BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Creationism vs Evolution. I'm for Creationism

The Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate. We are not aware of any scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible. Since we can prove the Bible is true, it makes sense to find out what the Bible tells us about how life was first created and how we got here. After all, if God is really God, He was there at the time and would know how to tell us what happened. The Bible"s account of the beginning of life in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 can be understood by anyone. Scientists discovered "living fossils" like the coelacanth that have not changed in form for "millions of years." This is a genuine embarrassment for scientists who believe in evolution, who had to scramble for ideas that explained why these animals did not evolve while others did. (They had to find some explanation, or admit that the theory of evolution was wrong.) A popular example of such an explanation uses the concept of "stabilizing selection," which would be worded like this: "Natural selection prevented change by eliminating all the innovations, sometimes for periods of millions of years." Notice that this statement is the exact opposite of normal evolutionary thought. If that is really the case, we wonder why some "renegade" species chose to follow stabilizing selection while others chose to evolve. The reality is that the theory of evolution has no valid explanation for living fossils. This is an example of the concept of stasis"standing in one spot. It may help you to know that stasis is not limited to "living fossils." Stephen Jay Gould (an evolutionist) stated, "Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless." Therefore, both living fossils and the fossil record itself are in conflict with the theory of evolution, which normally teaches that we should see constant change in species"not stasis. Actually, the concept of stasis fits the Bible"s creation model perfectly. We would expect created plants and animals to remain in stasis"the way God created them.
Creationism vs Evolution. I'm for Creationism

Rebuttals and CountersMy opponent makes the claim that the Bible is scientifically accurate and that "we can prove the Bible is true". Due to the size of the Bible and the tales in which it contains being beyond the amount of effort I am willing to put into this argument, I will simply state that my opponent has not been able to back up their claim with a study source. I will use one simple example of how the Bible is in so many ways, scientifically impossible. The Bible has made the claim that the Sun is the astronomical object that orbits the Earth. Science has proven that incorrect as the Earth (As well as many other planets) that orbit the Sun [1]. My opponent then makes another claim that the "living fossil" of the Coelacanth has not changed forms in millions of years. This statement is manipulative as not only did Pro not create a source to make their claim sound, but also did not put in much research to find that the Coelacanth has evolved, but only very slowly [2]. This argument in which I have made describing the manipulation of words in my opponent's sentence has rendered null the next 3 sentences made by my opponent describing why it was a "genuine embarrassment", or how evolution "has no explanation" without other foundations, while my source marks these two statements as fallacious. Pro furthers their claim by stating that the only other logical explanation for the "lack of explanation" on the side of evolution to be the state of stasis instituted by God. In a simple answer, when my opponent did not refute the existence of the Coelacanth and its proven million years existence, their argument of creationism collapses upon itself as creationist believe that the Earth was created 4,000-6,000 years ago [3]. Onto my primary argument, the factual existence of proof of evolutionary traits in life comes at the expense of the principle creationist ideal of the age of the Earth. The fundamentals of evolution itself, dismisses one of the greatest arguments in Creationism and the marked fallacy of God-given stasis in certain animals [4]. Evolution has made it's mark in multiple species, one of them being the inhabitants of the Galapagos Islands where Darwin had made his visit and documented the historical traits of the Galapagos turtles [5]. Due to the arsenal of arguments that evolution harbors, I will leave any speculation of the fallacy of it, to be placed on my sources which will indubitably disprove any doubts as they hold more information then the containment of this debate is willing to hold. Sources[1] . http://rationalwiki.org...[2] . http://news.nationalgeographic.com...[3] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[4] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[5] . http://www.amnh.org...
christianity or islam

Hello, sorry about the delayed response, I'd written a reply that got erased after clicking the Text link, so am rewriting it again. I do think Christianity is true and not Islam, and the Judaic scriptures, not Islamic. The following is my reasoning: 1. Recency. Islam throughout the Quran (which I have read parts of, albeit briefly) claims it has the correct version of what happened in the Bible concerning numerous patriarchs ranging from Abraham to Moses to Jesus. Maybe that would be a decent argument if we didn't have a wealth of manuscript evidence showing the Bible has been reliably preserved, and that the Old Testament was wholly preserved in its present form before the time of Christ. However, we've discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls dating 350 B.C. to 50 A.D. showing the Old Testament has been reliably preserved. The Sahidic Coptic Version preserves the entire New Testament by 250 A.D., as do the Codexes Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (350 A.D.), and some N.T. manuscripts like the John Rylands papyrus date from 125-200 A.D. In one case a passage of the Old Testament is preserved as old as 1,000 B.C., over 3,000 years ago, per recently discovered Khirbet Qeiyafa pottery. The following is my comprehensive list of Biblical manuscripts: http://www.bereawiki.com... So we have a wealth of manuscript evidence showing the Bible was preserved reliably through writing as it claims throughout, and not unreliably through oral tradition like Hinduism or Buddhism with the Rigveda. That means the Quran with its contradicting claims made 500 years after the New Testament, let alone the Old Testament, should be viewed as seriously suspect. 2. Internal Evidence. The Bible was authored publicly with numerous witnesses by multiple people. The Quran was written by one man, in a cave, with no witnesses. It's easier for one witness to lie and distort the truth than many. Essentially you have one guy calling everyone else, and indeed an entire nation, liars. And all these Muslims just believe him. Very odd.
christianity or islam

Bible: "We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." [Roman 3:28] Quran: "Do men think that they will be left alone on saying we believe and they will not be tested! But We did test those before them and Allah will certainly know those who are true from those who are false. [29:1] im sorry..i was a christian but after 8 years of reading converted to islam..yes im for islam..im 24 years old from india...
Airsoft vs. Paintball

i played airsoft 1 time and i will never again... wow this little dinky plactic ball goes at least 30 feet before veering off 1 direction or anther.... some myths that arnt true..... about airsoft and paintball "air soft goes farther then paintball!"NO it doesnt, i'd love to see someone try and shoot an airsoft ball, 60 yards, accurately! " you can shoot faster with airsoft!"Not nessarely most people can get over 10 rounds a second. the Pro league is capped at 15bps(balls per second) and some places down to 13. paintball guns rip if you dont put a cap on it, and you have fast fingers, i know that i, myself can get about 14bps on STRIGHT semi "paintball guns dont have full auto" YEAH they do, i'd say over 3/4 of the guns do "airsoft hurts more"NO it doesnt , just because your airsoft guns' shooting 350fps dont mean anything, if you have a legal paintball gun (meaning shooting under 300fps) its still gona hurt more.. i've already got a finger broken from paintball.... which is more then i can say about a little ball that bonces off of you and leaves a little red mark for about 5 mins those are the reasons i think paintball is more fun than airsoft
Planet's speed predicts aether

Sadly, My contestant did not prove anything, Nor did he provide evidence. This clearly shows that either (1. ) He/she is absolutely terrible at debating and should probably leave debate. Org, Or (2. ) He/she is a troll and should delete their account because debating idiots is boring. If you are neither, And truly are educated, Please, I'm begging you, Write an argument that provides evidence and reasoning. Otherwise this is a waste of my time.
Planet's speed predicts aether

Hello all. Today I will disprove my contestant's claim. Kepler's third law of motion clearly states that the square of the orbital period of a planet is proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit (Universe Today). Thus, The "aether" my contestant speaks of does not exist. His evidence is faulty. This is all I need to say. Hopefully, Akhenaten takes time to provide accurate evidence and reasoning next round.
Planet's speed predicts aether

True. I haven't updated my profile. But the real question is: Do you have a degree in physics? Also, I doubt any colleges teach that the planets ate pulled by an aether. These are all flaws of your argument(s). Sadly, This is the last debate round, So I'm going to have those questions floating in the air. Also, I checked your other debates, And they all have a correlation: in all of them, Your arguments are really obscure. I'm assuming you're a troll?
We can understand just parts of each other

By all accounts, Pro's argument has been far too vague and convoluted for the resolution to have been reached. You've clarified now, that the cause of our not being able to fully know one another is not because some part of us is a noumenon, that is, something which simply by nature is imperceptible. I am a bit confused as to why you brought up noumena at all if it is in reality not related at all to your argument, and I do wish we had not spent so much time discussing them. You are saying that the inability is the effect of difference in qualia. Qualia, as you've stated, have recurred in our conversation, however, I brought up the difference in qualia, which is, the difference in personal perception, in round 2. You responded in round three that there is no significant difference in personal perception that should compromise or restrict our knowledge. However now you claim qualia to be proving your point. "Verifying qualia's being is sufficient to prove my first thesis," by no means can you be said to have proven qualia's existences, because you have not even provided a clear and concise definition of qualia. This has been one of the most vague debates I've participated in, and I know I haven't gotten a clear understanding of your argument, but I believe this is because your argument has not at all been made clearly. Therefore the resolution in no way has been reached.
We can understand just parts of each other

I also expounded upon the first thesis by introducing qualia. Why do you ignore the qualia? I noted qualia every time and even questioned last time. I did not establish 'there is no obstacle whatsoever to obtaining knowledge of the phenomena.' Qualia is an obstacle when we try to know each other. ('qualia' in the second round specifically means others' qualia.) If we consider the qualia, 'if you are saying that there is some part of us that is unable to be known' do not elicit 'you must also be saying that there is some part of us which is a noumenon,' so I do not bear the burden of proof. Verifying qualia's being is sufficient to prove my first thesis, more comfortable for me and I have not depended upon only noumena but unperceivable things by 'exemplifying' noumena and qualia, so I do not explain noumena's existence. Perception involves qualia; therefore qualia exist. We can have true knowledge even though perception include qualia because we know own qualia.
We can understand just parts of each other

I am still a bit unsure as to how exactly your argument is formed, but lets not trifle with where the blame falls for previous misunderstandings. Let me attempt to summarize. Your original statement was that "We can understand just parts of each other because our perceptions are the origin of knowledge about others." You expounded upon this in the second and third rounds by introducing the distinction between two worlds, one of phenomena, the perceptible things, and one of noumena, the imperceptible. We've established that there is no obstacle whatsoever to obtaining knowledge of the phenomena. Therefore if you are saying that there is some part of us that is unable to be known, it seems that you must also be saying that there is some part of us which is a noumenon. I hope I am not misrepresenting what you are trying to say, I'd hate to face another accusation of straw-man, so if you could clearly restate your thesis and argument in the next round, that would be great. The more important question is: do you, bearing the burden of proof, think that noumena are existent? As I understand what you are saying, however, you need to prove firstly that there are any such things as the noumena in the first place--how can we know of the imperceptible if perception is the source of knowledge?--and then you need to demonstrate that some part of the human being is a noumenon.
We can understand just parts of each other

Although you knew that my statements are unclear to you, you refuted arguments not mine without considering other cases and questioning, which is termed strawman fallacy. Only you suffered intellectual disconnect. Consider other cases, and ask a question before distorting. (Because knowledge is principally concerned with the objects of perception, that is, the world) You said 'knowledge is the product of perception.' I said 'The world' I noted in second round means the world itself,' and 'knowledge soundly deducted from true perceptions is right.' Consequently, knowledge true in the fullest sense can be had by definition. (because knowledge is not properly made, but is had) The knowledge is made and had. 'made' does not imply 'not be had,' rather imply 'be had.' (because if knowledge is qualified as "limited," that must mean it is limited insofar as it is knowledge, which is to say, insofar as it is true) You overlooked phrase next to 'limited,' 'by transforming and combining perceptions,' even though you told that the world is a set of objects of perception and that knowledge is the product of perception and I defined 'knowledge soundly deducted from true perceptions is right.' These imply 'true knowledge can be had.' (Either you mean "by transforming and combining different perceptions from one perceptor," or you mean "by transforming and combining different respective perceptions from many perceptors.") Former is right. (On top of this, I don't think it's clear when you say "perception," whether you mean the aggregate whole, or a specific instance.) You can easily distinguish by 's.' What is the aggregate whole? I only used 'perceptions' for the aggregate, 'perception' for the latter. Before answering, I want to question for 'clarifying.' Do you think noumena are existent? What do you think about the qualia?
We can understand just parts of each other

Firstly, concerning your accusations of straw-man: either intentionally or not, I think your previous statements, "We cannot know the world, but can percieve," and "we make knowledge," and "knowledge is limited," imply the conclusion that this knowledge is not true in the fullest sense. Because knowledge is principally concerned with the objects of perception, that is, the world, and because knowledge is not properly made, but is had, and because if knowledge is qualified as "limited," that must mean it is limited insofar as it is knowledge, which is to say, insofar as it is true. In that way, you can be understood to be making the implicit claim that "true knowledge cannot be had." To address your second accusation then: I think we are at an intellectual disconnect not because of a straw-man, but because of a lack of clarity in your writing. When you say "by transforming and combining perceptions," there are a number of ways this can be understood. Either you mean "by transforming and combining different perceptions from one perceptor," or you mean "by transforming and combining different respective perceptions from many perceptors." On top of this, I don't think it's clear when you say "perception," whether you mean the aggregate whole, or a specific instance. I think now it has been a bit more clarified in your most recent statement, but before it was unclear. This all highlights the importance of clear definition of terms, and specificity of statements, but putting that aside, to address the meat of your argument. You've now introduced the distinction between the "world," and the "perceived world," which is the distinction between noumenon and phenomenon, between thing-in-itself and not. By definition, noumenon is just something that exists apart from perception. Kant would say that the noumena are unknowable through perception, which is obviously true, given the definition. So then, the question resulting from that is whether there is any way at all by which to come upon knowledge of the noumena, the things-in-themselves. If one is simply holding that perception of a thing is the only means by which to know a thing, then there is no way to avoid saying that the noumenon is entirely unknowable. It take you to be saying then, that "We can understand just parts of each other because our perceptions are the origin of knowledge about others, [and each of us is composed of both phenomena and noumena.]" The world of phenomena is undeniably the world in which each of us is known to exist. The burden of proof then, is to prove that there is some part of us that also exists in the world of noumena. For if every part of us exists in the perceivable world, then there is no reason at all not to think that every part is knowable. We live in a universe of things, not things-in-themselves, however that does not mean that we are unable to fully know said things. I say that each of us is a thing, rather than a thing-in-itself, and therefore are fully knowable. My direct question to you then is: what part of us can you prove to exist in the noumenal world?
We can understand just parts of each other

In my argument, 'the world' means the world itself, not the perceived world. 'The perceptor' you take does not know the world itself but the perceived world. 'Knowing' you note is all about the perceived world. I have not stated 'true knowledge cannot be had.' Knowledge soundly deducted from true perceptions is right so we can know the perceived world. You committed straw man fallacy. 'thing-in-itself' means noumenon. I have not claimed 'there to be no common perception among the perceptors.' You once again committed straw man fallacy. I think you do not know well qualia which is sufficient condition for perceiving, not vice versa. Perception except for uncommon perception like qualia is common, so your last two statements are all irrational.
We can understand just parts of each other

So, to be clear, your proposition is not principally concerned with knowledge of human things, but knowledge of all things. You are asking the most basic epistemological question. "We cannot know the world but can percieve," knowledge is the product of perception. An example of this is simple that by seeing any given thing, the perceptor knows a number things, entirely; he knows that he himself is a being, and further, that he is a being capable of perception; he knows that he is a thing capable of, between all things seen, distinguishing what is one thing, and what is another (This is of course because by perceiving an object, you are distinguishing it from what is not that object); he knows that of all objects perceived, some are part of him, some are not. All these things are undeniably known through a simple act of perception. Therefore, your claim that true knowledge cannot be had is false. "we cannot grasp thing-in-itself," You're going to need to expound upon what you mean by "thing-in-itself." I don't suppose you mean the universal thing, as Plato might say? "...and qualia. We make knowledge by transforming and combining perceptions." I assume by your mention of qualia, and combining/transforming perceptions, you are claiming there to be no common perception among the perceptors. "Spoken words are the symbols of mental experience and written words are the symbols of spoken words. Just as all men have not the same writing, so all men have not the same speech sounds, but the mental experiences, which these directly symbolize, are the same for all, as also are those things of which our experiences are the same images." Thus says Aristotle in his De Interpretatione. Please demonstrate which is more reasonable: that all men have significantly diverse qualia, and experience the world in very different ways, or that all men, under natural circumstances of health, experience the world in the same way.
Ethnic nationalism is incompatible with a constitution that calls for racial equality.

"Ethnic Nationalism" is ideal that one should be proud of one's heritage, even to the point of racism. I have not been talking about America or most new world countries in this thing, I have mainly been targetting the far-right in Europe or far-left in Quebec. I am completly favour of people being able to do whatever sort of cultural pursuits they wish (within reason) and hold America as one of the prime ideals of my debate. Based on your last post we seem to pretty much agree... that's probably my fault... my debate wasn't as orgonized and the topic lacked full clarity.
Ethnic nationalism is incompatible with a constitution that calls for racial equality.

I am not really sure what you are talking about in your last post. Once again I will say that it is important for many peoples that are different in culture to bond together and create unified society. Many nations have a thick history of one certain ethnic group. But, with our world changing every nation has to deal with people that are different that what they are use too. America has paved the way for equal rights for all citizens of different race and culture. That is what makes America great different opinions and culture or nationalism all respected and equal. So people having opinions on what they believe morally or whatever obviously exists with racial equality. Im not sure what more evidence you need other than looking at the progress America has made in ensuring citizens are not stripped of their nationalism while making sure everyone is equal at the same time. It is definitely compatible.