Arguments on the Framework of Morality: A discussion on if we need God to define good & evil. This will be a debate/ discussion on the necessity of God in the context of morality. Do we need God to know good and bad, good and evil, righteousness and injustice? My Stance: God is unnecessary in all matters of morality & relating to good/evil. These can be defined and explained via logic, reason and science. Definitions: Morality: referring to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or, some other group, such as a religion, or accepted by an individual for their own behavior or normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons. [1] Good/ Evil: We must define and give rational for why this definition is accurate in our initial arguments, Round 2. For example if you say “Good means to follow the rules because the rules are authoritative and to disobey would be bad\evil,” You must provide rational for that definition. Defining good/ bad to be the opposite of the other is not acceptable. Rounds: 1) Acceptance and stance 2) Initial arguments to support your stance and BoP, any questions for the other side etc… 3) Rebuttals to each other’s arguments 4) Counter arguments to rebuttals, no new arguments. 5) Closing statements, no new arguments. [1] http://plato.stanford.edu...
Do internet social network cause more harm than good

1:It's stressful.2:It reduces productivity.3:It costs money -- and it going to start costing much more as sites find new ways to monetize.4:It has become noise and clutter, not communication.5:It reduces creativity.6:It's no longer real.Quote from http://www.huffingtonpost.com......"Do you really have 87,000 "followers" on Twitter who respond when you suggest they take action? Do you even have 500 close "connections" on LinkedIn who would take your call tomorrow? How many of your 18,237 "friends" on Facebook would recognize your name if they saw it on a billboard?"http://www.bullyingstatistics.org......Social networks are being used as a weapon against people."Over 80 percent of teens use a cell phone regularly, making it the most popular form of technology and a common medium for cyber bullyingAbout half of young people have experienced some form of cyber bullying, and 10 to 20 percent experience it regularly"https://www.dosomething.org......1: Nearly 43% of kids have been bullied online. 1 in 4 has had it happen more than once.2: 70% of students report seeing frequent bullying online. Filling up your friends' Facebook feeds with positive posts instead of negative ones can boost school-wide morale. Start a Facebook page for students to submit positive acts they see in school to promote a culture of positivity on and offline. Sign up for Positivity Page.3: Over 80% of teens use a cell phone regularly, making it the most common medium for cyber bullying.4: 68% of teens agree that cyber bullying is a serious problem.5: 81% of young people think bullying online is easier to get away with than bullying in person.6: 90% of teens who have seen social-media bullying say they have ignored it. 84% have seen others tell cyber bullies to stop.7: Only 1 in 10 victims will inform a parent or trusted adult of their abuse.8: Girls are about twice as likely as boys to be victims and perpetrators of cyber bullying.9: About 58% of kids admit someone has said mean or hurtful things to them online. More than 4 out 10 say it has happened more than once.10: Bullying victims are 2 to 9 times more likely to consider committing suicide.11: About 75% of students admit they have visited a website bashing another student.SourcesHere is a site if you wish to add to this.http://www.debate.org......sources:http://www.debate.org......http://www.huffingtonpost.com......https://www.dosomething.org......
March Beginners Tournament: Animal Rights

IntroductionThis debate is a direct challenge to @Skepticalone as a part of @Bsh1's March Official Beginner's Tournament. Thanks to @Skepticalone for agreeing with me on the topic. Rules1. No forfeiture2. All arguments must be according to the definitions provided.3. Appropriate conduct must be made: no profanity, inappropriate behavior, and trolling.Definitions Animal - a non-human sentient vertebrate that can feel painSentience - the ability to feel or perceive subjectivelyAnimal Rights - the idea that animals are entitled to be free of human exploitationExploitation - the action or fact of treating someone unfairly for beneficial result to the exploiter Fairness - the quality of making judgments free of discriminationDiscrimination - unjust and prejudicial treatmentFormat72 hrs/argument, 5 rounds, max. 10,000 words/argumentRound 1 is for acceptance only All other rounds can have arguments and rebuttalsOpen Voting on a Select Winner point system for 7 daysThanks to @bsh1 for setting up this tournament, @airmax1227 for telling me about it, and @Skepticalone for accepting the topic.
March Beginners Tournament: Animal Rights

RebuttalsConductI will use an example to portray this accusation. Let us say there is a debate on the topic "Dogs should have moral rights". *There is absolutely no suggestion that other animals do not have moral rights.* It is merely focusing on that topic. I state here that *all* sentient beings have equal moral rights, but we need not debate that because that is irrelevant to the *resolution*. And secondly, *how* did I violate conduct in Round 3?Ethics and ReasonTechnically, my point is, for the survival of 1000 animals, 10 humans *can* die and vice versa. And this is not *unfair* treatment, via. the definition of exploitation. This may even be cruelty, but *unfairness* is different. This is cruelty *for the greater good*, and I am arguing it is justified even in a vice versa situation. Hunting The benefits of animals are *irrelevant* to this, as I speak of hunting as exploitation and unfair treatment. The benefits of *humans* coming from hunting is exploitation. But Con has not *specified* these benefits. I request Con to specify these benefits and I shall substantiate.Vegetarianism Once more, it is the question of utilitarianism. A group of humans may kill an animal for their survival. But killing one hundred animals for five humans' survival is unethical by utilitarianism. So, if the bushmen go *that* far, then it is unethical [this is from a utilitarian perspective].Secondly, then *don't* use meat substitutes. An average vegetarian-from-birth's meal is cheaper than a meat-eater's meal. If selected properly, vegetarian food *can be* cheaper and healthier than meat. So, the need to eat nuggets cannot drive one to kill animals. *This* is unethical.Pre-clinical trialsHow does microdosing require additional animal testing? I request Con to please substantiate so that I can rebut it. As far as I have read, microdosing *does not* require additional animal testing. [1][2] Please do substantiate and I shall rebut it. References[1] http://animaltestingperspectives.org...;[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Gay Marriage

Homophobes Turn Into HomosexualsNumerous studies show that most homosexuals started out as homophobes. They are over compensating for their gay feelings, by pretending to be against gays altogether. Everyone in this world should have the right to love whoever they wantMany people might argue that being attracted to someone of the same sex is not natural, but what is natural? I'm sure you play some sports, those aren't natural. Loving is not natural, you are not born with an attraction to someone of the opposite sex. This is al affected by who raised you, where you were raised, and certain events that took place in your life. Who you love has nothing to do with nature, it has to do with you. Whether I love a man or a woman, I have every right to love them. So what if I like men? Some men like men, get over it. We can't help who we have feelings for, they come unexpectedly. Gays have all the rights we do for loving someone. If I love a man, I have all the rights to live with him, and start a family. Why are heterosexuals more important in society than homosexuals?Homosexuals are capable of doing everything that heterosexuals can, and maybe even better. After reading your debates, I realize you might be a 'Big Bang Theory' fan, or maybe a fan of the TV show 'How I Met You Mother'. Well, both of the main characters of these shows, Jim Parsons and Neil Patrick Harris, are gay. You probably knew this before I told you, does this stop you from watching these shows? No. Does this stop them from acting? No.Why should they be prohibited from doing common things such as getting marriage? How does this affect you that gay people can live a happy life together? You don't need to be involved in their life, but they still deserve all the rights that you do. Is Homosexuality Natural?Homosexuality may not be natural, but neither is heterosexuality, and especially homophobia. It is a fact that homosexuality is present in many species of animals, but homophobia is only found in humans. What does that say to you? To me, it says that homosexuality is a choice, a lifestyle, and a right. If there are gay animals, but no homophobic animals, which one of these is more natural? Obviously homosexuality.Petter Boeckman is a zoologist at the Norwegian Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo. He states that no species have been found where homosexuality does NOT exist, with the exception of a few species that do not have sex at all. This is enough proof of how natural this feeling is. Here is his statement: http://www.takeonit.com...ConclusionThese are all the reasons I believe that homosexuality should not be frowned upon, and instead should be welcomed in our community. Gays have all the rights that straight people have to get married. They are no different than anyone else, and it does not affect anyone else’s lie, just theirs.