BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
origin of life. Atheist vs. creationist.atheism has no clue how it came about.

I am not a scientist, so it is not my responsibility to produce life using abiogenesis as a form of arguments. I do not know the right conditions, as I only found out that there are right conditions. The fact that God created first has not been proven. You must show proof for your claim. Tangible evidence in some way. If you can't, than I have no reason to accept your claim.I would like the voters to notice how my opponent used the last round to attack me. I am not a wizard. I do this bizarre thing called research. And once again, a THEORY is based off of fact! The definition of a theory is the explanation of a fact. I strongly believe that my opponent did not read my whole argument. I don't care what God says, just like you don't care what Buddha says. I don't think your or any god exists. I don't refuse to believe them. I just have not seen the evidence to support the claim of one. When I see evidence, I will be happy to say so. And also I'd like to point out that I am not attached to these scientific theories the way you are attached to your god. If someone can show I don't have enough evidence to support my claim, guess what? I am going to stop believing it, and that has happened to me before. It doesn't make me stupid. The wise person admits when they are wrong. The dumb one convinces themselves that something is true and another thing is not truth even in the face of the contrary. I easily met my burden of proof, even though I did not really have one. I gave a better explanation than my opponent. Am I right? The evidence says so. If my opponent brought evidence to this debate, instead of name calling like "meathead" and "wizard" and used sources that were proven to be reliable, which the bible is proven to be unreliable, than I would have had no problem conceding this debate. Next time, please bring evidence, leave the name calling, and be more professional. And make the character limit higher. But I am sure you didn't on purpose knowing I'd dance all over you
origin of life. Atheist vs. creationist.atheism has no clue how it came about.

And I suppose you and all of the other wizards of smart are working night and day to prove your theory.You say you know all the conditions it would take to bring forth life. Then why not just do it. Lets put this debate to rest once and for all. You and those like you are the only ones that can solve this debate. We cannot. Creation has already taken place.God is not creating any more life. He created the first life and put the law of geneses into motion, Everything will reproduce after its own kind.He is not going to create just to prove he can. He is not like that. He is comfortable whether you believe him or not. In fact, even if he did create something, you still would not believe . He said that the carnal mind is at enmity with the knowledge of God, it cannot understand God nor ever shall be able.He called you carnally minded because you refuse to believe anything except what you see and feel. Carnal means meat. Carnivourous is a meat eater.So, when God calls you carnally- minded, he is calling you a meathead.
origin of life. Atheist vs. creationist.atheism has no clue how it came about.

The origin of life came from a process called abiogenesis. Nonliving becoming living. The way we figured that out is that a scientist made a very natural setting and did nothing else, and eventually, something that not a living being became one. You can repeat this process yourself if you have the patience. (http://www.talkorigins.org...)It's not likely to happen, for the conditions have to be right, but all it takes is one time, as DNA and fossil records determine that all living beings have a common ancestor. No, humans did not evolve from chimpanzees, but us and chimpanzees have a common ancestor. And there are transitional fossil records. That is the best explanation of where life came from given to us by science. Evolution (change over time) has been proven to occur. We humans are taller now than we were thousands of years ago. We CHANGED over TIME. By the way, your definition of a theory is actually a hypothesis. A theory is what explains a fact. Like the theory of gravity is "Gravitation, or gravity, is a natural phenomenon by which all physical bodies attract each other. Gravity gives weight to physical objects and causes them to fall toward the ground when dropped." (http://en.wikipedia.org...). (Wikipedia is actually more reliable than it was in the past, as just about every other statement needs a source... and a cross examined that statement). But let's say this isn't how life came about. Let's say that abiogenesis and evolution, proven facts, were not the explanation of life on earth. Holy texts are not any better explanations. The bible is making the claim, it is not the evidence for a claim. The bible is an unreliable source as it's a biased source towards the Christian community, one of hundreds of thousands of religious explanations. Compared to other religious explanations, the Christian explanation is just as foolish. Also, if the science was not true, you cannot make up an answer and claim it's true just because.
origin of life. Atheist vs. creationist.atheism has no clue how it came about.

So, lets hear of your " theory " how life began.And proclaim your creator, and how or what he used to create life. You say you can believe in a creator, but you do not believe in creationism. Is that what you are saying?Kind of a confusing thought. I take the biblical stand on creation. God is a spirit being. That does not mean he really is not there. But it means he really is.Spirit beings are more solid than we are.Just operating on a higher ( super ) plane than we operate on. And God is also a faith being. The spirit of faith, I have believed , therefore I speak.That is how God creates. By speaking and bringing the picture of those words into physical manifestation.In geneses. God spoke and things and animals were created.Even man. " And God said, let us make man in our image, he has dominion over all living things on the earth.Be fruitful and multiply.When he said these things is when he had created man. He had already formed his body with the dust of the ground. But it did not have life in it.Until he said those things. Those words breathed life into that dead body and man became a speaking spirit, the Hebrew says. I say the God of the bible is the one that originated life. Tell us how your creator did it. Please we are waiting to hear this.And this is the only explanation there is that man is the only living creature that can choose and speak words.
atheism and theism are false by default

know=sense belief=be lie, as i dont know is true kNow=now life is true, true is now, your arm is life i know god is false, as i dont know god atheism=disbelief(believe that my claim is false)=belief(believe that my claim is true)=theism beyond what i know is what i dont know, only know is true. know=physical experience=now reality is cause and effect, cause and effect is logic. if you are human... close your eyes and read on to prove im wrong no disbelief is in no way non belief.. you can believe my claim that i am wearing a hat, or beleive that i am not wearing a hat, 2 options, and the third option is i accept i dont know right... if you dont believe you dont believe.. but disbelieve my claim and you are literally calling me a lier if you disbelieve my claim, that i can fly, you believe that i can not fly, except you might be able to know other things here.. basicly you are implying disbelief dosnt exist. what is your positon on my claim that i am wearing a hat, if you believe that i am not? unknown is non sense all my arguments and claims are absolute, can never be defeated truth is knowledge, i have no knowledge of the future, no memory. past=memory i know my experience of now, i know god is false. i have no beliefs, belief=false, know=true votes determine nothing metaphysical=mental=nothing=0 physical=something=1 what test could be suffisient for you to make in order for you to know that i am wearing a hat right now, but you still can at best imagine it? how about looking at a live video feed? do you know it then? i am certain when i remember correctly, and certain when i am in doubt and i have to fill the blanks with imaginary ideas science is a religion, as it relys on confirmation from machines. also i can at best beleive what others tell me, unless i dont have to imagine it god=information atheism is 100 percent can only be false in any case forever
atheism and theism are false by default

belief=non sense a belief is a belief, a stone is a stone, a stone is not not a stone absolutes=Existence cause+effect=logic there is no logic in fantasy, reality is logic dude.. disbelief can never be non belief. is it a non belief for you to believe my claim is false? is it a non believe for you to believe that i am not wearing a hat when i claim otherwise? imagination is non sense religious claims have nothing to do with knowledge.. there is no truth in the future, and no god in the past i cant know imagination, and i cant believe in reality i have no religion, i win all the debates i do.. it is impossible for you to win, even if you are physically god know is true, is it true that i am wearing a hat right now? know is not false, matter is not imaginary know=physical experience atheism has nothing to do with science, unless you disbelieve science.. science is not a unicorn but i can believe in it
atheism and theism are false by default

non belief=know or i dont know(agnostic), i am unaware of the claim, i have another religion etc theism=belief=i accept imagination a(theism)=dis(belief)=belief=theism=i accept imagination agnostic=i accept i dont know=i accept reality default position on any imaginary claim=i dont know imagination is unknonw, and reality is unbelieved am i wearing a hat right now? you can at best imagine it, and you cant go back in time. you can believe me, disbelieve me, or accept you dont know. thats it
atheism and theism are false by default

Atheism, by default, is not false. Having no belief in any deity ever thought of, and even the New Atheist view that there is no evidence, therefor lack of belief, are in fact the correct default positions. You can only have one, you agree or disagree, no middle ground is available. The argument that you can be agnostic is flawed because that simply states your knowledge, not your position. That is why, many, like myself, would correctly be claimed as agnostic areligious atheist (Triple A baby), meaning you have no belief in any deity or religion and have no knowledge on if said deity or religions of any kind are truly false or not. You can not make yourself believe something, you either do or you don't. I wish to believe reincarnation is true, but I just can't, regardless. Not following a claim is real position to follow. I can not say false because obviously there is no real debate on it being true or not.
Flirting is dangerous

A one night stand is just a one night stand. You can have sex, but it's only for 1 night, you don't even need to flirt to have those. Simply ask away and it'll happen, but no relationships are involved. It doesn't have to fall into marriage, just into a relationship. You can compliment each other while still being friends and it would still progress into a relationship. With flirting, you give off the impression that your "in love" and i don't really trust those kinds of compliments. If that's the case then i'd rather flirt with someone who i am committed to just so that things are easier. If a girl or guy want sex, it's going to be alot harder if you made them go through the friendzone and meet the parents wouldn't you agree? "I completely agree, but this does not support the idea that flirtation is dangerous. It supports the idea that getting into premature relationships designed to fail is dangerous." How do i know when the right time for flirting begins? How can i trust the other person? Flirting usually starts at the very beginning doesn't it? Why start flirting during a good friendship? Why not ask the other person out? "Signals can be very upfront. For example, asking for a phone number is a very upfront signal that you wish to court someone. You can deflect these signals to hide your true feelings, but then you are not flirting." While yes, this is true, the other person can simply give you a false number or make up a reason to not call you or explain why she can't use her number when in reality, it's not the truth. It's much easier to simply ask the girl/guy for courting than to attempt to give the subtle implication. "If you're championing the flirtation is bad, it's rather hypocritical that you made relationship decisions based on flirtation with any particular woman (unless this is a new opinion of you formulated after these failures). " This is a new opinion i have based on failures...if it can be misinterpreted why bother flirting? Misrepresentation is clarified by effective communication (asking what they mean, etc.) If that's been established, there's no point in flirting. If it's a misinterpreted friendship, perhaps it's not a friendship to begin with. Girls can be just as vile and deceptive as men can. Sorry, been played once, never getting played again... Flirting tends to lean towards the areas (looks, interests, etc.) of a potential mate, not a friend. It takes a friend to have the patience and learn everything they need to know before jumping into a relationship.
Flirting is dangerous

Flirting is dangerous and should not be practiced among singles for various reasons. The only exceptions are when your already in a relationship. Flirting can tempt people to have sex, flirting also fails to build an emotional connection and focuses on flattery, physical beauty, sexuality, false compliments, spark feelings of infatuation, the list goes on. Flirting also makes you seem not genuine. I mean, i find myself flirting with girls and behind their backs, i brag about it and talk about how i could "get" that girl like it's nothing as if she were a prize. Makes me seem like i just want to get into a girl's panties. Flirting causes people to be passive rather than actively aggressive in their pursuits. If someone flirts, they have the option of flirting all day then the next, rejecting your offer to date them. The "signals" are also meaningless. Everyone gives "signals" and doesn't really mean anything. Friends give "signals" and so on, but once the signals stop, that's it, you probably will assume that he/she stopped liking you and then it goes into the friendzone or no zone. If you want to date someone or tell them your feelings: be upfront about it. Yea yea..you find yourself going back n' forth all day, you all hype, etc. He says something romantic, she says something that brightens his day, etc. and there is not enough build up with the friendship and actual getting to know each other.Relationships that work are not characterized by "back n' forth flirting", but by actually getting down to it. You drift off into la-la land, with flowery language, a guy/girl can simply be making it up simply to get what they want. It's not real intimacy, it's fake by itself. You don't know if they are actually serious. I found myself to be lying to people i liked to get what i wanted. That being said, flirting should only be confined to a relationship as you know you got your mate locked and secured.
Flirting is dangerous

All intimate, sexual relationships start with eye-to-eye physical attraction. The only two exceptions to this that come to mind are two blind people or two people who meet through an online dating service where they do not display pictures. You make the eye-to-eye contact, establish sexual attraction, and proceed to flirt with the person in order to evaluate if you want to proceed. I guarantee you that the vast majority of people who are part of a long lasting relationship flirted in one form or another before the two decided to form an intimate relationship. I don't understand why you assume people must be genuine in their flirtation once they form a relationship. My position has never been that "flirting is dangerous. " I am debating your claim that "flirting is dangerous. " My position is the rejection of your position. You make the claim, the burden of proof is on you. As I'll say for the last time, flirting is a way of evaluating your decision to pursue someone whom you have a sexual attraction to. To not evaluate someone is dangerous. I do not understand your disrespect for women who give off a promiscuous vibe, when you earlier stated how you have bragged about being able to get in a girl's pants. Hypocrisy. You can flirt with a person without treating them as an object. Again, flirting can give you a gauge on the person's wit, intelligence, articulation, and charisma. This is a short list of qualities you can extract via flirting. Personally, I'm offended when you accuse me, and others who have flirted with perfectly good intentions, of judging a woman's self worth by her appearance. To sit across the room and stare rather than approach a person in conversation is closer to objectification. Furthermore, commenting on one's physique is not perverted. It is clear that your idea of flirting is purely back and forth conversation about physical attraction. For the last time I'll state that flirting can give you a gauge on the person's wit, intelligence, articulation, and charisma among other things. Your understanding of flirting is plagued by subjectivity. To those who have made it through this whole debate: I would like you to consider that my opponent has made no objective arguments to support his original statement that "flirting is dangerous" or that "flirting is dangerous outside of the boundaries of a relationship. " the arguments became progressively more subjective throughout the five rounds. My position was never to say that flirting is safe, but rather that flirting is not dangerous. However, it is far more dangerous to not evaluate the substance of someone you are sexually attracted to. Flirtation is an excellent way to preliminarily evaluate that person's wit, intelligence, and charisma.
Flirting is dangerous

"In this context, a woman, or a man, would stare at someone he/she barely knows because something about that person is attractive to them. Simple as that. You'll look at what you're attracted to." If they're attracted to something about a person that can only tell me one thing: looks which isn't mature to establish a relationship. Maybe it's because i have different motives for not flirting, but based on what you told me, if you want a fling or a one night stand, by all means, flirt away and let people flatter and touch you, but i strongly advise anyone looking for a sincere long-lasting relationship to not engage in this kind of behavior based on subjective experiences. "Flirting isn't dangerous, people are dangerous." I stated in the first round that unless it's within the boundaries of a relationship, it's dangerous. "The fact that your friends (again subjective) have to clarify what they say just proves that friendship can be misinterpreted." On the contrary, it's objective as you are asking the person of their views whereas in flirting, you seemingly have to "catch signals." It seems like your repeating your claims of flirting being safe, but don't back it up with solid reasoning. If a random woman especially taken woman comes up to me and flirts, she lost all my respect before it's already begun. She want some respect? Give me something to respect. It comes off as promiscuous honestly (never realized it til now). Show me some nobility, honesty, confidence, Love, strength in character, trustworthiness, qualities that will last. Complimenting a woman's looks may be in and of itself harmless, but when it's the main focus during flirting, it indicates that your judging a woman's self worth based on what you deem "beautiful" and would rather let her "sit there and look pretty." You don't acknowledge her accomplishments and efforts to be a better person as an individual. A woman flirtatiously saying "wow, you really strong!" is just as perverted as a guy's sexual comments as "Wow look at that body.." (sorry if i came off as aggressive)
Flirting is dangerous

In this context, a woman, or a man, would stare at someone he/she barely knows because something about that person is attractive to them. Simple as that. You'll look at what you're attracted to. You can pursue a relationship beyond friendship if you aren't really friends in the first place; however, this relationship is more likely to fail without that initial friendship. Some relationships are purely for the sexual interaction between the two people and nothing more. I'm glad you have an ideal concept. Most people do. I certainly do. Compliments are only superficial if the person making them is saying them superficially. However, that whole paragraph of subjectivity makes no attempt to support your argument that flirting is dangerous. Your experiences of flirtatious interaction are not representative of everyone. I'm sorry your experiences have made your skeptical of everyone who tries to flirt with you. That sucks, but does not support your argument. Do you have any arguments that are not based solely on your experiences with flirting? Yes, flirting is a "game of feelings." The game is trying to figure out the other person's feelings while expressing yours in a respectful manner. That's great that you believe the touch barrier should not be broken immediately. Once again, your personal feelings are not representative of everyone's feelings. Your opinion on the touch barrier does not support the argument that flirtation is dangerous. Flirting can be superficial, flirting can be beneficial. Flirting allows you to evaluate the wit, intelligence, articulation, and charisma. Flirting allows you to evaluate how serious someone is about pursuing more intimate relations. Flirting isn't dangerous, people are dangerous. The fact that your friends (again subjective) have to clarify what they say just proves that friendship can be misinterpreted. You: "But you imply that relationships start with essentially just 1,2.3." I don't imply anything by my statement. My implication was that the steps I laid out were unconventional. You: "I'd rather have a wife to compliment everyday not just 1 night. I'd rather lovingly have sex with my wife, knowing she loves me back. I can get complimented everyday by my wife and everyone else not just once in a while, but on a consistent basis. I don't want an experience that is short-lived, i want something that will last a life-time. I'd feel so much better knowing that i worked so hard to perfect myself and maintain an earned relationship." Flirting does not prevent you from this. I'll repeat: flirting is not dangerous. People are dangerous. I don't really have anything else to add to this debate. I offered the position that flirtation is not dangerous because it allows you to evaluate the relationship you have with another person who you may want to pursue intimately. People who use social interaction to deceive and hurt others are what is dangerous, not flirting itself. If you have an objective arguments left to debate, I'd love to hear them.
Kongregate.com is the best flash-gaming website on the internet

Kongregate.com is the best flash-gaming website on the web for the following reasons: 1. No pop-ups 2. Huge selection of games (11,949 currently) 3. Badges (achievements) 4. Kreds/tips 5. Ad revenue is partly shared with game developers 6. good community and forums 7. Video game-making tutorials Good luck to you, PoeJoe