BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This following statement is, at some point in time, false: The Earth sky is yellow.

I would like to restate the fact that there is no where on Earth where it is ALWAYS yellow. "The whole sky is not one object, it's many parts. In the same way that water is many parts of water. " 1)I think you mean that water is many particles of water. Or is made up of many little parts of water. 2) Water doesn't have a color. It simply looks that way because of the the foreign particles permeating it. Does not have a color, it simply harbors things that do. Extract the pure water, and you'll see its still clear. "Because of the sheer amount of particles which make up the sky that would exist in any straight line drawn from Earth upwards, it is still astronomically more favorable that ALL sky is indeed ALWAYS yellow. As well as many other colors. Thus negating that possible argument he could have made. Thus saying that the sky is yellow is much more logical, upon examination, than saying otherwise. " My opponent's argument hinges on the fact that sunlight is everywhere on Earth, as these are where the particles of color come from. However, this is not the case. In some regions, mainly in arctic ones, there is no sunlight exposure. For example, in the north pole, there is no sunlight from early October, to March 21st. [1] Since there is no sunlight, this means there are no light particles in the air. Therefore, it is total darkness. Also, on a slightly dubious livejournal, there is one peer who states that the arctic circle may have no sunlight for the entire winter, including one part of Denmark. User name: Shawree. [2] Thus, my resolution is affirmed, since there is at least one place on Earth that, at least for a time, the sky is not yellow. Sources: [1] . http://www.arctic.noaa.gov... [2] . http://community.livejournal.com... I eagerly await my opponent's rebuttal.
This following statement is, at some point in time, false: The Earth sky is yellow.

To prove to you that sky is indeed yellow we need to take a closer look at the definitions provided by Pro. Sky: "The expanse of air over any given point on the earth; the upper atmosphere as seen from the earth's surface." Pro accepted this as the definition of sky for the debate so there is no backing away from it. If you read that statement closely you will see it says "OVER ANY GIVEN POINT". The whole sky is not one object, it's many parts. In the same way that water is many parts of water. This is why that definition of the sky phrases it that way. Many parts have different colors. The likelihood of there being a piece of sky out of all possible areas of sky where it is yellow is astronomically favorable, whether it's visible or not. Now I realize that my opponent may say that though there are parts of the sky that are yellow, there are also parts of the sky which are not yellow. And since the title of the debate is "This following statement is, at some point in time, false: The Earth sky is yellow." he would say that turns the debate back in his favor. But lets look at the definition of sky again, shall we. "OVER ANY GIVEN POINT ON THE EARTH" This means that sky can be any straight line drawn from Earth upwards until it enters space. Because of the sheer amount of particles which make up the sky that would exist in any straight line drawn from Earth upwards, it is still astronomically more favorable that ALL sky is indeed ALWAYS yellow. As well as many other colors. Thus negating that possible argument he could have made. Thus saying that the sky is yellow is much more logical, upon examination, than saying otherwise.
This following statement is, at some point in time, false: The Earth sky is yellow.

Resolution affirmed. Prove that the Earth sky is always yellow, and you win. Sky 1. The expanse of air over any given point on the earth; the upper atmosphere as seen from the earth's surface. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Yellow 1. The hue of that portion of the visible spectrum lying between orange and green, evoked in the human observer by radiant energy with wavelengths of approximately 570 to 590 nanometers; any of a group of colors of a hue resembling that of ripe lemons and varying in lightness and saturation; one of the subtractive primaries; one of the psychological primary hues. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Arguments 1.When I go outside,the sky looks like many colors to me, even yellow at some point, but it always changes colors. As of now, it looks blue to me. I am not, nor have I ever been, colorblind, so this must be true. 2. The argument that this is merely an illusion is one that is baseless. There is no proof that all the humans of the world have all at once hallucinated, and there is no evidence pointing to it ever happening or ever going to happen. The argument that the sky is actually always yellow but is merely covered up by a giant screen is also baseless. The amount of money needed to cover this is ludicrous. Besides, why would anyone want to?
Contradictions in the Bible

Apologies exist due to the fact that people pointlessly fight against the bible. Terminology is not contradictions. If they call it one thing, and we another years later, how can we be wrong. Legs were considered things of movement. Even as late as the 1950s do people refer to legs solely as propulsion. George Orwell stated in the Animal Farm book that birds had four legs, because the wings were not used for manipulation. Also, it only speaks of locust. Fowl comes from the Hebrew word meaning flying thing referring to the locust, as is the word for beetle. It does not include anything else. Immovable- definition includes steadfast or unyielding. Immovable from a set path is easily used for definition. Once again, terminology changes over time. If you expect it to mean the exact same thing nowadays is idiotic. You give nothing here. Nazareth The websites you give just blindly state of how it has been proven without a doubt of its nonexistence. However, finds around the area show very accordant information with the bible. Nazareth could have easily existed at the time of Jesus, ceased to exist for several years due to fighting, then returned several years later. You question why it is not listed in the towns. This is very easily explained. The size of it according to site examination shows that it would only contain a very small amount of people. This would explain the sign put on the cross. It was like telling people that he came from nowhere. http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org...
Contradictions in the Bible

You are wrong about the rabbits and cud. Here's a website to explain. http://www.answersingenesis.org... Also, it doesn't say spiders have four legs. http://www.icr.org... The bible does not say that the Earth is flat or fixed or the center of the universe. I have explained this to you in other debate comments. It is only figurative language. Judaism has been polytheistic many times throughout its history, and has always turned back to monotheistic. I have not found a single site supporting the fact that satan is just a misinterpreted word so give me a site please. God did give us full freedom. Even the freedom to sin, which we did. God never denies freedom for anyone. The bible is a book of love and compassion and God did not set us up to fail. Nazareth did exist, here is a website to put that argument to rest. http://www.doxa.ws... God is one god and is not contradicted in the bible. Thieves weren't put on crosses in Rome, but local cultures were different. Plus, the word used in Hebrew which translate to thieve implies a major crime, not small time.
Existence of Creator- Yes or No, BoP on Pro

I've looked through your profile/voting log and it seems you are firmly atheist. Therefore I challenge you to a friendly debate: I must prove that a creator exists, and you must try to prove that a creator does not exist. BoP is only on me. Round 1: will be for acceptance Round 2: Arguments, no rebuttals Round 3: Rebuttals, no new arguments. Please accept, this will be a quick debate and fun too.
Existence of Creator- Yes or No, BoP on Pro

"There is creation, therefore there is a creator. Simple as that. I'm not necessarily pointing towards God (my beliefs are in the Christian God), but just a creator, maybe creators." Calling it "creation" assumes the existence of a creator. This is a "begging the question" fallacy (see source 9). As for the "argument from motion", as expected, it overlooks aspects of the physical world: Premise 3 "Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion" is flawed: There are plenty of examples of motion being produced from a system without some external moving force- supernovae (see source 10), for instance, are immense explosions caused by a star collapsing in on itself; no external motion needed- just gravity and nuclear potential energy. 5: plenty of things move themselves- CF: supernovae. 6: As before, not true- this is dependent on 3 and 5. 8 is very much dependent on 3, 5, and 6, and these have been refuted. Pro later says in R3: "Pro may overlook something in the physical world because God is fully capable of doing so because he is all powerful.". This would apply if I were using the laws of nature to argue that God cannot exist- God could violate these laws if he were to exist. However, it is not a response to pointing out the flaws in Pro's argument based on motion- that God could violate these laws is irrelevant; the argument Pro has produced is still not sufficient to use the laws of nature to justify the existence of God. So, to summarise: 1) As expected, Pro's case is based on the laws of physics, but he neglects crucial information and the argument falls apart as it is based on false premises. 2) Arguments based purely on philosophy are similarly flawed, and Pro even agrees about this. 3) The Big Bang convincingly explains the origin of the universe without the need to invoke a deity. 4) Therefore, it is unlikely that an intelligent creator exists, and it is certainly the case that Pro hasn't provided us with a convincing reason to think one does. Hence, I urge you to side with my case: there is no reason to think an intelligent creator exists. Sources: [9]: http://www.nizkor.org... [10]: https://www.nasa.gov...
Existence of Creator- Yes or No, BoP on Pro

By definition, A creator/God is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. If the creator is not one of these things, than the creator is not the creator. So, because the creator is omnipotent, or all powerful, he has the power to make spontaneous pair production seem like the means of creation to our feeble minds even if it isn't. He has infinite knowledge to know how to do so. He can violate conventional laws of science because he is all powerful. He transcends physical constants because he is all powerful. The philosophical argument you bring up is flawed I will concede that, that's why I didn't choose it. Pro may overlook something in the physical world because God is fully capable of doing so because he is all powerful. Anything you bring up, any point you offer can be easily defeated because the creator is omnipotent and omniscient. We can't understand it, it's too above us.
Existence of Creator- Yes or No, BoP on Pro

First off this is not an easy task to prove a creator exists, and if it was then everybody would be an atheist. But I will try nonetheless. There is creation, therefore there is a creator. Simple as that. I'm not necessarily pointing towards God (my beliefs are in the Christian God), but just a creator, maybe creators. I'll use the basic argument that Saint Thomas Aquinas used in his five proof s that a creator exists. There link for them is below in sources [1]. Check them all out if you want. I'll just be using the first argument. Taken directly from the website: The First Way: Argument from Motion 1.Our senses prove that some things are in motion. 2.Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion. 3.Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion. 4.Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another). 5.Therefore nothing can move itself. 6.Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else. 7.The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum. 8.Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God. I know I'm being lazy by taking someone's argument. Trust me, I got a lot more arguments, but for this debate I think using only this one will be sufficient. As the rules say, please state your argument for the opposite, and we can refute in Round 3. Thanks again to Con accepting this debate, I know it's short, but I accidentally put a lot of business on my hands and don't got that much time. But thanks for the debate. Sources: 1. http://web.mnstate.edu...
existence is absolute

Human life may be absolute, as far as we know. We have no proof, nothing that can deny your opinion if you are for it. What you are trying to reach, is something we cannot even reach. You're being philosophical, because these questions are yet to be found within boundaries of our universal limitations. Humans can in theory know everything about our physical presence and know everything about what exists right now. But we cannot know that much of what happens after our physical presence, because there hasn't been found any scientific solution to that yet. But of course, there are many creative and fun theories. After our physical presence, we re-animate into another physical presence. From a tiger to a human. Worm to butterfly. Human to any other conscious being. It's fun to think about.Perhaps our souls travel from this planet, to another dimensional universe. Perhaps we travel from being a human, into being some unknown biological life in a universe far away. Some other people mean that you re-live your life, and make other decisions which create a whole different outcome of you based upon the same circumstances. That's a very interesting theory.But of course, there are thousands of theories and I could go on all day. But I suppose we don't have time to discuss this interesting matter as we have other matters to attend to. Based upon our knowledge, this is a discussion that doesn't neccesarily have an explanation. Just like religion. You can believe in it if you want to, hope, but there is no actual knowledge of it's actual truth.Our existence, is yet to proven to be absolute. I don't know what's most frightening though, living forever or living once.
existence is absolute

"experience=now=remembering something"And you experience, which means you live it NOW. In the presence. And therefore the presence is true to you. And is therefore a truth to some degree."truth is not true, and false is not truth.."Truth CAN be true when it is in fact the truth. And the false is indeed not the truth."is=true=now=THIS word on the screen=matter" Yes indeed, but I believe these words only promotes my point of view."existence is true.. false is true on the level of your accepted oppinions contrary to my position as presented geniusly"But is existence true, or are we just a fantasy? False and truth can be agreed upon by people, but that defines nothing except their opinions. Truth stays true whether a person in reality/fantasy believes otherwise."how do you know its truth if it can be? can be is not.. i can drink a cup of coffe, i am not thou"Because the endless possibilities exist, based upon what we do not know. Our future can do anything, we can even be vaporized by a death-ray from a million light years away. Yet we are still uncertain what the future brings. So we are certain that we are uncertain what the future brings, and therefore the future can bring anything uncertain to us. All uncertain is very infinite to our mind. And therefore we say that truth CAN be anything just by the fact that the future CAN become the present and therefore the truth CAN become anything."truth is impossible, false is possible.. truth is in the past, i might have a dragon in my backyard, i will not show it no."Would you like to go deeper upon your sources? Why is truth impossible? Why must false be the only possible? And why are you speaking of your wild fantasy of dragons in your backyard? "truth=memory"Memories does certainly exist in the presence, they are true in your mind. "know=certain=true"Not really. One can be certain of a matter, and still not know the matter. And therefore a certainty cannot be true."belief is doubt"A highly illogical opinion, mis-led in fact. When you are having a belief, you are having no doubt in your opinion of matter. "truth can be defined as a cheese moon"Yet again, we find ourselves here. Truth can be defined as anything agreed upon by mankind. But truth can certainly not be defined as a cheese moon, as that is not what truth means. You're highly irrational again."truth is not real, it is not false either"I believe these are your best words so far. But they could drive a man insane by the looks of it. Because when is truth real? Will death create a new truth, where the truth is the false and likewise?
existence is absolute

experience=now=remembering something truth is not true, and false is not truth.. is=true=now=THIS word on the screen=matter existence is true.. false is true on the level of your accepted oppinions contrary to my position as presented geniusly how do you know its truth if it can be? can be is not.. i can drink a cup of coffe, i am not thou truth is impossible, false is possible.. truth is in the past, i might have a dragon in my backyard, i will not show it no. truth=memory know=certain=true belief is doubt truth can be defined as a cheese moon truth is not real, it is not false either
existence is absolute

"Truth is unchanging, truth can only be in the past now is true" I believe your words are a bit vague in the way you formulated them. You describe the truth as in what HAS happened, or something that WAS if I understand you correctly. Which means that you describe truth as something that no longer is. But if you change your perspective, and focus on something that IS, yes something that exists right now, then you'd have a true perspective of what truth certainly is. It consists of what is in the present. Sure, I take the point that the past has once been the truth, because earlier events are the results of what has been the "is". But that is not the definition of truth. "the quality or state of being true" The words above this paragraph is the definition of what truth is. (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) So a current state is something an item currently has. It needs to be in order to be a real state. Because every previous state doesn't define what the state is, because the state is dynamic, just like truth CAN be. I am simply saying it is possible for the truth to be dynamic, but not that it certainly must be. Therefore any previous state may be the true state of an item, but not necessarily. But yet again, defining truth is a very philosophical move of you. Whether true has been, is or has yet to come is reliant upon the consciousness. Because if one isn't conscious in the state of present, then what is truth to a person? One can grasp the words of truth and put them into several perspectives of the three dimensions of time. But if you ask what the truth is, then you're asking what has the quality of being true. And being true is yet another simple way to look at an object, because we often agree something to be true according to what has been agreed to in the past. But let me make this short, just as a counter-proposal to your argument. Where truth is defined is reliant upon your consciousness and consciousness is reliant upon your presence. Truth can be defined as what exists in the presence, and not something that has been because it simply cannot be the truth anymore because it doesn't exist anymore and therefore isn't real. As a conclusion; truth can only be in the present, as it is our only reality. No matter if the truth once was something else.
Steve Young is a Better Quarterback than Joe Montana

Throughout his career, Steve Young was a better quarterback than Joe Montana can ever hope to be. My opponent argues that because Joe Montana has more passing touchdowns, he is the better quarterback. However, passing touchdowns are not a direct reflection of how good a player is. Passing TD's are dependent more on the rest of the team than the quarterback, because it takes the whole team to drive downfield and a good wide receiver to catch the ball in the end zone. Also, Steve Young had 43 rushing touchdowns compared to Montana's 20. A better stat to evaluate the play of a QB is quarterback rating. Young had a superior QBR--96.8. Montana only had a QBR of 92.3. All of this is even more impressive when you consider Young's humble beginnings. Young played college football at BYU. In the beginning, he was so bad of a passer that the coaching staff considered switching him to defensive back. He worked hard on his passing though, and by his senior year he succeeded Jim McMahon as the starting QB. His senior year was good enough to attract the attention of the USFL's Los Angeles Express. The Express signed him to a 10-year, $40 million contract. Due to the team budget struggles, however, Young agreed to have the $40 million paid out over 40 years. Young was selected in the supplemental draft of USFL and CFL players by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. The Bucs traded Young to the San Francisco 49ers. In San Francisco, Young became a star, and arguably the best QB in history. Steve Young clearly has the better numbers in the stats that determine how good a QB actually is. He was a better, more accurate passer than Joe Montana. He is the best rushing quarterback in history. Overall, it's clear that Young is the better QB, meaning you should vote pro in this debate. Resources Used 1. http://bleacherreport.com... 2. http://www.pro-football-reference.com... 3. http://www.pro-football-reference.com... 4. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Steve Young is a Better Quarterback than Joe Montana

The con's arguments are flawed: once again he just says that Joe Montana is way better in his opinion. While opinions are important to have, when disproven you must ignore them. I clearly showed that Young was the better QB simply because of stats--stats are a direct reflection of how good a player is and Young has the better stats, so he is therefore the better player. He was better in passing and rushing. In fact, Young is often regarded the best rushing quarterback in history. This is even more impressive when you consider his humble beginnings. He only got into the NFL through a supplemental draft. Lastly, in the comment section my opponent made a ridiculous claim I was plagurizing because I used stats. Stats are open to the public and I simply used them to back up my arguments. Additionally, all of my analysis is 100% original. Any claim my opponent makes about plagurism is completely false and should be ignored in the final vote.