BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Young Earth Creationism is a False Theology

As to your first argument, even assume your claim is true (it is not), you argument is a non-sequitur. Whether Gen 1 and 2 contradict has no bearing on the issue of the truth or falsehood of YEC. Learn logic, please. As to your second argument, nothing in the verses cited speak of "eternal waters". To the contrary, Gen 1:1 indicates the universe had a beginning. Try harder next time. As to your third argument, we again have a non-sequitur. One does not have to accept any ancient believe to take Genesis account literally, especially to the degree they contradict. You are using works when you do not even know what they mean. Indeed, you have not established that the text mean anything other than what it says. And how do you know anything from science? Are you a credentialed scientist? if so, what papers have you published that contain your conclusions from your scientific research? As to my argument, it is simple, adding the ages stated in the Bible for men when they had their children and then adding six days, we get a young universe. Please do not waste my time with ignorance. Thanks.
Young Earth Creationism is a False Theology

Rules: 1. Be civil 2. Round 1 is acceptance for Con 3. Round 2 is Exegesis and Biblical arguments 4. Round 3 is Scientific Arguments 5. Round 4 is Theological Arguments 6. Round 5 is Conclusion Pro: Young Earth Creationism is a false theology Con: Young Earth Creationism is factual theology This debate will be on three fronts: 1. Biblical In this, we will exegete the Scriptures and provide evidence for or against our side 2. Scientific In this, we will lay out scientific evidence for our side 3. Theological In this, we will lay out theological argument for or against our side Please limit rebuttals to about 1/3 to 1/2 of your round Burden of proof is shared
There is good reason to believe in the, inherent, Intellectual superiority of the Mongoloid 'Race'

Regrettably, CON has forfeited once again. I am slightly unhappy with this as unless CON was given no prior warning of his final, he should have been able to work out that rounds 4 and 5 will be during his exams and therefore should have not accepted the challenge. On the question of my sources, let me say that while my opponent has relied solely on news paper articles; I have used evidence from peer-reviewed scientific journals for the my main points (the adoption studies and most of the IQ figures) and used news paper articles for things such as SAT scores which are less controversial and did not, in my opinion, need much proving. The youtube video of Professor J. Philippe Rushton was merely for readers who wished to have a more in depth look at the subject and I did not quote anything from it other than that there were many papers showing that there was an IQ difference (I quoted once such paper in the next round and also copied a table from it) To reiterate my arguments: there have been numerous studies confirming that there is an IQ/intelligence hierarchy and this fact is generally accepted in the scientific community. However, what scientific researchers do not agree on is whether this IQ difference is 100% environment or if it has a genetic factor to it as well. (Please remember that all I have to do is to prove that there is a 1% genetic factor and i'll have proven that some races are at a - inherent - intellectual advantage.) To prove that this IQ gap is not entirely down to environment I have quoted many trans-racial adoption studies involving blacks and mongloids. These have shown that even when adopted into white families the mongoloids still score higher than average on the IQ test (around 108); my opponent, at this point, said that the adopting families are obviously well-off if they can afford to adopt and and that wealth is negatively correlated to racism so these Korean children will have an environmental advantage. I responded that if this were the case then black children who were adopted by white parents must have even bigger of an environmental advantage since there is a longer history of racism towards blacks so they should score at least as well as the Koreans - however they do not, and what is more they actually score BELOW the national average (around 87) showing that environment cannot account for everything. For these reasons I urge the PRO vote. Thankyou for your time.
There is good reason to believe in the, inherent, Intellectual superiority of the Mongoloid 'Race'

I regret to see that CON did not participate in the last round but I am sure it was due to circumstances beyond his control. So that whatever it was CON was busy with is over or at least under-control I have waited until the end of the third day to post my argument so that CON will have had 6 days in all to deal with whatever it was and type up his rebuttals. I extend all my previous arguments and will not put forward any new ones this round so that CON is still able to rebut all my arguments while staying within the word limit.
There is good reason to believe in the, inherent, Intellectual superiority of the Mongoloid 'Race'

Firstly I'd like to say that I too am looking forward to this debate; and while I'm not hoping I'll be proved wrong, I do hope to learn something from this debate, and if it's that "Mongoloids" are, in fact, intellectually superior, So Be It. :) Now to clarify my having put quotations around the word "race" I was doing so not because I am looking to deny that racial groups exist, or make it any kind of a point of contention in the debate, but because naming such race groups is generally considered a subjective and somewhat arbitrary practice, and I wouldn't want to suggest that there is, in fact, such clear distinctions to be observed. I understand what you mean by "Mongoloid Race" and am not looking to play semantics, or force you to explain "race" more than "such and such" group of people who have supposedly had more contact among themselves than with others in the past few thousand years or so, resulting in generally identifiable similarity amongst the group when compared with other peoples. That being said, I think the last thing I shall say in this first round is that I am not looking to prove "Mongoloids" intellectually inferior, nor am I looking to prove any "races" to be (inherently) intellectually "equal". I think that there's too many social factors at play, and not enough relevant physiological information, to have opinions on such things. Oh, and my actual final statement is that I too cannot vote (I don't have a cell phone), so you don't have to worry about me tipping the scales. And, Here's to a good debate! :)
There is good reason to believe in the, inherent, Intellectual superiority of the Mongoloid 'Race'

First of all let me state that the resolution was suggested by con in the forum and while i think it is a very apt resolution I have a slight problem with the quotation marks around the word: race. I suspect this issue of is race real or is it just a social construct will become a point of contention in the debate, however i might just be reading too much into it - i will let con enlighten the readers and I as to what he meant by the quotation marks. By saying inherent I mean to say that genetically mongoloids are at a advantage, intellectually, to other races - i suspect the two that will come up the most will be black and whites. I am starting this debate hoping that by the end i will no longer hold this assertion as there is nothing so good for the mind as being proved wrong. And as i can't vote since i am unable to confirm my identity ( they can't seem to send texts to the UK) i ask con to refrain from voting for himself. I will let con put forward his arguments first, may the best debater win =]
James buchanan was the worst president ever!

A quick responseMy opponent says, 'All your refutation from 1 and 4 are worthless. It just proves your point. ' I'm not sure how to take this. My opponent says they are worthless but then goes on to concede and say they prove my point. Rebuttal 1There have been many Presidents in the past who have done nothing but endorse a side rather than take action, but this does not mean they should have or shouldn't have. He grew up with Southern sympathies, it says a lot more for this man to reject the Southerners than for someone such as Lincoln. You say, "he should have done more," but even if he had done more, but still failed, he would still be compared to his successor, Lincoln, who was obviously a better President. Perhaps this sudden contrast of great leadership and bad leadership leads people to ignore his accomplishments and focus on his shortcomings. Rebuttal 2"No, the bleeding kansas doesnt make him the worst, its just another reason. " If it does not make him the worst, then why would you use this as a point? We are arguing, as the title boldly proclaims, over whether "James buchanan was the worst president ever! " A point that does not support your claim -- "bleeding kansas doesnt make him the worst," in your own words -- is an irrelevant point. Rebuttal 3"This proves my point, he is respoonsible for his administrations failures, and also you cant blame one scandal for all his fails. " I never said ONE scandal was reponsible for "all of his fails" -- I gave evidence that this particular failure was the responsibility of a scandal, which is why I put that evidence under the header "Rebuttal to 3. " I never said one scandal caused all of his failures. Although I don't like accusing my opponent of fallacies, this is basically the definition of the straw man. Rebuttal to the "scholars" pointI am not debating Mr. Jay Tolson of US News. I had a similar debate like this where my opponent told me to read an article about a thousand times. You must understand, I cannot debate an article. Please write your argument in the space provided (quoting the article would be nice and even recommended), but telling me to read an article is very vague. Voters may take this as bad conduct, but I'm trying my best not to sound condescending. This goes for the scholars point, too. I look forward to my opponent's response.
James buchanan was the worst president ever!

All your refutation from 1 and 4 are worthless. It just proves your point. Yes he did publically reject the southerners, but he did not do anything more for that effort, even you say he could have done more. Just tell me one thing, why didnt he reinforce the forts in the south? That would have stopped or even delayed the war, but he didnt. Action is acction, insuffiecient action is as good as none at all. No, the bleeding kansas doesnt make him the worst, its just another reason. Does tripling the debt make obama the worst president ever? No it is just a reason to rank him lower then Lincolon. "Although the man is ultimately responsible for his administration's accomplishments and shortcomings, Buchanan may have simply suffered from internal stupidity in the same way that Grant suffered from numerous scandals despite his authority."This proves my point, he is respoonsible for his administrations failures, and also you cant blame one scandal for all of his fails. I think that his incompetence is what got in his way. And I forgot to tell you, there is a rumor I am related to him through marriage, so it is like a family member and I hate him. So that should say somehting. Also you have failed to recognise my point that political scholars have ranked him at the bottom, so that is my main case other then 1, and the others are just extra proof. http://www.usnews.com... My computer is fritzing, so go to this article for more info, I will posts its info next round when it will open, I read it once before though. So read it or wait.
James buchanan was the worst president ever!

I apologize for my late response, I have been busy.Rebuttal to 1 and 4Buchanan did not "do nothing" to avoid the Civil War. Im fact, he not only politically rejected the Southerners when he "publicly rejected both the right and the wisdom of secession," but he also militarily rejected them, as he "declined to reinforce the federal forts in the Deep South, fearing that doing so would ignite hostilities."[1] Sure, Buchanan could have done more, and sure, there were plenty of better politicians who would have taken more action. But this is no reason to characterize the man as some fool who did nothing.Rebuttal to 2Because he endorsed Bleeding Kansas, he is qualified as the worst President of all time? No.Rebuttal to 3First, I would like to draw a line between Buchanan and his administration. Although the man is ultimately responsible for his administration's accomplishments and shortcomings, Buchanan may have simply suffered from internal stupidity in the same way that Grant suffered from numerous scandals despite his authority.Sources1. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...
James buchanan was the worst president ever!

O.K. I wish you good luck and have fun! 1. He is the worst president ever according to scholars and did nothing to stop the civil war: According to a group of presidential historians, it should be 15th President James Buchanan, a Pennsylvania native, for failing to avert the bloodiest war in U.S. history. [1]Scholars who participated weren't surprised to see that Buchanan — who was born near Mercersburg, Pa., in 1791 and died in Lancaster in 1868 — topped the list. They say he didn't do enough to oppose efforts by southern states to secede from the Union, which led to the Civil War. "The Constitution gives him executive power. It's the power to get things done, not to sit there," said Richard Pious, a political science professor at Barnard College, a women's college affiliated with Columbia University. [1] 2. refusal to take action when action needed to be taken. He didn't dare challenge the slavery issue, or try to get a united front on the issue. [2]Bleeding Kansas: Buchanan fully endorsed the entry of Kansas as a slave state by backing the LeCompton Constitution [2] So he helped create the mini civil war in kansas because he endorsed it. 3. Financial Panic: Buchanan had his own economic troubles. The government faced a significant shortfall of revenue due to the Democrats' push to lower the tariff. Buchanan's Treasury Secretary ordered the issuance of deficit financing for the government -- causing a financial panic and claims of the Buchanan administration's financial irresponsibility (http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] 4. he denied the legal right of states to secede but held that the Federal Government legally could not prevent them. He hoped for compromise, but secessionist leaders did not want it. He then watched silently as South Carolina seceded on December 20, followed by six cotton states. Before Buchanan left office on March 4, all arsenals and forts in the seceded states were lost (except Fort Sumter) [2] Buchanan's failure to deal with the secession issue is the reason that most historians rate his performance so poorly....this failure led directly to the Civil War [2] So his inability to act to prevent the crises he faced make him the worst president ever. http://www.poconorecord.com... [1] http://askville.amazon.com...? [2] http://www.monacorarecoins.com...
Alabama Crimson Tide is going to win against Arkansas Razorbacks

With Chad Morris stressing tempo and the likelihood Alabama's gets more possessions than usual in this game due to a ton of Arkansas three-and-outs, We have a feeling this one could spiral out of control early for the home team if the offense gives it away in the first quarter leading to a quick touchdown. The Crimson Tide's takeaway-prone defense will feast on a squad not nearly as talented unless Morris is content with keeping it respectable during his first bout with Saban. The Razorbacks should have decided on a quarterback by this point, But whether it's Cole Kelley or Ty Storey should have no bearing on the final score.
Alabama Crimson Tide is going to win against Arkansas Razorbacks

Ah, And the Vegas Golden Knights making it to the Stanley Cup finals and nearly winning it was "the most incorrect statement" in the hockey world not long ago. Unless you can do some Back to the Future stuff and see who's won, You have as much evidence to legitimately back your claim as someone would to call a grain of sand a liquid, If you will. Yet maybe you can prove me otherwise, And it'd be the biggest breakthrough of scientific history.
Sports fan deciding to stop watching sports

Hello Vegas Berg. This is an interesting topic. I don't think it's gay to watch sports. I'm a heterosexual woman, myself, and I am only ever mildly turned on by watching men play sport, if even that. Mostly, it's just boring. But why? Take AFL (Australian Rules Football). The men who play that are very fit, they wear skimpy, tight clothing, they fling themselves about in all kinds of poses, and they rub each others bottoms. It should be a form of porn, really. But it isn't. Mind you, if you ever meet one of these guys in person, and he's not drunk, it's a different story.Also, if you go to watch men's sports with men, they never pay you as much attention as they would normally. I think that sport is simply not a sexy thing.In response to your argument about why watch sports at all: why not? How to keep young men occupied is a problem that every society has to deal with. Compared with every other demographic, young men are more violent, more reckless, and more dangerous. Nobody likes to see a group of young men hanging about on the streets with nothing to do. This is why sport is so great. A few of them can play it, and the rest can gather in a confined space to watch.
Sports fan deciding to stop watching sports

I have been a sports fan since I can remember how to suck a bottle. What sport (s) or team is irrelevant. Why does this fantasy of Watching other people play sports( I play the same sports at my own level) become so obsessive and control so many peoples lives? Its expensive to follow, takes up so much time and creates friction with others that may vote for another team or person. Why do we give a crap ? Why care about someone else's fame, fortune, riches, bitches all the above........I never cared about getting autographs from athletes, famous people? Why not just say hi or maybe start a conversation? What is the attraction of this Fantasy of meeting someone famous? My first debate, I don't know if this is a debate or not:) Why is it so Important to people to follow sports, I honestly think its stupid and very Feminine, watching other Men do things You've only dreamed of.........Thats right..........Gay, LOL
Millennials are entitled morons

Hey! You cant use logic here! I need to blame millennials for all our problems because I was too lazy to stand up and do anything in my day! So to feel better about myself, I need to enforce the stereotype that millennials are entitled and are hurting society. And completely ignore the fact that the reason anyone may be entitled was because my generation didn't teach them otherwise. Don't you see? I MUST enforce this stereotype to offer an excuse for my own laziness!
Millennials are entitled morons

You keep talking about "millennials" as though they are one person cloned many times, like some kind of hive mind. Of course there are some millennials that are "entitled", but there are many more that aren't. Do you use Facebook? Its founder Mark Zuckerberg is a millennial. Do you know what 40% of the national debt is spent on? Social insurance, retirement, other forms of insurance all spent on giving the baby boomers good lives. You can attribute 40% of the national debt to the refusal of the baby boomers to have any sort of fiscal responsibility, so if you want an explanation for why taxes are rising perhaps look at yourself. Life now is significantly harder for the young adult than it was 20-30 years ago.
Millennials are entitled morons

I am not a millenial myself, but this argument is obviously unfounded. How is it possible that an entire generation of people can be "useless and lazy"? Even if you think that the millenial generation is more entitled that other generations, which again makes no sense, it is ignorant to classify "each and every one of them" as "evil". I can guarantee that my opponent here is falling prey to the rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia, and that every generation has its faults.
It is Biblically ok for a Christian to raise dogs for food

Thanks Pro, appreciate the challenge Let me ask you a question I probably already know the answer to: Would you eat your Grandmother? I"m guessing the answer is "no". Why? According to your logic about the demolition of the Old Testament diet law there is nothing wrong with eating your grandmother. Instead of having a funeral you could have a Gandmammy sandwich dinner. Ignoring the health consequences, most people still see something fundamentally wrong with eating their loved ones. Or anyone for that matter. Now let me ask you, do you think thinking it"s wrong would have any bearing on if it"s actually wrong or not. My answer would be yes. Or more accurately the Apostle Paul"s answer. Read Romans 14:15-23. If you feel like something is wrong in your spirit/conscience and that feeling is not in contradiction of the Word of God, then stay away from it. It is neither good nor safe to act against conscience. Basically the only reason anyone would ask "is it wrong to raise dogs to eat?" is because they know it would make people uncomfortable and is considered taboo. Otherwise it would be a pointless question. And it is not wrong to be controversial, but to be controversial for any other reason than love is a deep act of selfishness and arrogance. I myself tend to be rather controversial, but the secret is to constantly check yourself and make sure love is always the motivation. Everything I said has been said in love, for the sake of personal entertainment, and a great learning experience.