BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution vs Creationism

I will start this debate off with my opening statements, definitions, and acceptance. First, I understand that I will be supporting creationism as oppose to evolution, and the criteria that this debate will be judged by and the guidelines concerning the debate. Definitions: Creationism: (Personal conviction) A belief that the world was created by an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God; a belief going completely against evolution. A belief that coincides with the world being created rather quickly, and nothing occurs without the approval of God. It also aligns with the belief that the world is rather young. Evolution: (Personal conviction Dictionary) The belief that everything comes from simpler life forms, without regard to a god; a belief going completely against creationism. A belief that coincides with the world being made very slowly, by natural causes, and being very old (billions of years) Creationism: (Merriam-Webster) a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis; the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect Evolution: (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) 1 : one of a set of prescribed movements 2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved 3 : the process of working out or developing 4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory 5 : the extraction of a mathematical root 6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena For evolution, I will only be using definitions 2c(1), 4b, and 6. In this debate, I will attempt to prove that creationism makes more sense than evolution. I will do so using the Bible as a source at times, as it cannot be disproven. Creationism makes more sense than evolution because of many reasons. First, common sense undeniably proves creation, as does radioactive dating. Also, only intelligent creation would be able to create the many things that "prehistoric" people could make. Here is a video's link supporting the last point. Note the History Channel clip about ancient aircraft. Also, the Mount Saint Helen's Eruption shows many interesting points about creationism that I will address later.
Better to Deduct Certain Evidence, then Debate (Compare Arguments)

I withdraw my argument. It is certainly the case that my previous argument was a result of "Black and White Fallacy" as one individual called it. Funny, i say the phrase "Not everything is black and white," quite often. My problem was that i tried to isolate Deductive Reasoning from Debating. When really, they are simply 2 parts of the same equation when searching for the truth in a matter. The scientific method even confirms this. First you Observe evidence. Then you theorize based on that evidence. then you test it. Rinse and repeat. The more this is done, the closer to the truth a person is likely to come. In Theory, a person can always reach to truth about anything if he does this enough and with an open mind. (just speculation though). But to the point, testing IS debating, or at least an element in relation. One debates another possibility in order to isolate them, eliminating one false possibility at a time until you come to the truth. Combating 2 arguments (debating) is very similar to testing to see where the flaws in our theories may or may not lie. We aren't trying to win. We just want to know the truth. At least i do anyways. Most i believe feel the same. Please forgive the tangent, but i felt moved to say that. It's been a useful discovery to me. Anyways, in conclusion, i withdraw my argument and conclude the following in simplicity: Deductive Reasoning cannot possibly be more effective than Debating, because they are simply 2 sides of the same coin. 2 Functions on the same equation in the search for truth, whether they take a public form such as this, or even private thoughts, debating is still a key function needed to find truth. Thankyou everyone for your brains for a while. I believe i've taken a liking to this website. It seems i was correct in suspecting that it may become potentially useful to me. Perhaps i can benefit others as well. On the next argument turn, i will simply mark "Withdraw" so as to end the useless remaining rounds.
Better to Deduct Certain Evidence, then Debate (Compare Arguments)

Thank you for producing a detailed argument for fact-based method to evaluate truth; evidence rich arguments have certainty moved mankind forward in areas of science and engineering where proofs are critical in establishing successful outcomes. However, in the realm of religion, where a successful outcome is gaining memberships, preserving traditions, or a tool for maintaining power, things like facts and evidence are few and far between. Much of the origins of religions are lost and the meager arguments from ancient texts are woefully lacking in rigor, usually depending on one-time miracles (which cannot happen give our current understanding of the universe) or events that we still have no evidence for. "Searching for (religious) truth" relies on a presupposition that a particular text is accurate and the arguer has no access to anything beyond that other than suppositions and their individual belief. Instead, they rely on "philosophical" trickery, fake academics (aka theology), poor science or outright lies to bolster their search to confirm the truth they already believe in. Therefore, given the lack of solid evidence for religious claims, and, more importantly, "truth" is less important than religious membership, I contend that it is actually NOT "better" to debate evidence. For the religious, their claims need not rely on evidence at all but purely on personal belief: hence we have dozens of religions with thousands of branches: they can't even decide amongst themselves what is "true"! So whilst I agree in your main premise, in the arena of religion, I think you're misunderstanding what "better" means in terms of a successful outcome.
Better to Deduct Certain Evidence, then Debate (Compare Arguments)

Illustration: If you wanted to know if a dollar bill was counterfeit, you have 2 basic options: 1- Learn many of the forms of counterfeit bills out there. This would mean you would have to learn many types of counterfeit, perhaps all of them to be conclude with certainty whether the bill is either Counterfeit or Genuine. However, as examining all counterfeit is nearly impossible, as there are countless forms of counterfeit even for a simple dollar bill, it is more efficient to: 2- Study the original bill very closely. Examining every detail, in particular, the security features of the bill. This way, you only need to learn one. The real one. Illustrative Conclusion: Assuming having full ability to distinguish with certainty between the Genuine Bill and any counterfeit, It would be a waste of time to attempt to learn all the forms of counterfeit. Whereas, learning the Genuine Bill would save you the trouble. This method is more efficient and effective. The Drawn out Conclusion: The same can be true of any truth. For example, in religion, attempting to study all religions in search for the true religion would be a waste of time, if not at least, inefficient. To find the Genuine Truth, one simply must solve which religion is the true religion, then study that one. This does not mean however, to assume that whatever religion a person believes in is automatically the true religion. That much is obvious. However: Premise 1: Every Premise of an Argument must be in Harmony with all other premises and the Conclusion. Premise 2: If a Conclusion of any Argument is False, then either A: One of the Premises must also be False or B: One or more True Premise(s) that would change the Conclusion to become Accurate, must still exist, though unknown, or unaccounted for. Meaning, If any religion is false (a conclusion) then something in that religion will always somehow disagree with some sort of conclusively certain evidence somewhere. Just like a math equation. Conclusion: Comparing many religions together in order to find the true religion would be inefficient as apposed to the preferred option: Drawing absolutely certain conclusions based on absolute evidence and deductions. Debating involves looking at two arguments. But using the evidence and deductions to come to a conclusion, if done perfectly, and with the all the needed evidence (which must also be correct) will always lead to the correct answer. I believe this concept is true for any truth. Summary: Don't search for truth with debates (comparing arguments). Examine the all the applicable evidence, and deduce certain conclusions, and you will always eventually find the correct answer.
Gay marriage should be legalized by the federal government

Gay marriage should not be legalized by the federal government, as marriage is not a federal issue. Under the Constitution, all powers not delegated to the federal government are left to the states, or the people.[1] The issue of marriage as a federal legislative issues is not noted in the Constitution.[2] Thus, the issue of marriage must be decided by the states, not the federal government. This means the idea of federal involvement in marriage in any aspect - including definition, benefits, and recognition, - should be discarded entirely, and it should be returned to where it belongs - the states.References:1. http://www.archives.gov... 2. http://www.law.cornell.edu...
Fox news is fair and balanced

Sure, other media sources are biased. Thats not relevant to the topic though. Your stats only prove that FOX bashes Obama and Hillary equally. That doesn't say anything to the fact of comparing republicans to democrats or conservatives to liberals. FOX continually posts conservative pundants on every show they have. Not only are all of there shows conservative, which I personally don't have a problem with, when liberal pundants come on, they are often stupid and incoherent, like Allan Colmes. While FOX does provide the facts, its also important to note what light those facts are presented in and who is presenting them. They have a clear conservative tilt, which you don't deny. I don't see how there is any room left for debate.
Fox news is fair and balanced

Let me start by saying that I am a HUGE fan of FOXNEWS. I watch it for hours. That being said, there is no way they are fair and balanced. I would like to see this study if you have a link to it. Nearly every pundant on FOXNEWS has a conservative bias. Additionally, every expert they bring on are conservatives. Even the liberals they do bring on are people like Allan Colmes, who are studdering idiots and who are just there for camera time and to make Hannity look even better. The other liberals are people like Dick Morris who are either incredibly moderate or get no air time when invited on the show. The station has a clear conservative bias. I don't think they skew facts or anything like that, but they do make it very easy for conservatives to appear right against weak liberals. While the majority of the media has a large liberal bias, FOX serves as the counterweight to that. Again, I am a big fan of FOXNEWS, but they are baised, I have to admit.
Fox news is fair and balanced

Fox News has been getting a lot of bad press, saying it is not telling the truth or is to far to the right, now I am going to give examples of how it is fair and balanced. according to a statistic, Fox News is about 50-50 with positives and negatives with politcal candidates. Meaning they had positive things and negatives things said on each candidate, in a about a equal per portion. MSNBC, has been bashing Hillary with about 68% negative comments and only 24% negative things about Barack. CNN is a 55-45 differance with candidates, now it swings, to each side, but Fox news so far has been fair and balanced this election season. Also, I know of course their are going to be liberal media sites, that will have biases themselves, but that is why Fox News has such a bad wrap, is because people, only focus on the negatives, not the positives.
God does not Exist.

I accept. As my opponent and I have agreed in the comments section, I do not have to present positive arguments for God's existence. All I have to do in order to win is refute his arguments. With this in mind, I would like to remind everyone what we're debating. My opponent has made the positive claim that "God does not exist." He could have made the debate resolution "God likely doesn't exist" but he did not. BURDEN OF PROOF As the instigator and the one making the positive claim, my opponent has the full burden of proof. I assert that this will prove rather difficult due to the fact that Pro has given himself the near impossible task of proving something doesn't exist. For example, despite the fact that there doesn't appear to be much evidence of the existence of fairies, that doesn't mean they don't exist. They could simply be invisible entities undetectable by human, physical instruments. Housekeeping As an aside, I ask my opponent not to forfeit any rounds considering the current glitch within the website. If you find yourself not having time to post, simply post "pass" or "I concede", etc. I promise to do the same.
God does not Exist.

Hello ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this debate. Here I will be debating as in Pro/For "God Does Not Exist". I will be debating for this topic, because I indeed want to believe there is a God. Nonetheless, I will be debating with powerful arguments, therefore, do not expect this debate to be easy because I am willing to be convinced. I will now be presenting all terms and conditions of this debate. Round Organization: Round 1: This round will be the round of acceptance, however, Con may start with his constructive arguments based on that God Exists. Round 2: Pro may start with his constructive arguments, and if necessary, rebuttals. Con may do likewise. Round 3-5: These rounds will be used for rebuttals and conclusion (Round 5). Rules: Sources must be provided after each argument. Respect is always necessary in this debate. Must be easy to understand and read. This "God" I will be debating about will be the God of Christianity. Do not mistake this God for any other. If anybody would like to accept my debate, I would gladly accept. Thank you.
I believe that the Cold War was largely the responsibility of the Soviet Union.

"Germany's unforgivable crime before WW2 was its attempt to loosen its economy out of the world trade system and to build up an independent exchange system from which the world-finance couldn't profit anymore. ...We butchered the wrong pig." -Winston Churchill (The Second World War - Bern, 1960) Churchill's quote states it all. The Western Allies (England & USA) wrongly ganged up and demolished Hitler's Germany instead of Stalin's Russia. Therefore the Western Allies had more knowledge. And prior to the USA entering WW2, Germany was winning which spear-heads my point about the USA being the mechanism orchestrating the most responsibility. What followed from 1949-1992 was the Cold War. I accept and thank Pro for an excellent debate topic. I can loosely agree with Pro regarding the point at which the Cold War commenced (Hitler & Stalin dividing up Poland). But then one can reach back further toward the animosities of the Treaty of Versailles and the scathing relationship between Weimar Republic Germans and Bolshevik/Socialist/Communist Jews. And even earlier than that was the WW1 Alliances. Going forward chronologically, I will extend my debate points (I think that is what it is called): I believe that the Cold War was NOT largely the responsibility of the Soviet Union but a result of blunders by the other Allied countries during & post WW2 such as: NOT defeating the Red Army when it could; and the subsequent domino effect of Communism/Socialism moving and mushrooming into other parts of the globe like: China, Vietnam, Cuba. Though this debate may seem to come down to ideologies: Capitalism (West) versus Communism (East), I contend that neither are the best resolution. Concluding the intro: the USA, not USSR, which I deem more intelligent between the two, owns the lion share of responsibility for the Cold War. Thank you. I return the debate back to Pro.
I believe that the Cold War was largely the responsibility of the Soviet Union.

I thank my esteemed opponent for a meaty debate.The Cold War - who was more to blame the US or USSR for its causation and perpetuation?I say the US. From the beginning, I say that the US held all the "smart" cards (almost all the Nobel Prize winners). With the USSR depleted of many smart people, dead or defection, the US was already positioned to be better situated for the coming Cold War. "Stalin's fear of the USA led him to believe that the USSR needed a barrier of territory between Soviet territory & the USA's allies in Western Europe. Stalin feared another anti-communist invasion of Russia from Europe as had occurred in 1918 & 1941. Stalin wanted to create a barrier against the West, a barrier made up of communist run countries in Eastern Europe." [1]Soviet controlled regions were held by the USSR's lesser intelligent hierarchy since Stalin purged (killed) his officers every so often. The USSR was weak & could not afford more war.Isn't it interesting that people who know too much, are coincidentally killed? Oh Sherlock, what do we say about coincidence? The universe is rarely so lazy."Stalin wanted to make sure that those who knew too much about the purges would also be killed." [2]Constantly killing people, who are under your command, tends to weaken your ability to command. And Stalin was the weaker of the two leaders in that regard.When Soviet controlled Germany, hoisted the Berlin Wall, which was a protective measurement to guard against fascist Capitalism, it proved to be another USSR un-doing factor (not the brightest move); one cannot force people to be of a certain ideology. Black markets from the West seeped in the cracks. Spies spied on spies, infiltration of moles and sleepers into all parts of different stratospheres of both governments. Getting caught was the grievous sin as when in 1960 the US was caught spying in the USSR with the U2 spy plane piloted by a man name Powers. Premier Khrushchev demanded a full apology but President Eisenhower refused. So as a result, the US perpetuated worse relations between the superpowers. [1]The US used to be friends with Cuba, remember "I Love Lucy" shows in black and white? Lucille Ball's husband was Cuban. [3] We bought Cuba's cash crop, sugar by the boat load. Then the US attempting to control more of that island in a failed coup; Fidel Castro learned that the US was an enemy in reality and looked to a bigger dog to back Cuba in the Cuban Missile Crisis.Between Kruschev and Kennedy, "Krushchev was not ready for any war." [4]My opponent seeks to bring up different tanks in WW2 which are not as pertinent in this discussion though may warrant another debate. And in 1944, FDR, who had been voted into power an unprecedented four times, was undoubted surrounded by spies of all sorts.The US controlled and orchestrated the machinations of the Cold War more than the lesser intelligent USSR ruling with an iron fist. Therefore the US is the most culpable for the Cold War.Thank you.1. http://www.johndclare.net...2. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk...3. http://marriage.about.com...4. ; 20 minute mark
I believe that the Cold War was largely the responsibility of the Soviet Union.

Not to speak ill of the dead by Paton was a fool. The Soviet Union at it's weakest in 1941managed to recover and successfully fight back against Hitler despite his having the finest generals in the world and the finest equipment that WW2 produced. They had to face Heinz Wilhelm Guderian and the Panther and Tiger tank. There were 4 Generals each in control of more than one army. Paton wanted to take them on dispite the piece of junk known as the M-4 nicknamed the tinderbox because it ran on gasoline. It was a medium tank and it spent the war facing heavy tanks. It would have done so again, this time the t-34/85 and the IS or Joseph Stalin tank. He would have enjoyed zero support from the American public. Einstein left Austria because Hitler was a vicious anti-Semite. Russia was frequently the scene of Pogroms and antisemitism. It was also desolate and poor. It's government was oppressive. The Korean war is further proof of the aggression of the Soviet Union against free people. We didn't pick that fight. Russia and China were almost always at each others throats after Stalin died so I don't know what you are talking about. The fact that we didn't go to Hungary's aid further demonstrates our non-aggressive stance toward the Soviet Union. We did everything in our power to prove that we didn't want war with the Soviet Union. As far as the bomb goes, Russia new as well as we did that the body count for trying to occupy Japan would be terrifying. We would have doubled our WW2 dead (1) and Japanese civilians would certainly have exceeded 1 million. Further more, Alger Hiss and the Rosenberg's according to Venona (2) gave the Soviet Union the bomb. So what the heck was there to worry about? We also know now that Soviet spies were all over the Roosevelt administration. So whose the aggressor here? For the Soviet Union or you on their behalf to complain about U-2 is hypocritical in the extreme. The Soviet Union had an aggressive spy program. The Soviet Union flew a satellite named Sputnik over our heads, proving they could deliver a payload that far first. You are cherry picking history. The Cuban missile crises was caused by the Soviet Union. We worked out a back door deal to defuse it with the Soviet Union but it did cost us actually. We had to give up a number of missiles we had in Turkey in exchange for the removal of the Cuban missiles. If it was instigated by Castro then what possible difference could the Soviet Union have made? They would have had no say so in the issue but they did have say so. For fearful people the Soviets sure as heck weren't afraid to stick their heads out. (1) http://www.pbs.org... I use Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf's numbers, 500,000 for our casualties. PBS says 280 thousand. (2) http://www.nsa.gov...