BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible Disproves Young Earth Creation

This website has a reliable KJV Bible: http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org.... Feel free to quote Ken Ham or any other respected YECist if it would support your argument. My first objection to the teaching of YEC in the Bible is that the Bible never explicitly teaches that the universe was created in 6 literal 24-hour days. To the contrary, the Bible contains passages which seem to support the notion that the days of creation are to be interpreted as undefined periods of time. Anyone familiar with the Genesis account of the origin of the universe would know the concluding phrase to each day, for example, at the end of the first day it reads: "And the evening and the morning were the first day." YECists have taken this to mean that each of the six periods of creation are 24 hours days. As evidence, many say that adding an ordinal number to the word "day", and mentioning the evening and morning, both signify that the day must be interpreted as a 24 hour period. Such a view does not withstand a careful analysis of the chapter. Firstly, we see that the 7th day of creation, no ending is given in scripture as with the other 6 days. Only two verses in Genesis 2 mention a 7th day, and they read: "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." This implies that the 7th day never had an ending, making it (by YEC timelines) a 6000+ year long "day." If the 7th day is not a literal day, then why would the first 6 have to be? Secondly, a common reason for why the 6 days are 24 hour periods is the mention of morning and evening. Morning and evening occur based on the Earth's motion around the sun. This creates a problem for YECists because, as we can read in verses 14-19 of Genesis 1, "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day." God created the sun and moon in these verses, which take place during the fourth day. This means that for the first 3 days, there was no sun to determine what morning and evening were. Considering a literal morning and evening cannot logically exist without the sun, the first three days of creation must not have been literal mornings and evenings. If the first three days were not literal, then why would the remaining three be literal? They wouldn't, and therefore the 6 days of creation seem to be allegorical days of indefinite periods of time rather than literal 24 hour days.
The Bible Disproves Young Earth Creation

Thank you for the opportunity to debate. Its been a while since I had a chance to debate and hopefully will make a good challenger. I do have a 2 favors to ask. The first, can you source a single website for the KJV so we have a common reference and don"t start firing ""My KJV" arguments. Also can we use ken ham as a young earth creationist, his views, his museum (I was there) as a source for young earth creationist. There is so many different YEC"s I want to keep it to just a few people whom are authorities in their field.
Twitter should raise its character limit above 140.

I would like to ask a question; what do you propose the limit should be? When people go over the character limit, it's usually only by five characters or so. So I just wanted to inform you that a raise to even 150 would go a long ways. It's a good tradition to have 140 characters. It's part of what defines what Twitter is. Twitter is famous for its 140 character limit. Changing it would ruin a tradition. I must agree that it is often difficult to post anything more than a few short sentences on Twitter. But people still manage to post insight and have conversations. Having only 140 characters forces you to be more creative with your writing. Intelligent people with intelligent things to say can figure out how to get their message in the limit. Less intelligent people will struggle. If you honestly need more than 140 characters, you can do things. You can post multiple tweets using the cont. word to indicate you wish to continue, or you can type up what you need to say on your phone notes, take a screen-shot, and post as a picture. I see the second one used a lot. If that isn't good enough, there are plenty of other social media websites to use. Some people like a very small limit; not everybody enjoys reading. And there aren't many other social media websites with such a constraint.
Twitter should raise its character limit above 140.

I have accepted the challenge, and maybe it is a good match. This would be my first debate as well, and I am excited to get one under my belt. Since I am taking the Pro side, I figure the burden of proof is on me, so I should probably make some arguments first. 1: Twitter is a social media website. It's main purpose is to connect people together and share information, be it news or personal events. 2: With only 140 characters, sharing anything above a quick statement or a link is difficult to do, especially when you consider hashtags, which help with the purpose to connect people and share information. Final Statement: Thus Twitter can not achieve the mission it set out to do. I await your response! Happy debating.
Twitter should raise its character limit above 140.

This is my first debate ever on here, so I'm new to everything. I've heard from some people that Twitter should raise its 140 character limit to something higher, like 200 or 160 or even adding just ten characters to 150. I am arguing it should stay the same. From looking at other debates, first rounds are for acceptance only; I have rarely seen people arguing in the first round. So I won't make any arguments now and am simply waiting for an opponent.
President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is best for the United States

Introduction: Americans over the last two weeks have become slightly more likely to favor sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, and slightly less likely to favor a reduction in forces. At this point, 47% of Americans would advise President Obama to increase the number of U.S. troops -- either by the roughly 40,000 recommended by the commanding general in Afghanistan or by a smaller amount -- while 39% would advise Obama to reduce the number of troops. Another 9% would opt to leave troop levels as they are, while 5% have no opinion. "Since August 2008, between 30% and 37% of Americans have said it was a mistake to send troops to Afghanistan. Sixty percent in the current poll say U.S. involvement was not a mistake." ====== Definitions: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan - Obama plans to send approximately 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan in order to gain the upper-hand in the country. Afghanistan - Can be used synonymously with Afghan. ====== Contentions: Contention One - Increased troops in Afghanistan are needed. Contention Two - Establishing democracy in an allied country is for the best interest in this country. ====== Contention One - Increased troops in Afghanistan are needed. The top military commander in Afghanistan warns in a confidential assessment of the war there that he needs additional troops within the next year or else the conflict "will likely result in failure." Without increased troops, our efforts in Afghanistan will be for not. The military commander within Afghan actually requested approximately 40,000 additional U.S. troops. Obama found a middle ground by sending around 30,000. General McChrystal warns that unless he is provided more forces and a robust counterinsurgency strategy, the war in Afghanistan is most likely lost. ====== Contention Two - Establishing democracy in an allied country is for the best interest in this country. "The weakness of state institutions, malign actions of power-brokers, widespread corruption and abuse of power by various officials, and ISAF's own errors," General McChrystal says, referring to NATO, "have given Afghans little reason to support their government." The reason that insurgents have occupied Afghanistan is because Afghanistan is known for their weak government. It is safe to assume that these insurgents will have to find a new "nest" when Afghanistan is provided a safe democracy. This is essentially the main reason for our presence in Afghanistan, to give them help in forming a new government. ====== Sources: http://www.thelocal.de... http://www.nytimes.com...
Universal health care nuts should also be in favor of universal food, shelter, clothing, etc.

Those were very nice arguments in favor of universal health care. But my point was that the same (and even stronger) argument could be made for universal food, shelter, water, transportation and clothing. Additionally, who deserves to live without the ability to communicate? So I guess a universal cell phones could also be well argued. But that's beside the point. Most of your argument had nothing to do with reconciling the inconsistency I cited. Health care falls below other human needs in degree of necessity, yet health care is the only need being called for by the left to be provided UNIVERSALLY by the government. In your defense you did not dodge the inconstancy completely. You did mention that some government programs provide food, shelter and clothing to the poor. But none of these programs provide these core necessities to everyone universally. So your examples still do not explain away the inconsistency in singling out health care as the one and only private service that should be socialized. A government that provided all of lives top necessities universally to its citizens would closely resemble a large commune-- therefore my reference to communism. In summary, you have not successfully argued against my point that if the univeral health care supporters were consistent they would support government providing all other basic human needs which are equally as or more important. You said yourself you don't even consider health care a necessity. So which is it? Are universal health care proponents blatantly inconsistent, or are they just trying to scoop up the freebie currently offered while they wait for universal food, shelter and clothing to hit the ballot?
Universal health care nuts should also be in favor of universal food, shelter, clothing, etc.

If universal health care crowd were capable of being a little more consistent, they'd be communists. Despite the fact that nowhere in our founding documents is health care declared a "right," proponents who want to make it a right point to the fact that health care is a human necessity. But there is a huge problem with this argument. If the degree of necessity is the criteria for converting a private service into a public entitlement, why isn't universal food, clothing, water, shelter, transportation, etc. on the agenda? These items are considered much more important than health insurance. This is demonstrated by the fact that so many people without health insurance forgo it voluntarily to make room for their car and even cell phone payments. What gives?
Best Batman Villain

The relationship between two-face and batman is pretty common place within the Batman mythos; he also has a similar relationship with the Red Hood in Batman Under the Red Hood, and the new Joker in Batman Beyond Return of the Joker. Two Face is treated as an annoying menace in Batman and Robin just as the Mad Hatter is treated the same in some adaptations of Batman mythology. I extend my prior argunents to affirm that the Mad Hatter is the best Batman villain. Thank you.
Best Batman Villain

In this debate the villains chosen for the greatest Batman villain debate are Two-Face and The Mad Hatter. I will prove that Two-Face is superior to The Mad Hatter. Two main reasons I feel this way is because Two-Face has a better origin story and a more interesting relationship with BatmanOrigin storyHarvey Dent was an adult who was abused as a child by his father, but fought his pain to help the better of Gotham through the justice courts. He than had a horrible accident that made everyone cast him out and he become insane. This is a tragic event when the heroic figure that tried to save Gotham in a legal way become an outcast.The Mad Hatter is little less tragic. He was a scientist that wanted to live in an Alice and Wonderland fantasy that is the main part of his origin a man who wanted liked the book Alice and Wonderland a little too much.Which is it the Tragic hero or the creepy scientific. The origin story of Two-Face must be a greater and sadder event compared to the Mad Hatter.Relationship with BatmanHarvey Dent was Batman's partner in crime to stop crime. Now that he is Two-Face, Batman has to fight his once best friend. Hoping that he will turn back to the good side, only to be disappointed. Every time Batman fights him it is like fighting a family member someone who he really cares about. This shows how great of a villain Two-Face is because he is the one villain that Batman has to think what if.Mad Hatter is just a pest. Sometime Mad Hatter can get Batman in his mind controlling power, but always fails in the end. Where Harvey Dent being Two-Face will always in succeed of Batman's greatest failure.If my opponent wants a real situation when Batman was in real danger unlike the bad dream that he went through with my opponents Mad Hatter story all it takes is a look in the movie the Dark Knight. When Two-Face is about to flip a coin to decide whether Gordon's boy lives or dies. Batman is trying to talk him out of it, but has to make the choice of killing him and in doing so killing Gotham's true hero.Vote for Two-Face because he is the fallen angel in the Batman universe.Sources http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.youtube.com...
Best Batman Villain

I know that it may seem odd for me to pick the Mad Hatter as the best Batman villain, especially considering his unassuming appearance, but I genuinely believe that he is the best Batman villain, and I believe that my opinion is well justified. Standing at only 4'8" and weighing in at only 149 pounds, it is safe to say that the Mad Hatter is not much of a physical threat against the 6'2" 210 pound Caped Crusader. However, the Mad Hatter is able to challenge Batman in a way that no villain in Batman's rogues gallery has been able to; in episode 30 of Batman the Animated Series the Mad Hatter tricks Bruce Wayne (Batman) into experiencing a prolonged hallucination in which his parents are alive and his memories of being Batman were nothing more than the product of a psychosis.Bruce, although initially hesitant, begins to warm to the life that he is experiencing in this illusion, stating that "the nightmare is over" when he becomes convinced that his memories of Batman are nothing more than a delusion. Bruce goes so far as inviting his finance Selena Kyle, and his now alive parents to go to the opera. However, Bruce begins to suspect that what he is experiencing is not reality.The episode concludes with a fight between Bruce Wayne, and Batman (who is revealed to be the Mad Hatter). During this ordeal there is an exchange of words between Bruce Wayne and the Mad Hatter; the Mad Hatter informs Bruce that what he is experiencing now can be reality, if he so chooses to believe that it is. This presents Bruce with an interesting moral dilemma, the likes of which he has never experienced before; should he continue living the illusion that has been carefully crafted for him, or should he attempt to return to the life of heart-break and torment which created the Batman? This moral dilemma creates a lot of internal conflict within Bruce, which makes him visibly distort. Bruce, eventually chooses to return to reality, choosing to uphold his sense of obligation to others over his own personal selfishness, but the experience was moral vexing in a way that Batman has never experience before or after.What is interesting about the experience is that it is only possible for it to have been perpetrated by the Mad Hatter because of the tools that he, and only he, has at his disposal. It is because of this that the Mad Hatter should be considered the best Batman Villain; superior to the Joker, Bane, and even Two-Face. Sources:http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...
Best Batman Villain

The villain I will be arguing for is Harvey Dent or as most know him as Two-Face. I will be using the Two-Face from the comics and The Dark Knight. The reasoning I choose Two-Face is that he is tragic hero and Batman's best friend. Harvey Dent is one of comics greatest fallen heroes. He was a man that worked to clean Gotham of the crime and filth that over took the city. He was doing this by the book and was sending criminals in prison at a rate that Batman couldn't keep up. With this great heroic deeds he had a horrible past. He was unfortunately abused as a kid and his abuser decided if he was going to be abused by coin toss which later he found out the coin toss was rigged. He was mentally unstable, but fought it to do what was good in Gotham. When a horrible accident happened that burned half his body and in the comics his girlfriend left him and in the movie The Dark Knight she dies while he listens to her final words. This was the last straw and it broke him and turned him to the side of what he had fought his whole life. Before his accident he was Batman's equal in fighting crime, but more importantly he was Batman's friend. When accident happened Batman had to fight the person who he cared about. Every time Batman sees him he begs in his heart he will return to the side of justice. Every time Batman hits him he has to feel the pain as well. Two-Face his not a criminal, but something worse the villain of humanity someone who has turned from good to evil. Sources http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.batman-on-film.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Best Batman Villain

I posit that the Mad Hatter (Jervis Tetch) is the best Batman villain. As my opponent did not indicate in the first round which media we were supposed to base our arguments around, my case will primarily center around the television show Batman the Animated Series. I recognize that the Mad Hatter is quite an obscure Batman Villain, and so I have included a video which discusses the villain and his origins. . http://www.youtube.com...;
If liberals had their own U.S. state most Americans would not want to live there.

Yes, we are most undoubtedly thinking completely different things. The way I read this was that Liberals would somehow have their own state, as in, a new state would be created that is populated solely by liberals. Meaning, every citizen is a Liberal. You are arguing that the citizens may or may not be Liberals but the government officials and the policies are. I disagree with this on the notion that the topic is "If liberals had their own U.S. State". Obviously, the state belongs to the people living there, not the government, so my interpretation is correct. As such, since everyone living in that state is a Liberal, they probably won't have any problems adjusting Liberal policies and such for their own means. The poor are guaranteed some services, but not housing or employment. They'll probably stay put. And another good point you bring up. Legalized drugs and gay marriage. Two more factors that would contribute to a lot of tourism and commerce. An entire state filled with entertainment and places of enjoyment for stoners and homosexuals, two groups known to enjoy night-life. "Probably not, taxes would be extremely high for businesses. This would not be a pro-business environment. As far as customers go, most citizens would be on welfare or worse-- working to support the majority who are. Who has money to spend on such luxuries as a $4 cup of coffee or a laptop computer?" Well, the taxes probably won't be that high because the social programs don't need to run yet. But when business starts booming, the taxes will come. At that point however, they won't really cripple the economy. You can bet Starbucks will have quite a few branches there. "Paris is no more or less socialist than neighboring alternative cities, so your analogy is not appropriate for this debate." Not talking about socialism. Talking about Paris as a center of artistic flourishing. I think our key disagreement is this: The topic clearly states that the population of this new state (Liberal-Land) is made up of only Liberals. I derived this logically from the notion that "Liberals have their own state" and the state is owned by the citizens. Thus, all citizens of Liberal-Land are Liberal. In addition, since it is a new state, citizens will be moving in. Bottom feeders won't move in because there's nothing there. Liberal, 20-30 year old hipsters *will* move in because this politically flavored oddity (a Liberals only state) is appealing to that mentality. Thus, expect a population of hipsters. Then expect businesses to start developing which revolve around the hipster culture. After that, expect all those nice things I said up there. Simply put, very many people would like to live in a state full of liberals, run by liberals. If you really think about it.
If liberals had their own U.S. state most Americans would not want to live there.

"The thing is, only liberals are allowed to move there. The current state is empty." No, as I mentioned anyone can move to or from the state at will. The state is populated by whomever wants to live there. It is run by a government that imposes a purely liberal agenda on it's citizens, who are originally in favor of it until they experience the eventual negative effects. The society would allow a multitude of lifestyle freedoms, legal drugs, gay marriage, top-notch social services and universal healthcare, and extremely high taxes to pay for it all. "Now, I think about who might move there." Not sure about who might move there, but I'm pretty sure the state would be overrun by welfare recipients who are after the best social service other people's money can buy. "Knowing that a Liberals-only state has just opened up, they would undoubtedly flock there" So would the nations homeless. And again, you need not be liberal to migrate there, you just have to prefer to live there based on what the state has to offer. "What follows next are business-minded folk who have some ideas on how to capitalize off of this venture. Opening up coffee shops, clothing stores, night clubs, etc. to provide services to this community of liberals." Probably not, taxes would be extremely high for businesses. This would not be a pro-business environment. As far as customers go, most citizens would be on welfare or worse-- working to support the majority who are. Who has money to spend on such luxuries as a $4 cup of coffee or a laptop computer? "When it becomes totally established, this area will essentially become another Paris." Paris is no more or less socialist than neighboring alternative cities, so your analogy is not appropriate for this debate. However, I'm certain fewer people would live and do business in Paris if they knew they could live and work in an adjacent city while saving a fortune in taxes. Also, how appealing would Paris be if it were overrun by homeless welfare recipients from nearby non-socialist cities? The state I mentioned would be attracting unproductive people and chasing away the productive ones along with any hope for financial stability. "Tourism will then be a huge business." Only for tour companies that would bus political science students through the ruins and abject poverty left behind in the wake of failed liberal policies. I can hear the tour guide now, "Keep your arms and hands inside at all times. Do not throw food to the homeless."