BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is no Biblical evidence for an young Earth

:) First I will refute my opponent's arguments: You say: "Now, my opponent uses the excuse that the Bible was written with human error. There are two problems with this." I actually said human misinterpretation. That's not necessarily error. "One, we hold the Bible to be our source of truth on Earth. It is what we Christians live by. " It's not untrue. MISINTERPRETATION. "Second, God DID write the Bible, through human hands. He laid it upon them what to write. He laid it upon them what to write. God would not let all of humanity be mislead with human error." One again. It's not error. It's misinterpretation. For example, in the part of the Bible where Moses was with God as the burning bush, Moses asked of his name and God said "I am who I am" He said his name was indecipherable by humans. Yet, in Hebrew, "I am who I am" makes up the initials YHWH, so they came up with Yahweh. Then later, we came up with God. Wait a second, I thought his name was Yahweh. Wait another second, I thought it was indecipherable. Or maybe, just maybe, back in then they lacked such a word as 'God'. Or, maybe, his name was "Am who I am" and they thought that was a statement. "The answer to both of your questions can be found in the Bible. Read Genesis 1:29–30, and Job 40:15–24. These passages both describe dinosaurs, and how they co-existed with humans. The Bible both tells of dinosaurs, and their life with humans. These were just a few passages of the numerous ones mentioning dinosaurs in the Bible." Ok. Why are they extinct. I mean ALL of the dinosaurs. All like 10,000 species. And you can't blame it on the Ark because Job is a long time after the flood. That's because the Bible doesn't talk about dinosaurs. 'Furthermore, the Urs were not actually present 10,000 years ago. The Earth is not that old, so how could people be there without an Earth?' Oh I'm sorry. That was the Sumerians. Still. Here's my conclusion: As things are translated and translated, or information is handed down from one person to the next, it's likely to be modified simply from misinterpretation. We humans misinterpret a lot. Like I said, they could have simply lacked the words to describe 4.6 billion years of Earth history in 7 phases as they once lacked to words to describe God. My opponent keeps a blind eye to this argument and justifies himself by saying "God would not let humanity be mislead with human error." He let's a lot of things happen for the sake of free will. Thousands of innocent people die every day. God doesn't interfere with our every action, otherwise we wouldn't really be free, life would be meaningless, God wouldn't be very glorious and everything bad that happened would be God's fault. "Resolved, there is no Biblical evidence for a young Earth." Affirmed.
There is no Biblical evidence for an young Earth

To refute your argument "I would disagree. Being that we are both Christians, we believe the Bible to be a source of truth. God intends for us to read the Bible, it is the manual for life. Because he wants us to be able to interpret it, I believe he would put it in terms that we can easily understand. If by "days" He actually meant "light years", then He would be lying through the Bible. The Bible is a source of truth, correct? Therefore, lies cannot be told through it. God meant seven days, when He said seven days." - Did God Himself write the Bible? Or did people write what they intepreted as God's will? Are people perfect? Here's the answer to all of these questions: No, Yes, and No. Therefore, how are you mistaking a mis-interpretation with a lie? That's like if I tell you 'The Bears ate the Panthers' and you told your friend 'Oh my god, some wild bears ate some panthers' when really I was talking about a football game, are you necesarily lying, or did you just mis-interpret what I was trying to tell you? And besides, how can the world be 4000 years old when the first civilization aroused 10,000 years ago (the Urs) "Here are the facts so far, and correct me if I'm wrong: 1-We both agree that the Bible is true 2-The Bible gives us evidence for YEC 3-YEC is true, since it is proven in the Bible" 1. Yes. 2 and 3, no. Also; "Here is a website that details it out for you if you want to read it. http://www.abiblestudy.com...; This document claims that dinosaurs existed alongside humans. How could humans exist with these things around and live? Now, why the heck are dinosaurs extinct? The Bible gave NO account of the dinosaurs. This is why I am winning this debate: My opponent is giving no evidence on how the bible necesarily argues and supports YEC. For what I know, this is another mis-interpretation. Seriously, you have yet to give any PROOF of YEC. Adding up ages of biblical figures doesn't mean we can conclude 'A ha! So the world must be 4,000 years old.'
There is no Biblical evidence for an young Earth

My opponent only makes one claim. This is essentially that we mis-interpret what the Bible is trying to say. Instead of actual "days" we are in fact dealing with other time periods, right? I would disagree. Being that we are both Christians, we believe the Bible to be a source of truth. God intends for us to read the Bible, it is the manual for life. Because he wants us to be able to interpret it, I believe he would put it in terms that we can easily understand. If by "days" He actually meant "light years", then He would be lying through the Bible. The Bible is a source of truth, correct? Therefore, lies cannot be told through it. God meant seven days, when He said seven days. Now, on to the cold, hard evidence that is easily found in the Bible. Man was created four days after the first day. The first day was roughly 4,000 years ago. "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth...God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. So the evening and the morning were the first day." -Genesis 1:1, and 1:5. How do we know the Earth has been around for about 4,000 years you ask? Simple. The Bible tells us. There are many genealogies throughout the Bible. Here are a few: Genesis 5 Adam – Noah Gensis 11 Noah – Abraham Abraham to Moses is then counted Moses to Judges then Judges to Kings then Historical timelines. Here is a website that details it out for you if you want to read it. http://www.abiblestudy.com... So, if you count, this totals to be around 4,000 years, allowing for different calendar translations. Here are the facts so far, and correct me if I'm wrong: 1-We both agree that the Bible is true 2-The Bible gives us evidence for YEC 3-YEC is true, since it is proven in the Bible Taking all this into account, one can only see YEC as the only option regarding the Bible. Thank you.
There is no Biblical evidence for an young Earth

I'm a Christian and everything but geeze, I'm tired of people trying to say that the Earth was only 4000 years old. The Bible doesn't say such an absurd thing. As for the whole thing in genesis about God creating the Earth in seven days, has the thought ever crossed anyone that perhaps we once lacked words to describe extremely long segements of time and space? Did Moses know what a light-year was? No, but if God told him that he lived 7 lightyears away from here and Moses didn't understand, he would say seven ___(whatever is the unit of distance back then). Instead of 7 days, why not think of it as 7 phases? Hmmm? Because people can't think outside the box. For example, when Jesus says love thy neighbor as thyself, does that literally mean wash and clothe your neighbor and give each of your neighbors a portion of your earnings, and let your neighbor sleep with your wife? Now, the burden of proof is on you. You have to prove there is evidence for young Earth. Good luck.
Feminist is sexist

Firstly you are completely contradicting yourself by saying 'This is hugely insulting to mean', but voting for con. Okay let's ignore this confusion and get to the debate. Feminism was founded when women were treated as if they were inferior to men. They weren't allowed an education, couldn't vote and were nothing more than sex-slaves to the men of that day and age. The whole idea of feminism was that woman should be treated equally to men and have the same rights as them. Hardly insulting to men. Since then they have been treated better, but still are still on average paid less than men and in some countries are still denied education. In the 21st century a few individuals calling themselves feminists have been rather insulting to men. They are not true feminists. They're just attention-seeking idiots who have taken advantage of the women who fought immensely for their rights to justify hating men. In conclusion the idea of true feminism is not insulting to men...
Welfare is a form of forced charity. It is wrong and should be outlawed.

1) want evidence? the congressional demographics commission states that 87% of welfare recipients belong to families with children under 16. 2) if charities solved this problem, id agree, but there is absolutley no way you can prove this. reason? : charities contribute about 1.2% of what welfare does (Newsweek, Jan 08) 3) charity money is also often corrupted. I agree there should be reform to our welfare system to make sure the money goes to needy people, but repealing doesnt solve this issue. 4) help people be free? pretty sure we are free. and PEOPLE dont adequetly help other people. thats what makes welfare necessary.
Welfare is a form of forced charity. It is wrong and should be outlawed.

"poor children and elderly people who have no ability to work, they should just suck it up" Go down to the welfare office and tell me what percentage of "poor children and elderly people who have no ability to work" are in those lines. It would be nice if these truly needy people were the majority of those receiving welfare. But you know that's not true. Before our great welfare state existed, lazy people did have to "suck it up." But truly needy people did not. It's easy to spot a truly needy person, and private charities have always been around to do that. And I'm sure there was a day when people could afford to give more to those private charities (because their paychecks weren't being confiscated). Before FDR started the ball rolling toward turning the U.S. into a socialist republic, people helped people. It wasn't government, just people helping people (private charity). Since private charities are and were run mostly by volunteers, most of the money donated was spent on those in need. Private charities keep costs lower because they are largley staffed by volunteers. They also experience less fraud because (unlike government welfare), they are able to discrimate between the people who need help and those who are able-bodied and just plain lazy. Long before government decided its job was to save people rather than help them be free, it was PEOPLE who helped other people in need. That same good will that resides inside each liberal, resides inside all of us. We just disagree on the delivery method. You think charity should be forced. We think it should be voluntary. We want to express our generosity through genuine charity. It's commom knowledge that private charity is way more efficient than welfare, and therefore better for the donor and the recipient. Most of all, it just plain feels better. Welfare cheats the truly needy, rewards laziness, turns otherwise willing givers into victims of theft, and bastardizes the whole concept of giving.
Welfare is a form of forced charity. It is wrong and should be outlawed.

So i suppose poor children and elderly people who have no ability to work, they should just suck it up? Your argument is based on a ridiculous proposition: that everyone can earn money at will. they cant. They really cant. In this, or any country, you can see that high rates of unemployment, poor economic stability or outsourcing are prevelant in many cases. this makes one man = one job, impossbile. there are extenuating circumstances and your friends that are too lazy to work are only a fraction of the unemployed community. And its not my soft spot, its common logic. Part of being american, being a capitalist, being democratic is being willing to help your neighbor when he is in need
Welfare is a form of forced charity. It is wrong and should be outlawed.

"When those less fortunate dont recieve enoguh via charity, the government must help" It is you who believes the government "must" help, but you want to use my money and the money of your fellow Americans to provide that help. Why should a soft spot in your heart cost me or anyone else money? I know a lot of broke people, and very seldom does it have to do with misfortune. If you can't make it in this country, you may be one of the least resourceful people on the planet. But let's say I am broke due to misfortune. Do I have the right to expect a charity to take care of me or for the goverment to pick up where the charity left off. Absolutely not. Charity is noble, just like helping the old lady nextdoor take out her trash cans. It feels good. But does that mean it should be required by law? Absolutely not. The fact that charity is voluntary is the reason it does feel so good. And replacing it with inefficient government-imposed charity just leaves that much less in our pockets to support good charities and feel good about it.
obama is incorrect in taxing the rich ($250,000 a year) and giving to the poor!

"What if someone is disabled, can't find a job, or retired, or otherwise handicapped should we also let them starve. " They did not chose to be disabled or handicapped then no… but the poor class is not made up of handicapped and disabled people… it is made up of mostly people who are to lazy to try to find work or keep it… Let me tell you some thing that is personal… I did not have a great life I was on the road to poverty but I chose to turn it around… I chose to stop being lazy and what do I get for it… more taxes… . http://www.washingtonpost.com... "Critics argue that Obama's plan would punish success and stifle the very kind of spending that would foster investment and economic growth. " In total, the changes amount to nearly $1 trillion in new taxes on the wealthy over the next decade. The 95% of American families at lower income levels would share about $770 billion in new tax breaks over the same period. . http://www.politico.com... It's just not fair vote pro. .. it is just not fair to vote con. .. think about america.
obama is incorrect in taxing the rich ($250,000 a year) and giving to the poor!

If people choice to starve… then let them… it is a free country… that's what makes us America… the right to" What if someone is disabled, cant find a job, or retired, or otherwise handicapped should we also let them starve. the only people that affects are those right at the barrier like those making 240k k a year not wanting to make 250k. {think you would be happy about Obama lowering you taxes.} Obama is spending billions of dollars and the only way to pay for all things the government pays for is to raise taxes. you cant raise taxes on the poor because they don't have any money, so that leaves the top two percent of our citizens the people that can easily afford these slight tax increases. the tax increases that obama is referring to is the repeal on the Bush tax cuts which would have dissolved in 2012. a large part of the reason for this increase is the bail out money, which certainly does not qualify as giving to the poor.
obama is incorrect in taxing the rich ($250,000 a year) and giving to the poor!

"Regardless of how hard they work for that money they can afford to contribute more. " But this is not fair… at all… just b/c they can afforded it lets just take advantage and take more… that I just unfair "Would you suggest we let people starve."? If people choice to starve… then let them… it is a free country… that's what makes us America… the right to freedom "Why would raising taxes on the rich discourage someone from wanting to be rich? Would they not still be rich after taxes." Look my wife is a nurse… if she works one day of over time then she gets 500 dollars more on her check for that 1 day… if she works a 2nd day she gets 200 dollars for that 2nd day of over time… if she works a 3rd day of over time in a two week span. Then for the third day she makes 97 dollars for that day… Everyday extra day she works 12 hour shifts… but b/c working 3 days makes us fall under a different tax bracket it takes 400 dollars in tax for that third day. So what does that do… it is not worth it for her to work more then two days over time… the hospital stays under staffed and we can not afford to make something better of our lives b/c 97 dollars for the third day of over time is not fair since after the 1st day we got 500… http://www.treas.gov... "I need sources to rebut the other points in that paragraph." http://www.treas.gov... http://www.census.gov... http://www.bls.gov... http://www.census.gov... Based upon the first tax cuts before the printing of money and inflation of the dollar Sorry about the room situation... i just find limiting allows people to read with out being overwhelmed... i say more rounds with fewer characters... sorry again i know how frustrating it can be to make a point and be cut of or made to edit a great spirited debate... Again sorry
obama is incorrect in taxing the rich ($250,000 a year) and giving to the poor!

regardless of how hard they work for that money they can afford to contribute more. { does a CEO work harder than a farmer} "nothing should be handed to you" would you suggest we let people starve. 'obamas plan just discourages someone from trying to make it big. " why would raising taxes on the rich discourage someone from wanting to be rich. would they not still be rich after taxes. "why did the worst economic downturn since the great depression happen when these tax cuts were in place? " B/c war is expensive" the war cost the government allot of money, not the elite. now to my opponents next argument because of his lack of sources on these subjects I will not be able to refute all the points. 1920 congress cut taxes 5 times. .. the us treasure said "as tax rates declined the economy was strengthen further", after the stock crashed in 1929 taxes were raised" in short the treasury director was wrong. the obvious correlation is congress cut taxes on the wealthy in 1920s then we had a depression, Bush cut taxes then there was a massive recession. I need sources to rebut the other points in that paragraph. I am running out of space here so I will differ my arguments to the next round.
obama is incorrect in taxing the rich ($250,000 a year) and giving to the poor!

"We live in a country were the top "300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans"." Do you not think that they worked hard for that money… this is the principle at which America was founded on… you have to work for your money… nothing should be just handed to people… Obamas plan just discourages someone from trying to make it big and encourages more people to sit on their butts and do nothing to better them selves. You just quoted Obamas way of shutting the wool over the eyes of American… lets call a spade a spade… he is raising taxes… period "If this is true than why did the worst economic downturn since the great depression happen when these tax cuts were in place?" B/c war is expensive… history shows that cutting taxes work... 1920 congress cut taxes 5 times... the us treasure said "as tax rates declined the economy was strengthen further", after the stock crashed in 1929 taxes were raised and by 1936 the tax rate was 79% increased... by the end of ww2 taxes were raised so much that the wealth had a top marginal tax rate of 94%... they took there money out of country, so Reagan came in were 1981 he cut taxes… worked so good that democrats even admitting that tax cuts worked… "Also Clinton had a much higher tax rate for the wealthy and that was one of the US's strongest periods of economic growth." Collapse of USSR… low inflation… plus we had the Internet just starting up… that's the answer. So the first tax cuts of bush worked, when people get money they spend it therefore economic growth… Bush had tax cuts but then barrowed to do it…and then the printing of money came into play… that does not work. You are right. But that has nothing to do with just cutting taxes instead of making the wealthy pay for there hard work and give the people that are not trying at all some money. Bush printed money and that was wrong… but Obama is doing the same thing.
obama is incorrect in taxing the rich ($250,000 a year) and giving to the poor!

"=== the problem with this is that without that source of income he government would not be able to pay for road, schools, social security, welfare programs. Medicare, food stamps, etc,etc,etc ==="Again I am not wealthy but if I were I would be upset… they work just as hard as anyone if not more to accumulate wealth and it is not far to tell tax them b/c of the work they put in to things just happens to make them money… or smart enough to know how to. "=== we live in a country were the top "300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans". . http://www.nytimes.com... this is obama's plan for those making more than 250k a year "Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut. " . http://www.barackobama.com... as you can see he is not raising there taxes but repealing the Bush tax cuts. ==="If you allow them tax breaks they will be able to create more jobs and increase there business, in turn giving Americans more jobs and better pay"=== If this is true than why did the worst economic downturn since the great depression happen when these tax cuts were in place? also Clinton had a much higher tax rate for the wealthy and that was one of the US's strongest periods of economic growth.
obama is incorrect in taxing the rich ($250,000 a year) and giving to the poor!

Thank you for taking this on… You are correct… he does support a higher tax bracket for the wealthy and tries to say that he is giving tax breaks to the middle or lower class. The reason why I posted this was b/c of people just care about their situation without thinking about history. I think we should cut taxes if not eliminated income tax period. But now on the wealthy, I am not wealthy by any means of the term… by wealthy I am referring to Obamas plan to tax people making 200,000 or more a year. Again I am not wealthy but if I were I would be upset… they work just as hard as anyone if not more to accumulate wealth and it is not far to tell tax them b/c of the work they put in to things just happens to make them money… or smart enough to know how to. They should not have to pay most of the taxes so the pres. can just continue to spend money on needless things continuing in our national debit. I just don't think it is fair to tax the Americans who already were paying for 45% of taxes already… It is just going to cause them to take their business out of country. If you allow them tax breaks they will be able to create more jobs and increase there business, in turn giving Americans more jobs and better pay Wealthy people do no just hoard money they in turn invest money into our economy. Just cut taxes or eliminate them.
obama is incorrect in taxing the rich ($250,000 a year) and giving to the poor!

I would also like it to noted that I took this debate purely for arguments sake. first Obama does not tax the rich then give the money to people with less. he does support a higher tax bracket for the wealthy, and social welfare programs. I cant argue this very well until I know why you think Obama is wrong about this. because of this I will defer my arguments to the next round