BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Creationism should be taught in science classes

Pro, thank you for entering into this debate with me. Maybe I should have made the topic broader than YEC and just creationism in general. But anyway, I would argue that creationism, defined as the literal 6-day creation story in Genesis about 6000 years ago should not be taught in science classrooms. The reason is because this is not a scientific theory any more than any other old story about how the earth came to be is a scientific theory. Science tells us that the universe and the earth are much older than 6000 years. Science tells us that evolution did occur to an extent. Science tells us that the big bang is the explanation for the beginning of our universe. Science does not yet have an answer to how life began. Science has a good explanation of how galaxies and our solar systems formed. All of this is because of observation, research, study, experimentation, and predictions. Science is not perfect, it is ever-changing and growing. However science is the best tool we have to analyze the questions of our world. Science classrooms should teach what we know from scientific study. This is iimportant because if we do not, science classrooms simply end up teaching various ideologies and whoever has control gets to insert their ideology into the science curriculum. Science should simply rely on evidence. This is the beauty of science, it has the potential to be honest and unbiased. However introducing non-scientific theories simply because some people have this as their ideology is an affront to science and essentially hurts the entire process. This is what will cloud and muddy science in the future. Finally, you say "both are just theories." The problem with this is that they are not both SCIENTIFIC theories. A theory in science isn't a hypothesis, a possible explanation. It is the best explanation given the evidence at the time. But here is one problem that I think comes up that we have to be clear on: EVOLUTION, BIG BANG, OLD EARTH vs YOUNG EARTH, ABIOGENSIS, FORMATION OF GALAXIES, etc. are really all very different theories about very different things studied by very different people. We like to lump them together in the "science" bin and pin it up against the "God" bin. But this isn't right. These are all separate theories with their own merits and demerits. I think we can all agree on that. Because of this fact, we should just teach the best theory, and any other reasonable compeating theories in a science class.., However, if there are theories, like creationism, which may be valid from a philosophical or religious perspective, they should not be taught AS science. This is because they are NOT science. Now science should not be anti-religion or anti-philosophy but it should not teach religion and philosophy as science.
Creationism should be taught in science classes

Creationism should, most definitely, be taught be taught in all schools, including public. There is a list of things that are not allowed to be discussed in public schools. It includes various topics such as global warming, pro-life and creationism. In public school, creationism and evolution/ the big bang should be taught alongside each other because in reality, they are both just theories. The teacher should teach creationism, but it is the student's choice to choose what to believe. After all, school is about educating individuals to be aware of all things.
Creationism should be taught in science classes

It is a simple question: Whether or not young earth creationism should be taught in science classes in general and more specifically in public schools. This is not a question of whether or not evolution should be taught as well. This is a question of simply whether or not YEC specifically needs to be taught (alongside or without evolution...either way). I say it should not be taught in science classes since it is not science. I'll let the pro side make their argument first and then I will respond
Flat Tax

It's a bit of a trick question, isn't it? Because in the United States, even if we decided that it was a good idea, we'd never actually embrace a pure flat tax. The variations that are being rolled out by presidential candidates like Perry and Cain aren't actually a pure flat tax; a pure flat rate would mean that one tax rate is applied to all income with no deductions or exemptions. As taxpayers, we like our deductions and exemptions. So many of the flat tax proposals already chip away at the simplicity of a flat tax by adding ands, ifs, and buts in an effort to appeal to voters: That's exactly how our tax code became so bloated in the first place. That said, even with deductions and exemptions, I don't believe that a flat tax is a good idea. A flat tax isn't fair: 10 percent of income at the bottom isn't equal to 10 percent of income at the top. The cost of most goods is fixed, meaning that you don't pay proportionally less for gas or milk if you make less money. The price of merely surviving is somewhat fixed, making a flat tax not quite as flat as proponents like to pretend. Additionally, most flat tax proposals are based on earned income, which means that unearned income like interest and dividends would escape taxation. Taxpayers who work for a living would end up paying a higher rate of tax, relatively speaking, than those who relied on investments for the majority of income (like Jobs and Buffett). How is that remotely equitable? Of course, fair is clearly a relative concept. It's pretty difficult to get to a point that feels "fair" to everyone along the income spectrum. But maybe that's not quite the right end. About 25 years ago, Reagan embraced the idea of parity within each income bracket. That idea has some merit: In other words, each group of taxpayers who were similarly situated would pay the same rate of tax. It's not a flat tax but it speaks to the same goals: fair and simple. And I think it comes closer to achieving them. I agree that our current tax code is broken. But throwing it out in favor of something that can quickly grow to just as broken isn't the answer. A flat tax doesn't solve our problems: It just introduces new ones. Works Cited: http://www.usnews.com...
The summer is better than the winter

Well, I will rebut Pro's arguments in Round 1. "its warm and there is always plenty of stuff to do, especially outside. " There's plenty of stuff to do in other seasons too, like snowball fights in the winter, playing in the leaves in the fall. "Summer encourages us to go outside and do things we couldn't do when it was colder out. In the summer we can go swimming, barbecue, go to the beach, and we aren't just cooped up inside" In other seasons, for example winter, you have your own activities, like skating, snowball fights, in which you can't do in summer. "The summer offers more opportunities for fun than the winter does, and the weather encourages us to be outside. " Actually the heat DISCOURAGES me to go outside. Also please elaborate on "fun".
The summer is better than the winter

The summer is a time where kids are out of school, the sun is out, its warm and there is always plenty of stuff to do, especially outside. Summer encourages us to go outside and do things we couldn't do when it was colder out. In the summer we can go swimming, barbecue, go to the beach, and we aren't just cooped up inside. The summer offers more opportunities for fun than the winter does, and the weather encourages us to be outside.
Minimum Wage Should be Abolished

I forfeit. I see no point in asking for another lap when the odour emitting from the horse’s carcass is driving the spectators away. I have missed the point on occasions and have digressed into irrelevancies on others. I think if I had adequately prepared my argument, I would have a much stronger case, possibly a winning one. Nevertheless, I wish to apologise for my diluted arguments and offer congratulations to my opponent for bettering me in this debate.
Raising Minimum Wage Damages the Economy

The Effects of Minimum Wage on UnemploymentEmployers hire people to generate profit. Thus, they pay the workers how much they are worth. If you are a worker and you are worth at least $7 and hour to the worker, then you will be paid $7 an hour. You will likely never get a raise or promotion unless you work harder and prove your worth to the employer. A rise in the minimum wage hurts workers its trying to help. Before 2007, minimum wage was $5 an hour. This was more reasonable and teenage unemployment was decreasing. Then during 2007, the minimum wage was raised to $6. The results were negative and teenage unemployment increased rather than decrease. This is because the workers were costing more than what profit they were making for the employer. When the 2008 economic crisis hit, minimum wage was raise to $7 an hour. Teenage unemployment skyrockted to over 25%. This has been proven by many acamdemic studies. It also took a major toll on employment for minorities. It has effect all other employment sectors negatively. [1,2,3,4,5,6]Here is a graph: The Effects of Minimum Wage on PricesPrices rise. You have less of a product so you must do that to maintain profit. [7]Sources1. http://web.archive.org...2. http://epionline.org...3. http://www.mackinac.org...4. http://online.wsj.com...5. Adie, Douglas K. 2008 T "Did the Increase in Minimum Wage Cause Our Unemployment Rate to Rise?" . BALL STATE UNIVERSITY6. http://web.archive.org...7. http://blog.nj.com...http://www.youtube.com...
Is the change-up the most effective pitch in baseball

You can hang any pitch, yes, but because a change up is so slow, it isn't effective without a good fastball. On the other hand, the splitter is such an effective pitch, it can be used on it's own. [1] Roger Clemens, for example, survived off this pitch for the later parts of his career. It is much easier to hang a change up, and because of it's speed, it can be very easy to hit, and hit far. If you miss your location with a splitter, it will usually go in the dirt, and if you do hang it, it is still faster than a change up. [1] Bruce Sutter is another pitcher who lived off of it. You don't hear too often about pitchers living off of their change up. It just isn't as effective without a fastball.So, concluding this debate, I argue that the splitter is a much more effective pitch than a change up, because of it's similarities to a fastball. It can catch batters off guard when used with a fastball, or it can be used exclusively. A change up is just too slow and usually lacks movement when hung, and makes for a very hittable pitch. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Is the change-up the most effective pitch in baseball

"The Split finger fastball also moves, bottoms out, and decreases in speed, like a change up. The reason I choose a splitter over a changeup, or curveball, is that there isn't as much of a chance of hanging one. It is possible to hang one, yes, but pitchers are more likely to get burned hanging a changeup than a splitter." Wouldn't a high splitter be considered as hanging? You can hang any pitch. And you say how a change up is just like a splitter, yes it is. But while the splitter moves downward, the change up bottoms out and moves left or right and it drops. The change up is more effective than any other pitch when it comes to speed, movement, and catching the batter off guard.
Is the change-up the most effective pitch in baseball

The Split finger fastball also moves, bottoms out, and decreases in speed, like a change up. The reason I choose a splitter over a changeup, or curveball, is that there isn't as much of a chance of hanging one. It is possible to hang one, yes, but pitchers are more likely to get burned hanging a changeup than a splitter. It also has similar movements to a fastball, making it hard to discern between a fastball and a splitter. A changeup does the same, but I argue that splitters have more movement than a changeup. This is why I say the splitter is the more effective pitch.
Is the change-up the most effective pitch in baseball

I missed the last round due to the fact that I was unable to login to Debate.org. The Fastball, if effective, helps the change up work better. Yes i would agree to that statement. But have you've ever seen a fastball not work? A fastball, four seam/two seam, is a pitch thrown straight with little to no movement. A fastball is one of the only pitches that works consistently. The only variable is the speed. A change-up moves more effectively than a splitter. If you are going to throw a splitter, why not just throw a curve ball? A change-up catches the batter off guard greater than a splitter due to the fact the change-up bottoms out and moves while decreasing in speed. This makes the change-up the most effective pitch. Even if there is no fastball thrown, the change-up (with proper placement) can still be very effective towards getting outs by strike out or ground balls.
Is the change-up the most effective pitch in baseball

While the change up can be effective, you have to have a good fastball for it to work. Far too many pitchers cannot execute your standard four seam fastball, rendering other pitches nearly useless. There is one pitch though, that is an exception, and that is the split finger fastball. It can go at various speeds, and it moves more than a change up. Imagine standing in the batters box, and you see what looks like a fastball, similar speeds and all, but all of a sudden it bottoms out. Swing and a miss. It has saved the careers of pitchers like Roger Clemens (despite PEDs), Bruce Sutter, and David Cone. The change up is good, but without a good fastball, it is useless. A good splitter, on the other hand, can be throw almost exclusively, and still be very effective.
Is the change-up the most effective pitch in baseball

I feel that the most effective pitch in baseball is the change-up. When thrown correctly the change-up is the most effective pitch. It catches the batter off guard and has just enough movement to appear as a strike and then end up as a ball. Many pitcher make their career last longer when throwing this pitch. Johan Santana's career has been so great because he learned how to throw the pitch correctly and effectively. When a fast ball goes flying by the batter and the batter is expecting to have heat thrown at him, the change-up catches him off quard and throws him off. Making the change-up the most effective pitch in baseball.
animals should not be kept in cages

Thank you for my heart pains a little less with what you say. And yes I agree with what you have put forward. But that's a lot of lands allotted for the cause. Piggers 3000 sows to keep up with supplies and Hatchers wow the mind boggles and KFC chickens just don't taste as good as they once were. My humanities humane dear friend if we lived in an idealistic world I would be on board with what you have put forward. But hey only the wealthy can afford to pay the prices at the corporate supermarkets. and real people need feeding and land is plenty but unused or neglected. The scares in the wheat fields from the rising salt from over irrigation and farmers that are crush by corporate industry because the rain doesn't come. A farmers life is no picnic of cucumber sandwiches with a tall ice-filled glass of lemonade now, is it?
animals should not be kept in cages

ts highly necessary that animals are not kept in cages because the quality of the produce will not be as good or tasty as free range animals. Free-range animals will have had a happy life and have been able to peck at the grass, getting the nutrients they need. If caged produce is purchased the flavour of the food will not be as nice, because the animal has had a bad life and been forced to produce. Also 98% of free-range farmers believe that their animals are happy and have had 20% less sickness than caged animals. "They deserve a happy life too!" Free-range farmers tell us. "So animals deserve to live a good life too, you do!"
animals should not be kept in cages

You must be one of the few of humanities humane. This is a road least travelled and most that do lest we forget. Liberties I like your hat. Have you ever worked in a piggery or a chicken farm or a slaughterhouse or have you ever had a fish on a line and watched it fight for its own liberties and put your own needs before others and then gutted and eaten it. Have you played music or talked to your garden while it grows and when ready cut it down to eat it? My heart aches at this but what chose have we got, stave to death. I have worked in these places and I could tell you the reasoning of it all if you like but hey we are supposedly the dominant species are we not.
animals should not be kept in cages

People are locked up in cages are they animals or victims of a system that has failed them. Plants are locked in the ground in one place and communicates with the other plants about it. So animals are kept in cages as to be raised for the slaughterhouse or abattoir for our own consumption. Now if we the human race did not eat meat within our own evolution we would not be as we are. Are some plants alive as like animals? YES Are some people alive as like animals? YES Are some animals as bad as people? YES Are we anything more than professional murders? YES Are we professional murders of each other? YES We all have blood on our hands and if you think that you have not then you are a wanker and if your not a wanker then you are a lier. Zoos keep animals in cages. But the animals are very well looked after. Circuses do keep animals in cages and they shouldn't. Because the animals just don't get the treatment that they deserve. So don't go to the circus is they have caged animals.
ye

Hmm, I don't think you understood my metaphor or perhaps it was a bad one. Either way my point still stands, The Housegod is beyond the laws and realities of His creation therefore He is not bound by it. The Lord and His creation is separate and therefore he must not come from it. Your question was originally from where He came if He created the universe, I can not answer this since even if a mortal man knew he probably wouldn't be able to fathom. I like to believe it is most likely that The Housegod emerged before time in a mist of holy smoke, but that is just me personally. And I never said The Housegod is the universe and his creation, that is the opposite of what i said.
ye

All I can do is speak of what is true in representation of my congregation, that is The most high Congregation of The Housegod, and to a certain extent Christians. Creation (the universe) as made by The Lord does not have to include Him in it. In the same way one might create something like a piece of art, a house or a geese The Lord created the universe in separation from it. No sane man believes that if he has made something he must be part of it, yesterday I made some fine and highly tasty brownies but that does not mean that my existence must be explained through and only by using the brownies. Just because I created I'am not part of them, the same holds true for The Housegod (God) and the universe. The same reasoning leads to the conclusion, at least within The Congregation of The Housegod, that The Lord can not be ever-present nor exist under some forms of pantheism. Because The Lord, as I with my brownies, does not become the object of His creation. I can poke, taste and even grab one of my brownies, but I can't become the brownie nor can I be ever-present with the brownie if I were to split it and keep one half of it in the kitchen and take the other one with me to the living room, the same holds true for The Lord. But that is really besides the point. To fully answer your question; the mystical existence of The Housegod lies beyond our perception of the universe and He is to a cretin extent separate from it.
Jesus Christ is technically a zombie

== Rebuttals ==R1) Definition of "zombie"Pro's source has an entirely different definition of "zombie". The definition Pro provided is not seen in his source, thus I shall use an alternate definition. "Zombie" is defined as "a person or reanimated corpse that has been turned into a creature capable of movement but not of rational thought, which feeds on human flesh." [1]R2) CorpseThis is under the *assumption* that Jesus was resurrected. Sociologist Reza Aslan writes, "[T]he resurrection is not a historical event ... the event itself falls outside the scope of history and into the realm of faith." [2] While historical consensus determines that Jesus' tomb was probably empty, it is unlikely historically that Jesus was actually resurrected. [3] In addition, the earliest Biblical gospel, Mark, never contains the story of Jesus' resurrection. "The 'resurrection' passages were later added to Mark, and his gospel was changed by Matthew and Luke, the Gospel writers are anonymous. It was necessary for Matthew and Luke to change Mark according to their own understanding, they also relied upon the Q source. Regarding the Gospel of John, it’s completely different and draws upon ambiguous sources. The oldest manuscripts of the New Testament are Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, both of these Greek manuscripts have no ending for Mark!" [4] In addition, there is low a priori probability that the resurrection occurred, since that would contradict standard scientific facts and beliefs.R3) "Eating humans or their brains"Pro *concedes* that Jesus didn't "eat humans or their brains". Eating human flesh is essential to the definition of zombies, thus if something does not fulfill this, it *cannot* be called a "zombie". Pro forms a completely unjustified ad hoc explanation for this, that Jesus is an "advanced breed of zombie". But Pro has to demonstrate that Jesus *is* technically a zombie, not that he *might be*. I will even accept inductive arguments, but Pro is merely acknowledging *possibility*, which is irrelevant to the resolution. R4) Capable of movementAccepted, but nonetheless irrelevant. == My Case ==(1) RationalityBy the definition of zombies, they are *not* capable of rational thought. [1] Jesus was a great thinker and preacher, thus *was* capable of rational thought, as a sane human. Thus, this entirely refutes the idea that "Jesus was a zombie". (2) Jesus was not resurrectedAs mentioned, historical consensus agrees that Jesus was *not* physically resurrected. Thus, he cannot be considered a zombie, as Pro alleges. == Conclusion ==Jesus does not fulfill all properties required to be referred to as a zombie. Thus, Jesus cannot be one. == Sources ==[1]: Google ("define zombie") [2]: Reza Aslan (2013). Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. Random House. [3]: http://www.garyhabermas.com...;[4]: http://answering-christianity.com...;
Jesus Christ is technically a zombie

Although the definition of a zombie is quite well-known, I shall state it in this debate- zombie- a reanimated corpse that is capable of movement and mostly eats humans or their brains and is usually low in intelligence. source- google dictionary https://www.google.co.in... Easter is basically the celebration of the revival of Jesus Christ after being crucified. Since Jesus Christ actually died, and was revived, according to Christian belief and the source below, he manages to fit the criterion for a zombie. http://christianity.about.com... 1. Corpse Jesus Christ was buried after his death. Therefore before being revived he would be a corpse. 2. Eating humans or their brains Although Jesus didn't do that, chances are he is an advanced breed of zombie. He also may be sucking brainpower telekinetic-ally from his followers for them to believe he is the God, and as Christianity says he is the God or has God-like powers he may have moved over the zombie instinct of consuming humans. Also, as featured in the popular game Plants Vs Zombies, zombies can even eat plants, so Jesus may have restrained himself to remain in civilization as a God. 3. Capable of movement Jesus was believed to be a human, so is capable of movement. He may have said he was drunk to cover up his staggered movements, if he wasn't the fast-type of zombie. Chances are he is an hybrid. To all Christians, I am not attacking religion or anything, this debate was just created for fun.