BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Creation is true

Evolution breaks the law of cause and effect. No effect can be bigger than the cause. What cause is big enough to have created the universe. Second law of thermodynamics says that things go from order to disorder. Evolution goes from disorder to order. Or the law of bio genesis that states life can only come from life. The law of probability says that if the chances are beyond 1 and 1 followed by 50 zeros than it is impossible no matter how much time is given. Because of all the things that make up a cell the chances of life coming from nothing is impossible using the law of probability. These are some major flaws in evolution.
Creation is true

The first cell could have been naturally forming lipid spheres, and these spheres randomly entrapped different combinations of chemicals. Or a randomness of chemical reactions created the first living cell. This, I know, is not solid evidence our intellect and techology can only show us so much at this point in time. In the future I guarantee that there will be a procen theory of where/how living cells came about. The reason for the moon still being in Earth's orbit is because a giant meteor hit the Earth early on, when the Earth was mainly mantle, this then sent out an explosion of mantle, rocks, and the meteor into space. The speed of the meteor was greatly reduced from the impact and the it stayed in the gravitational pull of the Earth. The mantle and other rocks formed onto that creating the moon. Since then the moon has been pulling away a few inches a year. It is predicted it will take about a billion years for it finally pull out of orbit and float into space.
Creation is true

To say evolution is true means that you believe that a living life form can come from a none living life form. The cell theory states... 1. All living organisms are composed of one or more cells 2. The cell is the most basic unit of life 3. All cells arise from pre-existing, living cells. How could the first cell have been made? And about the universe expanding if the moon is going further away from the earth (and it is) then if it were billions of years old then it would have been either touching the earth at one point or so close the gravitational pull would have been amazingly strong.
Creation is true

Creationism is not true. I am athiest, in this debate I do not intend to affend your belief. Where is the evidence of a superior being(s) that created this Earth and the rest of this universe? Plus there is clear evidence of evolution. Their is evidence of our universe expanding planets, stars and other bodies of the universe are moving and not by the force of a gravitational pull. Its expanding in a way particles would move if there was an explosion. The theory of this expansion is the big bang theory. A single particle the size of maybe a dime and it exploded one day releasing an enormous amount of energy and gas. You are thinking that I am stupid enough to believe that a small ball of energy exploded and created the whole universe, well yes. It seems more logical than a God creating the world in 7 days. And that it took billions of years to create what the universe is now. Evolution. We have skeletons of millions year old humans. The skeletons show what humans were before and how our body has mutated to become what it is now. The human race evolved to stand straight up on our two legs. All embryos show similar traits showing that we come from a single species in the beginning. Fossils show similarities between what we were and what we are now.
Communion is not more than a pagan ritual to give vegans hope and share what a friend is offering

Rebuttal “Yeah communion is a pagan ritual for the advocation of animal produce in the current world. As the world is andwas filling with piggy little people using milk and egg in everything.” There are different versions of Communion, but I will be assuming you are referring to the Catholic version. The first thing wrong with this argument is that Communion is not pagan. The definition of pagan is “pertaining to the worship or worshipers of any religion that is neither Christian, Jewish, nor Muslim.”[1] As Communion is a Christian ritual, it is not pagan. Another problem with your argument is that you claim that Communion is “for the advocation of animal produce.” The problem with this is that nothing eaten or drunk in Communion contains animal produce. The only thing which could, the bread, is specified by canon law to be “wheaten only” Canon 924 §2. The rest of your argument is unrelated to your resolution. Argument In your resolution you state that “Communion is not more than a pagan ritual to give vegans hope and share what a friend is offering.” I will be arguing that Communion is more than a pagan ritual to give vegans hope and share what a friend is offering First of all as I have already shown Communion is not pagan. It is Christian. It not just a pagan ritual as you contended it is a Christian ritual. Secondly Communion isn’t meant to give vegans hope more than, anyone else. Nothing about Communion is about vegans. Sources [1]: http://dictionary.reference.com...;
Communion is not more than a pagan ritual to give vegans hope and share what a friend is offering

Yeah communion is a pagan ritual for the advocation of animal produce in the current world. As the world is and was filling with piggy little people using milk and egg in everything. Its sometimes hard to order vegan foods and this how the world intended too be? No way why have an entire display of bar all containing milk? its madness is their not a niche for a bar of chocolate which is vegan.. The world is backwards and the only way too put it right is returning to scripture and look how there teach us, warn us and first and foremost.
Communion is not more than a pagan ritual to give vegans hope and share what a friend is offering

This is argument is about no longer having trust and believes in the church. That the church is just another place to respect the authorities at place and have the three headed god. Yet also have the Buddhist divinity in spirit. Which may get to four, three, two or one classifying me a pagan believing in any number of gods. The blood of Jesus is not only what my friend left for me but also in body in the form of bread so i do not have to share or feel bad about refusing my compatriots milk or egg to be in unified with his way of living. It just not the only way to increase happiness sharing in milk. Their is wine like our friend left us with.
RussianFish99 is probably a troll

Hey cutie. Troll- In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[1].So my opponent is a troll. His first round proves so, as 16kadams graciously points out in the comments section. He made a move on me, which I find very offensive. Flirting is a holy sacrament between a man and a woman, and he's trying to devalue this. We should kill him. Plus, look at my opponents debates: here are some choice quotes:" vote for russianfish99 because i am wite(:"" coffee is not good for you(:" (after imabench propsed a coffee-counterplan to my opponents sleep DA)" the is no way gay marriage should be allowed at all the reason a man a women we made is to have sex and have babys and if there are gay people runing around the will be no babys"" WTF how the F would you clone a person WTF is wrong with you. You need to get your head looked at(:"Obviously these are meant soley to disrupt productive debate, which makes my opponent a troll.Vote pro guys.1. http://en.wikipedia.org...(Internet)
Does Atheism = Immorality

Atheists are immoral because of being an atheist..because of becoming an atheist and god-haters Yes..they deny the author of all morality. Just because others are also immoral because they deny the true God and worship false gods doesn't make atheist moral by comparison. Again, my opponent is deceived who is an atheist. In fact, he did mention the communists because communists are famous atheists and out-spoken god-haters and famously corrupt and immoral and famously murder and murdered millions of people. Yet he said "no Atheists to date have done any genocide or terrible wrongdoing towards others"!My opponent likes to present his image of atheists apparently as if there had never actually been any before himself or his ideal of an atheist and that the world is deceived he is the first one working out the defense of his beliefs in the complete absence of history.My opponent isn't merely theoretically immoral as an atheist, he is demonstrating immorality by lying about communist as if they were not atheists because they murder people by the millions."Religion is one of the forms of spiritual oppression which everywhere weighs down heavily upon the masses of the people, " ..LeninToday's atheists have stumbled on what they think is a new and better system of thought that just happens to have a bloody past for thousands of years. But they simply want it to be new and not associated with its true past. Now they teach "communists were not atheists" as if everyone doens't already know they were. They are lied to, then lie to themselves, then lie to you. And they call that "not-immorality".God has made a song about them. It's a called Psalm 53.Psa 53:1 To the chief Musician. On Mahalath: an instruction. Of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God! They have corrupted themselves, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good. Psa 53:2 God looked down from the heavens upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God. Psa 53:3 Every one of them is gone back, they are together become corrupt: there is none that doeth good, not even one. Psa 53:4 Have the workers of iniquity no knowledge, eating up my people as they eat bread? they call not upon God. Psa 53:5 There were they in great fear, where no fear was; for God scattereth the bones of him that encampeth against thee. Thou hast put them to shame, for God hath despised them. Psa 53:6 Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! When God turneth again the captivity of his people, Jacob shall be glad, Israel shall rejoice. In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen
Does Atheism = Immorality

God proves morality. Everyone else just copies what God says and then takes credit for defining what "the right thing" is. If my opponent thinks no one proves morality, you wonder why he is trying to prove atheists can be moral. He is also deceived the communists were not guilty of mass atrocities. Anyone can find a fake Christian and launch accusations at God. Doing so in no way has anything to do with proving atheists are moral. In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen
Does Atheism = Immorality

No one can prove morality, it is simply the choice to the right thing. Many Christians have done wrong, no Atheists to date have done any genocide or terrible wrongdoing towards others no matter what "God" thinks. For example, Matthew Hale, serving 40 years in prison for attempting to solicit the murder of Judge Joan Lefkow; Michael Bray, served 46 months of a 10-year sentence for conspiring to bomb 10 abortion clinics in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington D. C. And finally Charles Coughlin, who tarted out innocently enough, using radio to decry the KKK for burning crosses on his church grounds, but ten years later, in 1936, he started praising and defending both Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini for their politics, and spewing some of the most despicable virulence against Jews to which the world had borne witness up to that point.He blamed the Great Depression on "an international conspiracy of Jewish bankers," then blamed Communism, the Russian 1917 Revolution, and Marxist atheism on "global Jewry, in its attempt to lead people astray from the perfection of Lord Jesus."
Does Atheism = Immorality

Atheist can occasionally do moral acts in the sense that they get "what is moral" from other religions, but not from atheism itself and even then they only do it as loud PR for atheism. Like Al Capone's soup kitchens: he was evil but used public acts of charity as a cover. Atheism is the same: you want to give "care packages" to one person and sue whole towns and cities if they offend you and think of yourselves as outside the law. Your "morality" is just cover for evil and the idea behind it is simply to use what someone else believes against them. "I did what you said was good and now I can do whatever else I want" is essentially your proposition. Everyone knows this. You cite giving care packages as moral. Atheism has never defined giving care packages as a good thing: a lot of other religions other than Buddhism pointed out sharing what excess you have with others thousands of years before atheism was called such by modern persons who dislike organized religion and hate Jesus Christ and Christians. Buddhism itself has no sense of morality: it is no "sin" within Buddhism to pour scalding hot water on you rather than in your tea cup. Atheism has no sacred texts and no creed..it is easy come easy go as long as something is pleasurable. If an atheist gives a care package and "feels good about it in front of everyone else" that was the whole point..not to feed the hungry or cloth the naked. The mere presence of emotionally negative feelings in another person do not dictate anyone's else's moral state or action. You are not moral or doing morality merely to make someone happy. You nor I are actually hostage to some strange religion that thinks if they don't eat human brains they ought to feel bad and thus we are obliged to give them brains to make them happy and if we don't we are not behaving "morally". When you start in with "what action is moral versus immoral" all an atheists is thinking is "how can I manipulate someone else's beliefs so that they think they owe me a compliment and equivalence with their own religion." But the fact the recipients of your packages might have been made more comfortable or happy has no bearing on whether or not you were moral. Notice the instant you did it and gave the packages, you were on this debate bragging about it. They were just grist for your mill. Isaiah 26:10 If favour be shewn to the wicked, he doth not learn righteousness: in the land of uprightness he dealeth unjustly, and beholdeth not the majesty of Jehovah. In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen
Does Atheism = Immorality

Thank you for replying You are claiming that in order to have morals you need a god, and that is truly sad. Im atheist and today I went out and gave care packages to the homeless, Atheist or not It depends on the person whether they are good or not; God is just a driving authoritative figure. And your statement about Atheism not being able to exist without Theists, many Asian religions believe in an equal balance of opposites. An example is the Yin Yang, one cant exist without the other. Atheism cant exist without Theism like yin can't exist without yang. The claim that Buddhists aren't moral is just wrong, Buddhism is built upon the belief that if you are a good person good things will happen to you in the long run, so your statement cant be valid. In the name of our Pastafarian overlord, the Flying Spaghetti Monster. RAMEN!!!
For someone to believe the bible literally they must either not understand or be ignorant of science

Hello, if you are reading thanks for sticking around to this last and final round. I will begin with my rebuttals :)Rebuttal"Here's a better one, when I took physics in high school, I was taught that F=MA, among other equations. This equation is wrong. "My opponnent continues to generalize that anything he is taught wrong must be globally taught wrong in all schools. Furthermore he is assuming that it is impossible for a particular school to make an honest mistake and not correct it. "They cannot, however, accept the bible literally, without not understanding or remaining ignorant of some scientific concepts. "I feel like this is my fault because we should of clarified this from the begining however I will now cite webster's definition of ignorance. Webster's DefinitionIgnorance: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awarenessThe opponent is obviously expressing clearly that he does not believe in creationism because he is assuming that a person that does not accept any scientific theories fully is ignorant. My the website my opponent has cited shows that a person can believe in evolution, a scientific concept, and the bible fully. However my opponent seems to be implying that if a person learns about another theory, lets say "the big bang theory" and chooses not to accept that as his/her truth. They are living in ignorance. Conclusion:My opponent's arguments is clearly based on the idea that all religion is fallacy and untrue and that all science holds all the answers. Therefore anybody in his class who may have learned about any scientific theories about the creation of worlds but chose not to accept it would indicate to him that they are ignorant of science. How they can be ignorant of science yet he is seems to understand so much better yet they are all in the same class is something I don't understand.
For someone to believe the bible literally they must either not understand or be ignorant of science

"I have never been taught that and don't know what statistic you are using to prove this statement as valid. "The statistic is a personal experiment of mine, consisting of 10,000+ people, so I'd say it's fairly accurate.However, you are right, the order of operations was a bad example. Here's a better one, when I took physics in high school, I was taught that F=MA, among other equations. This equation is wrong. (1)If fact, Newton never even said F=MA. It contradicts relativity and teachers should know that, but they tell their students that F=MA, which isn't far from the truth, but still not the truth. You say you're in high school, ask a physics teacher, does F=MA, they'll say yes, then tell them it contradicts relativity. This opens up the floodgates, because then they know you actually want to learn, not just be able to solve question 14 on your homework. "The article cites that many Christians support evolution as symbol of the biodiversity of life and believe in bible."Yes. Yes it does. Not sure I see a point here. They can still be Christians and accept evolution, that's not the point of this debate. They cannot, however, accept the bible literally, without not understanding or remaining ignorant of some scientific concepts. "Unless they failed the class it does not show they refused to understand but simply refused to accept"No, they don't need to have failed the class. Firstly, any biology class talks about more than just evolution, so they could get by failing the parts on evolution. However, I'm not claiming that they did, just that they didn't fully understand it. Like I said before, teachers teach that F=MA, not the whole truth. People are then tested over it, and can pass, even though they didn't understand the full picture. Without understanding evolution, I could remember phrases from a book, or just know about it without understanding it. (2) Knowing is not understanding. There is a great difference between knowing and understanding: you can know a lot about something and not really understand it. -Charles Kettering 1)http://usersguidetotheuniverse.com...2)http://www.cdtl.nus.edu.sg...
For someone to believe the bible literally they must either not understand or be ignorant of science

I will begin with my rebuttals :)Rebuttal: "If you were to show people this math problem, 6/2(1+2), about 2/3 of them would tell you the answer is one."I have never been taught that and don't know what statistic you are using to prove this statement as valid. I was taught order of operations since basically the third grade along with thousands of other students with me.However your point in that statement is that they are not taught the full situation all at once because they don't want to confuse them. Rather they are using a more effective method of first making sure they understand one part then teaching them the next. This is not a valid point showing the teachers would intentionally teach somebody something wrong because the teachers you are citing in your example have the intention of teaching the students something right.Rebuttal: "However on this site I noticed on the FAQ section is supports evolution as an fact and a theory and also supports that a person does not need to be an atheist to believe in evolution (1)." The article cites that many Christians support evolution as symbol of the biodiversity of life and believe in bible.Rebuttal:"They went to class but refused to understand. Like I said, evolution is complicated, and because they would rather believe the bible, why try to understand something they have already dismissed?"Unless they failed the class it does not show they refused to understand but simply refused to acceptIn conlusion my opponents arguments are cited mostly from experience which varies from place to place and therefore can't acurately represent all Christians.
For someone to believe the bible literally they must either not understand or be ignorant of science

"... teachers would not be teaching something that is incorrect if they knew it was wrong."Yes they would, and they do. Math is a good example. If you have ever heard of PEDMAS, you know it stands for parenthesis, exponents, division, multiplication, addition, and subtraction. Teachers use it to help their students understand the order of operations, but what they don't tell kids first learning PEDMAS, is that it is misleading. If you were to show people this math problem, 6/2(1+2), about 2/3 of them would tell you the answer is one. I have been lied to on many occasion by teachers so that people can understand things, then taught differently after people get the hang of it. "This link provides numerous points attempting to support evolution beyond the scope and understanding of any person who really has not extensively studied biology so you can hardly say it simplifies the concept of evolution. "I said earlier, evolution is not a simple concept. It can be explained simply, but to prove or fully grasp it requires study. "However on this site I noticed on the FAQ section is supports evolution as an fact and a theory and also supports that a person does not need to be an atheist to believe in evolution (1)." True, you can be a Christian and accept evolution. However, a person who believes that man was literary formed from dust and woman from his rib, cannot also believe that man evolved from billions of years of natural selection. "Yet you are saying that people in your biology class learned all the same things that you learned about biology in the class but rejected it. "No, I am saying that they remained ignorant. They went to class but refused to understand. Like I said, evolution is complicated, and because they would rather believe the bible, why try to understand something they have already dismissed? They go in with a closed mind and despite the evidence presented persist in faith by closing their eyes and plugging their ears (figuratively speaking, of course). And my second link was a bit of a joke. I was showing what the word theory means in science, you cannot call evolution just a theory.