BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the Big Bang is biblically consistent

"1.Time The Big Bang states millions, if not billions, of years, must have passed, developing our universe. The Bible claims, only seven days, was needed to make our universe. Even if 1 day to God, is as 1000 years to man, the times do not match. Is that not a contradiction?" The Hebrew does not restrict itself to a literal 7 days. Hebrews had no concept of a precise literal 24-hour period. If creation took 24 hours, that would be defined as a day. If it took billions of years, it would also be defined as a day (1). Because of this, no contradiction is found. "2.New heaven and New Earth The bible speaks of a new heaven, and a new earth. Where is the new heaven and new earth in the big bang? Is it a new planet, new solar system? Was Jesus looking to a new universe or some distant planet to relocate to? Will that new earth and new heaven take millions of years to form, or will it arrive in the day of the lord as the bible records? The big bang says the universe is always expanding(slowly, forming planets over millions of years) and will a:continue to expand, or b:collapse in on itself. Either way that contradicts what the Bible teaches about a new heaven and new earth. " The Big bang was simply to begin this present earth and heaven (Gen. 1). Of course the new heaven and new earth will probably not occur in the same way this universe did. Either way, this does not contradict the fact that the big bang happened in THIS universe. Sources: 1. Doukhan, p. 200. Cf. Von Rad, Vol. 2, p. 100-101.
the Big Bang is biblically consistent

Thanks for the definitions, but they do nothing to prove your resolution. Your resolution states the big bang thoery doesnt contradict The Bible. I assert it does. This assertion can be easily confirmed. One look at the "Original" reason, as to WHY the "Big Bang" was even theorized, shows it was MEANT to contradict the bible. It was originally an "alternative" explanation to the universe's origin. An alternative to The Bible's explanation. Whenever offering an "alternative", some "contradiction" to the "original", must be made. So it follows, if offering an alternative explanation for our universe's origin, the big bang must also, offer with it, contradictions to the explanation we already recognize. The Big Bang is not, without these contradictions, yet you mentioned none of them. You CLAIM there is no contradiction and that the theory "possibly" explains how God went about creating our universe. How do I know youre wrong? Lets examine the most easily understood contradictions. 1.Time The Big Bang states millions, if not billions, of years, must have passed, developing our universe. The Bible claims, only seven days, was needed to make our universe. Even if 1 day to God, is as 1000 years to man, the times do not match. Is that not a contradiction? 2.New heaven and New Earth The bible speaks of a new heaven, and a new earth. Where is the new heaven and new earth in the big bang? Is it a new planet, new solar system? Was Jesus looking to a new universe or some distant planet to relocate to? Will that new earth and new heaven take millions of years to form, or will it arrive in the day of the lord as the bible records? The big bang says the universe is always expanding(slowly, forming planets over millions of years) and will a:continue to expand, or b:collapse in on itself. Either way that contradicts what the Bible teaches about a new heaven and new earth. The theory fails to explain what happens as a result of the collapse, but be sure no new heaven or new earth is mentioned in the event this does happen. So where the Big Bang Theory leaves you guessing about the earth's end, the Bible doesn't. Again, there are many contradictions the Big Bang must come with, to offer itself as an alternative to Genesis. I have only chosen to show these, as they are enough to defeat the resolution.
the Big Bang is biblically consistent

I would like to point out that ex -niholo (creation from nothing) is not biblical for the following reasons: 1. Genesis describes creation from something (water, chaos, etc.) not from nothing 2. In Hebrew, there is no word to describe creation from nothing 3. Logically, something had to exist (God), thus creation did not come from nothing. In Hebrew, the concrete concept which illustrates the meaning of bara is found in 1Sa 2:29 Wherefore kick ye at my sacrifice and at mine offering, which I have commanded in my habitation; and honourest thy sons above me, to make yourselves fat (LHBRYAKM) with the chiefest of all the offerings of Israel my people? In other words, it means to fatten. God filled the universe with everything in it. Notice that in Genesis 1:1 it says that God "Created the heavens and the earth" Heavens in Hebrew cosmology were defined as the stars, moon, sun, space, constellations, etc. so it's too much of a coincidence for the Bible to begin with heavens seeing how the big bang also claims that everything came from a single point in space-time. God did not create something out of nothing (if you use that to charge the big bang as being absurd, you may as well use it against the Bible). In fact, the big bang never states that nothing brought everything, but that the universe began at a simple point (1). How did that point get there? We don't know. That being said, no conflict is found in the Bible and in the theory of the big bang. Sources: 1. http://science.howstuffworks.com...
I SHOULD be allowed magnesium in my chemistry set!!

My mum wont get me a chemistry set with magnesium in it. Its not that magnesium is the most important element, but the fact that a clever, 14 year old like me should not have it is just stupid! I know, yes, its extremely flammable. We were allowed it in science class! Allong with dry ice, which Im not allowed, either. Im not going to freeze-burn myself, or blow everything up. Really! If you think that clever, 14 year old girls shouldnt be allowed magnesium, than ur the opponent for me!
Hong Kong should be an independent nation

Hello everyone. I believe that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Hong Kong SAR) should be an independent nation. According to dictionary.com, this means "not influenced or controlled by others in matters of opinion, conduct, etc.; thinking or acting for oneself:" Essentially, I do not believe that the People's Republic of China has a right to rule over China. Con will make the case that Hong Kong is part of China and should eventually seed completely into China, rather then have an independent and democratic Hong Kong. We will start round 2 with opening statements. Rounds 3 and 4 will be more rebuttals and cases, while round 5 will be closing arguments. Good luck to my opponent.
Hong Kong should be an independent nation

Upon joining this debate I assumed the motion of the debate was whether the People's Republic of China has a right to rule over Hong Kong.Why Hong Kong IS Chinese land.Hong Kong is Chinese land. The main argument for this is that during the the Qin Dynasty (221–206 BC), Hong Kong was incorporated into mainland China, thus conferring control of the city to Chinese authorities. [1] A short lease of the city was granted to the British Empire, as a result of the First Opium War [2] and the subsequent Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territory [3] Thus, at the end of that lease, which occured in 1997, it was only deemed fair for Hong Kong to be returned to China, as it is, chinese land.Why China has the right to rule over Hong KongThe People's Republic of China has the right to rule over Hong Kong. As argued before, Hong Kong being Chinese land, it is up to Beijing to decide the fate of the City-state. Since the lease of Hong Kong to The British Empire was a lease of 99-years [4], the lease ending, meant that Hong Kong was back under its rightful owner, The People's Republic of China.Sources :
Hong Kong should be an independent nation

Hello, In Hong Kong's rich history spanning over 100 years, there has been one thing in particular that has kept it running: capitalism. We have seen that before the British gave up Hong Kong in 1997, it became a city that was virtually a swamp to a sprawling metropolis. It has been more successful than mainland China and Taiwan, and it is my belief that the British values they gained through that rule would help them be an independent nation. Also, Hong Kong is 15th in the world for HDI (Human Development Index) and has its own currency. Hong Kong is independent from China economically, politically, legislatively and judicial systems. Hong Kong also boasts some of the highest life expectancies in the world, at 83 and PRC is only 76. Therefore it is clear that it would be extremely overwhelming for the people of Hong Kong to be with Chinese people, seeing as the only thing in common is their ethnicity. According to http://www.bbc.com..., among many other sites, the younger generation of Hong Kong wishes to remain independent. We have also seen through the Hong Kong independence movement, the city wants to be a democracy which is not like China. Also, Hong Kong is a capitalist nation, same as China but without the restrictions in terms of trade. Much of what goes into China goes through Hong Kong, and it would be difficult to make Hong Kong part of China as it may have disastrous economic effects on the area. Hong Kong is different from China in many ways. Not only is their basic freedoms, such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press; there are language and cultural barriers. According to Wiki, 11.3% of Hong Kong is Christian, and the vast majority of Hong Kongese speak Cantonese rather then Mandarin. Education is done in the mother tongue, which is Cantonese and it may take years for Mandarin to switch to the dominant language. Therefore, Hong Kong should not dissolve into China. Did you notice that too? Hong Kongese is an official Demonym for people from Hong Kong, and that is because people from Hong Kong don't even consider themselves to be Chinese. Just like Singapore, another extremely successful city state. If Hong Kong isn't independent, why should Singapore be? Just these few reasons, and many more are reasons why Hong Kong SAR should be an independent nation from China.
Resolved: That catspwnclubpenguinrules was unjustly banned.

==More than 1 account== http://www.debate.org... Could this be the new account? catspwnclubpenguinsrocks is now catspwnclubpenguinrules....fishey eh? I conceded that an IP trace was possible, only a fool would not concede to that. It is not, however, likely to have happened in this case. My opponent has not yet justified this. 5. You, too have broken the TOS, let me bring this thread: http://www.debate.org...... your attention. Furthermore, you conceded that one offense is not enough to ban. The link is broke. Furthermore, you forget that it is not my account that is in question, it is CPCPR's! You are correct for the second part. Let me give you this statement This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect while you use the Debate.org Services or are a Member. You may terminate your Membership at any time, for any reason, by following the instructions on the Member's Account Settings page. Debate.org may terminate your Membership at any time, without warning. Note that if juggle feels that one is in violation, they have the right to terminate without warning. Whether you agree with it or not, that is how it is. ==Questions for Readers== 1. Is it plausible that a random new account came on with a similar username and made exact same debates? 2. If you agreed to juggle's ToS, isn' their decision final? ==CONCLUSION== I feel I have gave good evidence that CPCPR was in violation of the ToS. Furthermore, I have shown that he has broke the rules more than once. ==Reasons for voting== Conduct: Please put "tie." We both had good conduct. Spelling and Grammar: I noticed no mistakes from either side. Please vote "tie." Arguments: Vote con. I feel I shown good evidence that CPCPR was, in fact, justifiably banned. Source: No-one used a ton of sources outside of DDO. Please vote tie. Thank you for your quick responses and I am hoping to be debating with you again. Have a great day.
Resolved: That catspwnclubpenguinrules was unjustly banned.

You're welcome for the timely manner, it's best for both of us this way. =More than one account=1. I actually meant to say "clubpenguinrocks" in the resolved, because I have never heard of "catspwnclubpenguinrules" on this site before. 2. I conceded that an IP trace was possible, only a fool would not concede to that. It is not, however, likely to have happened in this case.3. ""I am a returned banned user although I have no guilt. " or something like that. "-that is what you testified he said. Now you're claiming: "Yes, he has mentioned a return from DDO. " -however given your own evidence, no mention of DDO was made. =Spam debates="My opponent neglects to ask the question how they can be the EXACT SAME DEBATE! "- My Opponent misses the point of my statement, he must prove how having a similar resolution to a spam debate automatically entails that the debate it spam. There have been MANY spam debates about valid topics, so topic similrity proves nothing. Furthermore, he hasn't shown any dbeates to be the exact same so the Pro wins on this point. =Hate Debate=1. A debate based on the idea of race does not mean that it is a hate debate. Indeed, the idea of race is something that ought to be discussed more often than it is. People shy away from it because people like you view that any mention of race is racist. The debate was about whether or not having raical purity, I. E. people not marrying outside their race was desirable. No racial assault. =CPCPR & Catsrule=1. The debate you linked to is "not found" when I clicked it. However, as I've already explained resolution similiarity does not mean that CPCPR was catsrule, or that his debates were spam. =Cross Examination=1. That the user was IP tracked.2. Catsrule being a troll is not topical because you haven't provided enough evidence to indicate that they're the same person. Furthermore, if you would've read the debate I linked in the comments, catsrule being a troll has been put into serious question.3. That was iownu, you still haven't provided any evidence than iownu=catsrule OR iownu=CPCPR, and you've provided very weak evidence that CPCPR=catsrule.5. You, too have broken the TOS, let me bring this thread: . http://www.debate.org... your attention. Furthermore, you conceded that one offense is not enough to ban. =Conclusion=The Con has not provided any evidence that CPCPR was a troll. He's provided some evidence that he was a returned member, however even if he wins on that point he still loses because he conceded that one offense was not enough to justify a banning. CPCPR was banned without a chance to prove himself, and not only is that unjust, but I wonder how this site can expect to get new members if they do things like this? I'm certian that CPCPR certainly will not be reccommending this site to ANYONE.
Resolved: That catspwnclubpenguinrules was unjustly banned.

Thank you for your timely manner==More than 1 account==My opponent concedes that his ip will be able to be linked. Additional info: Not long after this, the user in question returned as catspwnclubpenguinrules returned as catspwnclubpenguinrock. Coincidence? Yes, he has mentioned a return from DDO. I paraphrased this to be honest. Yes, one offense isn't. However, when we look at the other evidence; the evidence is OVERWHELMING against this user. ==Spam Debates==My opponent neglects to ask the question how they can be the EXACT SAME DEBATE! ==Hate Debate==Really? No racial slurs. Perhaps. However, this was a pretty racial debate. Therefore; it has no place on DDO. ==CPCPR & Catsrule==. http://www.debate.org...;May I please direct your attention to that debate. If you all remember correctly, I did the same exact debate with him. What are the chances that another troll will come on using the same EXACT debate? ! ==Cross Examination==1. I believe it's possible, but given the short lifespan of CPCPR (looking at the debates in the challenge period, it seems that he was only around for 30 minutes, maybe. ) and large amounts of users on this site, and the complexity of each IP address I don't believe it happened in this situation. Don't believe what? 2. No, because the only offense would be multiple accounts and you've already stated that it's unjustified to ban someone after one offence. Furthermore catsrule eeven being a troll has been called into serious question as you can see in the debate I've linked. Wow! Catsruled actually made an argument! A sucessful troll is sucessful. He spammed many debates. . http://www.debate.org...This debate was removed. However, catsrule won that debate on the rickroll video. 3. If you can prove that he has broken more than one offense. And I believe the evidence is clear. He violated the same rule more than once. 4. I was not aware of that please link me! And that's irrelevant, if it wasn't intentional than it is not CPCPR's fault. . http://www.debate.org...Askbob, of course. Thus the reason I stated indirectly and not directly. 5. It depends on the situation. If it is a common sense rule (such as no swearing, no linking to pornography, ect. ) than obviously not. However many sites DO allow for multiple accounts so in that scenario, I do believe that ignorance is an excuse. And yes, he signed the agreement but most of us cannot honestly say that we read it. True--However, that makes him a liar and mis-represented himself. "By checking this box, I certify that I have read and agreed to the ToS. "Case proven.
Resolved: That catspwnclubpenguinrules was unjustly banned.

=More than one account=1. Yes, if he had more than one account than his IP would be able to link to it, however if he was a previously banned user who's account is now gone, the Moderators could not figure out the multiple accounts through the IP.2. Never mentions a return to DDO, could've been from another site or maybe CPCPR just wrote that to freak everyone out or who knows? No one does, this is not enough of a justification for banning.3. My Opponent concedes in cross examination that a banning after one offense is not justified, so even if CPCPR was a returned user, only one rule was violated.=Spam Debates=1. Similarities between the debates do not stand. Many many resolutions are similar, in order for this point to stand my Opponent must show how the resolutions put forth by catsrule that were considered spam were still spam when CPCPR wanted to debate the topic.=Hate Debate=No racial slur was used in the debate you linked, therefore this point falls.=CPCPR & Cats rule=A. Many many resolutions are similar, you must show the uniqueness of catsrules resolutions for this point to stand.Furthermore, catsrule took on his challengers and debated whether or not he was a troll and is currently winning[1]. So we cannot, out of hand, assume that all of catsrules debates are worthless spam.=His answers to cross examination=1. he stated that he was a banned user, not necessarily of DDO, and a simple statement like that isn't enough proof it could've been a joke or something.2. I would like that, but I understand that it's a difficult thing to get so obviously I can't expect you to get it.3. Absolutely no proof that CPCPR has violated any rules.4. Then how can you expect to ever get new users if they're treated so poorly?=Responses=1. I believe it's possible, but given the short lifespan of CPCPR (looking at the debates in the challenge period, it seems that he was only around for 30 minutes, maybe.) and large amounts of users on this site, and the complexity of each IP address I don't believe it happened in this situation.2. No, because the only offense would be multiple accounts and you've already stated that it's unjustified to ban someone after one offence. Furthermore catsrule eeven being a troll has been called into serious question as you can see in the debate I've linked.3. If you can prove that he has broken more than one offense.4. I was not aware of that please link me! And that's irrelevant, if it wasn't intentional than it is not CPCPR's fault.5. It depends on the situation. If it is a common sense rule (such as no swearing, no linking to pornography, ect.) than obviously not. However many sites DO allow for multiple accounts so in that scenario, I do believe that ignorance is an excuse. And yes, he signed the agreement but most of us cannot honestly say that we read it. I look forward to my Opponents reply.
Resolved: That catspwnclubpenguinrules was unjustly banned.

Thank you for your timely response.==More than 1 account===May I remind you that there is something called an ip. I feel that if the moderators think there is sufficent evidence for this, then they have the right to ban this user.Furthermore, my opponent suggests that it was mis-interpreted. How can this be a mis-interpretation? The profile stated the following:"I am a returned banned user although I have no guilt." or something like that.==Spam Debates==My opponent contends that it was an obscure resolution. However, it is interesting to note that CPCPR had the same resolutions as catsrule. We all know where that went!==Hate debate==My opponent contends that this is debated all the time. Let's take a look at the TOS. Will follow the following rules while participating on the site. Any disregard for these rules or any of the other terms or guidelines may result in termination of a member's account. No use of profanities or swear words. No personal attacks against other members or a member's opinions. No use of racial, sexual or religious slurs. No threats or implications thereof. There was a similar debate not too long ago that was removed for the reason highlighted in bold. ==CPCPR Rule =/= catsrule==I believe that there is sufficent evidence to show that CPCPR=Catsrule. A. Similar debatesThe debates were very similar with almost the same exact resolution. In fact, some of them WERE the same exact debates. Coincidence?What is more likely, CPCPR=catsrule or a random debater admited to being banned and having the same debates. Coincidence?1. What exactly was said on CPCPR's profile that led you to believe that he was catsrule?He stated that he was a banned user. 2. Can you provide any proof that anything WAS said?Not at this time. I can request the moderators for a screen shot if you'd like. I tried to take a screen shot, but it was too late.3. Do you believe that breaking the lisence agreement once is enough to justify banning?No. Warning first. However, he broke it more than once for the liscence.4. If a new member is confused as to the rules, is it justified to simply ban them without explaining to them how what they did was wrong?Yes. Ignorance is no excuse.Cross Examination1. Do you honestly think that juggle won't know a returned user by ip?2. If CPCPR=catsrule, should he be banned?3. If I can provide evidence, will it be enough for you to resign the debate?4. This user is stirring up trouble in the forums indirectly, how do you respond?5. Do you believe that if a user agrees to the TOS that ignorance is a excuse?Back to you.