BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Noah's flood, as described in Genesis, was a real historical event.

Greetings!Was the global flood described in Genesis a truly historical event? Is there scientific evidence which lends credibility to this terrifying deluge? As a biblical creationist and student of science, I assert that such evidence indeed exists and even goes beyond lending credibility; evidence exists which demonstrates the veracity of the global flood as a real event in history and turns out to be not only the best way to explain geologic formations, fossils, etc., but the only way! Big claims require big evidence, so I shall take up this challenge and proceed to make my case using relevant scientific data. I will be supporting the CPT Model of the Flood developed by Dr. John Baumgardner which is consistent with scripture (https://answersingenesis.org...)To the prospective audience, thanks in advanced for your time and consideration of this debate!Rules for The DebateRound 1 - AcceptanceRound 2 - Opening Arguments (No Rebuttals)Round 3 - Rebuttals (No Defense of Arguments)Round 4 - Defense of Arguments (No Rebuttals, No New Arguments)*No Logical Fallacies (http://www.logicalfallacies.info...) *No Red Herrings (http://www.logicalfallacies.info...)*No Ad Hominems (http://www.logicalfallacies.info...)*Only Science Arguments (http://undsci.berkeley.edu...)*No Anecdotal Evidence (http://rationalwiki.org...)Con agrees to these terms upon accepting this debate. Failure to adhere to the debate rules should result in the loss of conduct points at minimum per the judgment of the prospective voter.
Should Medical Marijuana Be Legal

Greetings and Salutations. I have a curve ball to throw at my opponent as while I am against his position, it is for a different reason. I hope you can either rein in the argument and assert yourself with logic, or roll with the punches and see where it takes us! I am against "Medical Marijuana" being legalized because it physically doesn't exist. There is no such thing other than a human conjuration of meaning. What is being depicted as marijuana is in fact Cannabis, or Hemp. A google search for the scientific name of Medical Marijuana, (Ie. the name of the person who discovered the fauna/flora), and you will discover it is something completely different, something that has been slapped onto another flora and passed of as real. Marijuana itself is part of a slur campaign from the nicotine and cotton industry to destroy Hemp, they renamed Cannabis to Marijuana to confuse people who had used it for generations into thinking some new dangerous 'drug' had been discovered - and successfully throttled any competition to their respective fields. Other indications of this being a slur is in its 'street' name "Weed". That itself conjures up a disgusting image when heard, an unwanted product. (Note: the articles are biased, I cannot find an open party reference on quick notice ) https://raoulduke1989.wordpress.com... https://gooeyrabinski.com... Cannabis is very real, and can be incredibly beneficial to most human - no... mammals, reptiles, birds and even plants! - as we all have THC receptors that have evolved over generations. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... There are strains that have been cultivated to have lower THC levels, so that when ingested - there are less of the "side-effect's" the stoner culture is famous for. (When I searched to find some links to show, I got a TON of click-bait sites - Washington post, etc. with articles on it that have no basis of proof - However I believe most people have at least heard of this to understand that plant splicing and selective pollination can alter properties of a plant, and that THC is a property if Cannabis.... it can be altered). Eagerly awaiting my opponents response - Let's do this!
Should Medical Marijuana Be Legal

I believe that medical marijuana should be legal. Marijuana is customarily known as a street drug, but in recent years it has gained its credibility as a medication to treat chronic pain and sooth side effects of chemotherapy for cancer. Already 72% of doctors support medical marijuana. Cancer patients had positive feedback when they tried medical marijuana. They said things like "It made me feel like I had an appetite for the first time in probably six months". For the people who benefit from medical marijuana should not be criminalized. Current remedies for pain like Vicodin and Percocet are far more addictive and dangerous. In states where medical marijuana is legalized, doctors have seen a decline in opioid abuse. Making sure people actually need marijuana for medical use and are using it solely for that is where there is a valuable argument. Regulations and government involvement would need to be necessary as with any drug. This also opens up a new industry that could be profitable. There are many ways to consume marijuana than to just smoke it, which is safer to for your lungs. It is unfair to compare the legalization of the medical and recreational use of marijuana, it is a different debate as a whole. The legalization of medical marijuana could steer away from the abuse of opioids and give patients a new way of treatment that has been proven to be effective. It could also change the perception of the drug from a street drug to a medication.
Should the bible be used in arguments outside Christinaity

>> I will also point out that my argument D can apply to scientific argument since the scientific community includes Christians. The Bible can be useful for Christians to express concerns over scientific theories and as a way for non-Christians to explain or resolve scientific issues in ways Christians can better appreciate. An example would be the understanding of the biblical "age" to be thousands of years- a scientific issue of the age of the universe interacted with the Bible to produce an understanding of both science and religion. This is core.
Should the bible be used in arguments outside Christinaity

Nowhere In the challenge did it specify that the Bible must be useful in scientific argument. All of my previous arguments uphold the letter of the resolution. Moreover, my opponent doesn't explain what counts as a scientific question. Do these questions include the origins of the universe, the purpose of life, what happens after death? Is any factual claim a scientific question? If so, then the my argument C demonstrates that the Bible is just as adequate as any other philosophical school in answering these questions. Extend that the Bible is useful in social science, for Abrahamic religions, as philosophy, and as discourse in religiously inclusive societies. I will also point out that my argument D can apply to scientific argument since the scientific community includes Christians. The Bible can be useful for Christians to express concerns over scientific theories and as a way for non-Christians to explain or resolve scientific issues in ways Christians can better appreciate. An example would be the understanding of the biblical "age" to be thousands of years- a scientific issue of the age of the universe interacted with the Bible to produce an understanding of both science and religion.
The New Testament Contradicts Itself

Before I begin today's debate round I would like to define 2 keep words: New Testament and contradiction. The New testament is the 27 books of the Bible canonized by God. Matthew Mark Luke John Acts Romans 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians 1 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus Philemon Heberews James 1 Peter 2 Peter 1 John 2 John 3 John Jude Revelation A contradiction: A contradiction is not let’s say I have two people next to me, Noah and Samantha. I will take them to opposite corners of the room and whisper into Noah’s ear, and whisper something into Samantha’s ear. Now they are told to come and share the information with us. Noah tells us the Rebekah was at lunch with Samantha 12:00 pm today. Now what Samantha knows is that Rebekah was at lunch with Noah 12:00 pm today. Now at first glance you look at both of those facts and say, “Hey, Rebekah couldn’t be at lunch with Noah and at the same time with Samantha until you realize, Rebekah was at lunch with Samantha and Noah, at the same exact time because they all had lunch together. Now a contradiction would be if Rebekah took Noah into one corner of the room and whispered in his ear, and when she took Samantha into the other corner of the room and whispered into her ear, when they came together Noah announces Rebekah listened to Michigan win the basketball game at home, but Samantha announces Rebekah had front row seats to watch the Michigan winthe basketball game at the stadium. Now most people will say, “The Bible cannot be true, because there are just too many contradictions in the New Testament like for example with Judas’s death” But I am here today to put those “contradictions” to a rest while I show you there are no contradictions in the New Testament. I will start with one of the many confused "contradictions" Judas Iscariot’s death: Matthew 27:5 ESV (5) And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself. Acts 1:18 ESV (18) (Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. Now, my first thought when reading this was, “The New Testament truly does contradict itself!” But after further study I realized they were both true. Now let me share that reasoning with you. After Judas Iscariot flung down the pieces of silver, they would not take the money because it was then called “blood money” he picked the “blood money” back up knowing it would be no use to them and bought a field, he hung himself in a tree and the rope or a limb snapped sending him into the rocks where the Bibleshows us a lovely picture of how he and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. Now this makes perfect sense, the tree that Judas hung himself in was over rocks! I thank you and patently wait for pro’s rebuttal.
Which religion is true

When I type the word RELIGION into Google, here is the header before the results (the Debate.org interface mangles the results, but you can reliably duplicate the experiment!): re"li"gion rəG2;lijən/ noun 1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. "ideas about the relationship between science and religion" synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed; 2. a particular system of faith and worship. plural noun: religions "the world's great religions" 3. a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. "consumerism is the new religion" Under definition three, it is simply undeniable that science conforms to the definition of religion. Forget consumerism, science is the new religion!... now if we could only get rid of all the old myth-based ones! Thanks for hanging in there! ~ Nudely ~
Which religion is true

Thank you for a rousing debate. You really commit to a position. I still disagree on principle, though it is true that you do need to take a few things on faith (I am not just a brain in a jar for example) to accomplish any process. I'd just like to point out that dark matter and the other hypothesis you mentioned are just that, hypothesis. Until they are proven they are only conjecture. In contrast a scientific theory, say the theory of gravity, is proven through a preponderance of facts. I only believe in dark matter as a possibility, but gravity I know is a fact. Even theory changes and evolves as our understanding of the phenomenon in question matures. In closing if science is a religion, which I still fervently disagree with, it is the only one whose book changes anytime it is undone by logic. Religion is forced to fight against the natural flow of logic when it begins to become inconvenient. No religion I know of encourages its devotees "please prove that the beliefs presented here are wrong". Religion is destroyed by the words "how do you know" science thrives on these words. Thank you
Which religion is true

Allow me to reiterate since you seem to have misunderstood. Science is not a religion it is a process, it doesn't require faith to test a hypnosis, but rather the opposite. It is in fact skeptical by nature (by which I mean that science refuses to regard anything as true until the proposition in question is proven). In addition science has no godhead no mythos mythology, and best of all when science is wrong it doesn't hurt my belief in it it merely changes to fit this new understanding. In regards to faith, I can believe literally anything on faith, god, Allah, Santa or the tooth fairy. I suppose you could believe scientific hypothesis on faith as well but I think if you do you've missed the point, not only that your missing out on the best thing about science. The opportunity for your beliefs to grow and evolve as our understanding of the universe does. In conclusion I ask you, if you can believe literally anything based on faith, true or not, then how is faith a good avenue to the truth. Now this question is only important if you actually care wether or not you to hold as many true beliefs as possible and as few false beliefs as possible. So I guess now the debate becomes is it important to hold true beliefs whenever possible and to reject beliefs, even those which mighty be comforting to us if there is no evidence to support that beliefs.
Which religion is true

With the help of Cortical Rider, I have demonstrated that science is just another religion, and I used the tangible results of this religion (our photo drones and blu-ray players, for instance) to demonstrate that results are what prove this religion to be true. I even declared an additional point that Rider missed, which was that science prophesizes things which come true. My opponent now shifts the emphasis from whether some (any) religion is true or not (apparently we both agree that science is largely true,) to whether or not faith is an acceptable avenue to truth. He rejects that notion, I embrace it, and I accept the new debate as: IS FAITH AN ACCEPTABLE AVENUE TO TRUTH. A great example is the Wright brothers. If they didn't have the requisite amount of faith in their theories, design, and equipment, they certainly would have quit while they were ahead and spent their money on something else. The role of faith, therefore, isn't one of science accepting a theory without proof, but rather the driving force that says "I'm 99% sure that the Higgs' boson is out there, and I believe (have faith) that we could devise a machine powerful enough to generate one, as well as sensitive enough to detect it." One man's faith is required to influence his peers to persuade (instill with faith) investors to underwrite the project. Of course, we exhibit faith all the time. When the traffic light turns green for us, we have faith that it's not going to suddenly malfunction and give a green to the cross traffic as well. That's a rather mundane example, but there are a bazillion things we take on faith every day. One comment about SecularMerlin's opening statement in this round: "I reject faith as an acceptable avenue to truth," let me just clarify that even Christianity doesn't claim that "faith [is] an avenue to truth," rather, faith is an avenue to salvation. Doesn't science claim to offer us salvation from our past mistakes? Hmmm... let me think. Geez, whadaya know... It does! Finally, one comment from his closing, i.e., that religious scientists would be reluctant to admit following two religions. First, they would need to read Corticle's list; then secondly, we would need to record the results. I think it's clear that Corticle Rider, the PhD biologist who claims that science is every bit as much a religion as any religion is, IS a man of faith... remember point 9? --- 9.) [Science] Casts Out Heretics and Persecutes all Other Religions Science, like God in the O.T., behaves jealously against any other religion. So, science will say to its followers: "You shall have no other gods before me". If you doubt me, ask an audience at a scientific convention to join you in a prayer. From that moment on you"ll be called a theist-scientist. A heretic. A miasma. An abomination. Just look up how Kurt Godel was viewed at Princeton after circulating his ontological proof of God. --- eebida eebida that's all folks.
Which religion is true

I reject faith as an acceptable avenue to truth. Science undergoes exhaustive peer review specifically because it excepts nothing on faith. Faith is in fact the excuse people give for believing in something without rational evidence. The other difference between science and religion is results. The sciences are built on testable repeatable results. For example this website would be impossible without science. No religion impacts our lives in this way. Religion is a product of faith and is incapable of surviving genuine inquiry, something science relishes. You just never see a licensed medical doctor who uses magic crystals. One more statement that makes it difficult to reconcile that science is a religion are the number of scientists who, although they accept global warming and evolution as scientific facts are nevertheless religious. Do these men practice two religions? They would I think vehemently deny this idea.
Which religion is true

Trick question. I can't disprove a god. This makes a statement like "Vishnu is real" a poor argument. I welcome anyone to debate so long as they can adhere to a few simple ideas. 1. You may not refer to your holy book for proof. The bible is true because the bible says so isn't a valid argument 2. Your points must be capable of being disproved. That is there must be some way of verifying the truth of your statement. I feel in my heart that Allah is the one true god is an unconvincing line of reasoning. 3. The nonexistent of god is likewise not provable I understand this I make no attempt to prove that no god exists, but I don't believe you can objectively prove that one idea of god is "more" true than others.
Homework should be banned

I personally don't consider homework to be necessary for the success of a learning process and even harmful for the students perception of the joy of problem solving. This will be shown (in terms of fairness) in the next round of the debate, but as a short preview; I'll cover the 1 Fairness 2 Learning Success Factors 3 (Relevant) Benefits of Spare Time As my opponent forgot to kindly limit the concept of homework, I will do first: According to various dictionaries, as an example here the FreeDictionary {1}, homework can mean 1 (Educational) school work done out of lessons, esp at home 2 (Educational) any preparatory study 3 (Industrial Relations & HR Terms) work done at home for pay As this debate is listed under "Education" I consider the Industrial aspect of the core term as not relevant. Also, I would like to underline that I consider homework in this case as a compulsory work, therefore I would like to exclude university reading (that is usually a voluntary thing) as well as university assignments such as compulsory research papers as they are rather difficult to classify as homework and are also done in a rather voluntary education environment and concern grown-up-students. Considering that Pro failed to define his term in the first place, I'll leave it to the judges whether my topic limitation can be seen as valid. {1} FreeDictionary: homework . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
USA (pro) or England (con)

It looks Nick, that you are the judgmental one in this argument. The Great Gatsby is based on fact and written as an allegory to the American Dream, you saying that it has no logic is like saying that "Lord of the Flies" isn't an allegory to humanity and "the darkness of a man's heart". And you obviously have no respect for anyone of British decent. It is not full of judgmental people, its full of different people, the kind, the well-read, and society's "evil". Just like any country like, lets say, America. You are so set on the argument that you don't realize what people you are insulting. England doesn't renounce human dignity, it would've been placed on the UN's list about now with North Korea. And our little "constitution-based republic" isn't doing too well right now, is it? And, take in the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. We dropped a bomb on hundreds of innocent civillians who didn't take part in the war. Is that what you consider great? Mass genocide? The US is the 17th most educated country in the world. We are a first world country. There are 2nd world countries doing better than us. England is 6th. Education is a big factor of what makes a country "great". And the US is not meeting that bar. I find it impossible to believe that this is the "best country". There are many countries doing better than us, including, even though you hate to hear it, England. The US was once a great country, and we still can be. But right now, we are a fake a phony, shelves loaded up with things made in China for goodness sakes. We used to be the "top banana". Now, we have lowered down to an untimley low. I believe that you, Nick, are looking through the wrong side of the telescope. Flip it over for a change. You might find the truth for a change. My case stands.
USA (pro) or England (con)

The USA isn't a democracy it is a Constitution-based Federal Republic. Canada's literacy is 99% which can't be true. "The Great Gatsby" is a fictitious book, yet you trust its logic. In conclusion, England is a country that mocks their fellow British Kingdoms in horrible ways. England is a stereotypical country full of judgmental people. I rest my case that the USA, unlike England, doesn't renounce our human dignity.
USA (pro) or England (con)

Actually, Canada's literacy rate is more like 97.2. And for a first world country, those rankings aren't very good. And England's government is a very stable one. Is England in 17 trillion dollars of debt? No. If America was so "great", than why are we barreling our way into more and more debt? As "The Great Gatsby" clearly explains, the American dream is twisted and dark, with people chasing their way into a dark eternity. Anyways, how can you even call England's government system unusable when we barley have a say in our own. If you haven't noticed, the word democracy means,"rule of the people" and the electoral college doesn't provide that. If you were a Republican voting in CA. then your vote wouldn't count because CA. is democratic. So, there is not much of a democracy in America. And a democracy/monarchy works just fine. It's working better than our political system anyways. And FYI, Forbes magazine has ranked Australia to be the best country in the world. England's debt? 1.4 trillion. Pretty good for a country that provides free healthcare. And England and other countries have way more history than America. They have had lots of time to develop and strategize, unlike America. Hope this sets your facts straight.
USA (pro) or England (con)

I didn't use my whole argument telling you off only a small paragraph. You're the one who just spent their whole rebuttal telling the instigator off. By the way you weren't supposed to write your first argument as your intro or opening argument that was for Round 2, the instructions clearly stated you were supposed to respond "I accept" The USA has claimed the most Nobel Prizes in all categories except one. England is a country built on stereotypes and royal families. A royal family is not a stable government. The infant mortality is actually measured by the highest number of mortalities to the lowest, with about 190 countries in the world we have placed pretty good. Seventh in literacy is pretty good considering Canada says they have 100% literacy which is a lie because there are people with mental deficiencies and indigenous people who most likely can't read. Proof Canada isn't the most educated country, Fourth in labor force and exports is pretty good, considering all the countries in this world. Thank you for proving my point.