BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution (Pros) VS. Adam And Eve (Con)

Oh sh*t it's Mikal, I mean, good luck.DEFINITION:Evolution Definitions:a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better Case 1: Proving EvolutionFirst, I would like to prove how evolution is real. In a shocking discovery, we share 98.6% of our DNA with an ape. (1) if you click into link, you can barely tell the ape and human chromosome apart! Yet, when you compare it to a mouse's chromosomes, you can clearly see the difference. This proves that the ape and humans are greatly related. This proves evolution. Still not satisfied? Well, we should prove evolution using man's best friend. It is proven we share 5% of our genome sequence with dogs and mouse. (2) this again proves evolution. Even dogs and mice have a scientific similarity! Here you can see the images of the human, mouse, and ape chromosomes. As you can see, this points towards evolution, as you can barely see the difference between the human and ape chromosome, but you can clearly see the difference between the mouse and the human. Here you can see the similarities of our brain. However, you will see our brain is considerably larger. This gives us the power to communicate and give us a sense of right and wrong. Here you may see how the skulls start out with a little similarities, but then has a bigger and bigger resemblance Here you can see the beginnings and current human skulls. When you look at the first one, you see it is very different. It then gradually evolves into the human skull we know today.Case 2: Adam And EveThe Bible self-destructs with everything science has taught us. The science of forensics disproves Adam and Eve 100 times over. If we are from Adam and Eve, We would practically be cousins with everyone in the world! No. This is scientifically impossible. Instead, forensics states that we are not all related. Adam and Eve also don't explain race. If we are all descendants from Adam and Eve, we would all be one race. Adam and Eve states they have two sons, Kain and Abel, but, WHERE THE HELL ARE THE GIRLS?!???!? They must have had something to repopulate with. It is also said Adam and eve knew how to speak, but even cavemen had no idea of the simplest languages! Wouldn't Adam and Eve have taught their children to speak their language? They also say that Adam and Eve eat from the tree of knowledge, yet, man has never found a tree that give knowledge of everything in the universe! The tree had a fruit, which means it probably had seeds, which would have made other trees similar to it, giving infinite knowledge of everything. They also say that the snake spoke at one time, yet, the snake has no vocal cords! (5) There is also evidence that the Earth is older than 4,000 years. Human footprints believed to be 40,000 years old have actually been older! It is 51,000 years old. (3) Even a tree shows the Earth is older than 4,000 years! (4) That is all Adam and Eve should be taken as. A story. 1. http://www.amnh.org...2. http://news.nationalgeographic.com...3. http://www.berkeley.edu...4. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...5. http://www.infoplease.com...
Evolution (Pros) VS. Adam And Eve (Con)

Sadly Pro Concedes this debate and I am going to explain why. " Okay, Adam and Eve is metaphorical, but so is evolution "(1) He has the BOP. He took the stance that evolution is the only answer for why we are here. That is on him to uphold. He has to disprove that the story of Adam and eve is true. By acknowledging that the story is metaphorical and could represent the genesis of life , he concedes this debate. (2) I do not have to show that evolution is false, but show that Adam and Eve could be true to uphold my end. Even if both can exist simultaneously, I win the debate due to the BOP. (3) Evolution is metaphorical is the wackiest claim I have heard in this debate, he tried to argued it scientifically and then says it is a metaphor. This refutes almost every point he has made thus far since they were all scientific. By dismissing the fact that evolution is not scientific we must drop all of his other arguments, because it undermines all of his previous contentions. ConclusionThere is no way for Pro to win this. He did not meet his BOP, he changed the entire foundation for his argument in his closing statements which leads us to dropping all of his previous stated contentions, and he even concedes that Adam and Eve "is" a metaphor. The key word is "is", he did not say adam and eve "could be" a metaphor but that it "is". By doing this he concedes the debate. He is acknowledging the con positionLet me restate this one more time to the voters. I am arguing that Adam and Eve is a true story and he is arguing for evolution. All I have to do is show they are compatible to win. Review this statement " Okay, Adam and Eve is metaphorical, but so is evolution "He concedes to the negation of the affirmed. The debate is not affirmed.
Evolution (Pros) VS. Adam And Eve (Con)

Okay, Adam and Eve is metaphorical, but so is evolution. We could say evolution is metaphor for changing over time mentally. So evolution can be taken metaphorically. Thus, since I have proven evolution in scientific and metaphoric stance, and you have only proved Adam and Eve metaphorically, and not literally, I win convincing arguments.Ladies and gentlemen, I have proved:Evolution is true scientificEvolution is metaphoricAdam and Eve can't be proven scientifically.Thank you.
Evolution (Pros) VS. Adam And Eve (Con)

Note : Generally the opening round is always for strictly contentions, which is what I used it for. There was nothing to refute due to me building my case.I will offer some refutations here, granted nothing really needs to be refuted. Cases presented by ProEvolution is a viable theoryThis does not even effect the debate at all. It is on pro to demonstrate that the tale of Adam and even is false in both a metaphorical sense and literal sense. The story of Adam and Even by ProAgain this is from a literal standpoint, and does not need to be addressed. I brought this up in the last round. No sane minded person would actually believe the story is literal, but that it has to be metaphorical or in the sense it gives a "moral story" Rebuilding contentionsMetaphorical vs LiteralI explained this in my last round and it remains non refuted by Pro. A majority of the stories in the bible are metaphorical and not to be taken literally. I explained this in the last round and even gave some examples of this. In addition to this I also explained how the bible was written by humansA human who was writing the bible (which is quite literally not accurate), would assume a God created the earth. Almost everyone accepted this back in this time period. I also cited this in the story of creation tales in different religions and time periods. So when the author was writing this, he wrote it with the intent of giving the best account that he knew how to give. Which was the fact that God created the earth with a man a woman. That simplistic logic stays in line with almost all other evidence involving primitive thinking. A divine creator had to have caused the universe and from there humanity came into existence because of (x)We see this in countless religion, and even in Christianity. The author was not writing this from a literal sense, but a metaphorical sense. It may have been literal to him, but the intent behind what he was writing was to portray that there was a (cause) of humanity. In his logic, the most logical cause would have been a (man) and (woman). The cause is irrelevant, because we can see it from a metaphorical sense. Therefore the (adam) and (even) in the bible is the (cause) for why we exist, which corresponds and can work alongside with evolutionWe just have to consider it from the right perspective. ConclusionThe resolution is negated and Pro cannot uphold his BOP.
Intellectual Differences Exist Between Races

I hope we can finish in an intellectual manner. I am glad that you accept my definition of a Jew. I will start my argument with the fact that the Jewish people, while only consisting of 0.5% of the population of the world are responsible for 25% of nobel prizes, 25% of turing awards, 25% of fields medals, and 50% of world chess champions. Whereas only 1 black person has achieved any of these feats. Once again, this is not something I wish to site, simply because quick research will prove my point. It just so happens that African countries are the least hospitable, while Japan and South Korea are some of the most hospitable (China will join the club soon). The only race suffering right now is African Americans. .. Is that because white people are racist? The Asians and the Jews have seen nothing but success in this country, and they have been equally discriminated against. My argument to you, Con, is that since you accept my definition that Jews are a race separate to whites, how come they are so dominate in all of the intellectual fields?
Intellectual Differences Exist Between Races

This is an interesting and controversial topic and while many others might be prone to approach this subject emotionally, I fully agree with the opponent's proposition that this topic should be combatted in a logical, reasonable manner. I would like to acknowledge that the Burden of Proof rests on Pro's shoulders, as he is making the affirmative claim and since there was no first round specification that BoP will be shared. This means, in order for Pro to win, he must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that "intellectual differences exist between races". I will also discuss the definitions, but first something must be addressed regarding resolutional interpretation that I think my opponent will find reasonable. InterpretationIt is an established fact that intellectual differences exist in all people. No two humans share the exact same brain, meaning there are marked differences in their individual intelligence. However, this debate cannot be won by simply pointing this out. The opponent must prove that there exist intellectual differences inherent to the race itself, rather than some other factor that does not uniquely belong to that race, such as gender, education, socioeconomic conditions, etc. DefinitionsIntelligence - I agree with the opponent that intelligence is a complicated concept. A large portion of my argument will concern the very nature of intelligence, so I would like my opponent to thoroughly explain his understanding of intelligence and how it relates to his arguments. The Meriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines intelligence as, "the ability to learn or understand things or to deal with new or difficult situation. " This seems like a somewhat reasonable overarching definition of intelligence, but it does not describe how to measure it. I would also like my opponent to expand upon how he will measure intelligence and why that measurement is objective and preferred. Race - I'm in agreement with the opponent's definition of race. There are physiological differences that exist between peoples, a result from "geographical and . .. genetic isolation". -------------------I look forward to the opening arguments! Since we have five rounds, I will assume that R2 is for opening arguments only, that R3 and R4 are for rebuttals and that R5 is a summary round, in which no new arguments or evidence may be provided. Good luck!
Intellectual Differences Exist Between Races

Due to the fact I am making a very controversial and politically incorrect argument, I want to first state that my argument is primarily based on the fact I have done research on both sides of the story and I feel that the evidence is overwhelmingly one sided. I hope that whoever debates me will refrain from using offensive slurs because of my viewpoint, and I hope they will offer constructive, intellectual arguments to the alternative viewpoint, not fueled by emotion and anger, but by fact and reason. My predominant argument is that racially, there are very definitive differences between the intelligence of different races. Jews, Asians, Whites, Hispanics, Blacks is the hierarchy. I will define race as a group of people who can be defined by physical differences. The main races I will be using in argument are as follows: White - A group of people who are of European descent, with white skin and round eyes, and diverse hair and eye colors. Asian - When I use the term Asian, I am specifically referring to East Asian (e. g. China, Japan, and Korea), and this is defined as someone who originates from said countries and has the distinct physical features (eye and skin) that define that race. Black - People of African descent, with the darkest skin color Non White Hispanic - I am defining Hispanic as a race, not an ethnicity, and it is used to encompass all people who originate from South American and Central American countries Jews - I classify Jews as a race. While Judaism is a religion, Jewish people can be distinctly defined as a race due to several thousand years of segregation and exclusion. They have distinctly different noses and hair texture from ordinary white people, and can be easily distinguished from an ordinary European. Other Defintions: Intelligence - While I understand Intelligence is an incredibly complex and poorly understood subject, I will argue that we understand enough about intelligence for it to be observed. If you choose to accept my debate, I will go into further detail, but I will refrain from that in the introductory debate. Race - Even harder to define than intelligence, but I would say that race absolutely exists, it is the construction of tens of thousands of years of geographic (and therefore genetic) isolation of groups of people. Race is a spectrum, and it is not absolute, but that does not change the fact that it is a fairly accurate use of determining intelligence. I also hope that whoever so chooses to debate me refrains from using individual examples. In other words, if you know an intelligent person who is black, do not use them as an example that proves me wrong. In my argument I am talking about groups of people who number in the 100 millions (with the exception of Jews, who number at about 15 million), I am not, in anyway talking about individuals. Lastly, whoever accepts my debate, I hope they will truly finish it to the end.
Intellectual Differences Exist Between Races

It is so unfortunate that these last few rounds have gone undebated. This was such an interesting topic and it seemed that neither me nor my opponent had time to truly combat the issues at hand. Regardless, I believe my point stands. There is no true scientific way to connect intelligence and race outside of genetic arguments or brain-scan arguments, which the opponent didn't present.The opponent presented IQ tests and historical evidence, neither of which truly stands. As for IQ tests, they only take place after an individual has been affected by socioeconomic influences. As for historical evidence, the opponent assumes that all cultures came about at the same time. The opponent's arguments are well-founded on the surface, but upon investigation they hold no meaning. Vote Con on reasonable doubt, or vote none on lack of debate. Either way, thanks for reading.
The gospel the truth of prophet jesus .

Thanx for accepting And sorry for starting the second argument late . His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?" "It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying 'here it is' or 'there it is.' Rather, the kingdom of the father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it." This is part of the gospel of Thomas (Lamdin Translation) And clearly says that jesus never knew about The day of judgement only his father (god) so if jesus was god He would have known , right?! After You can finish this will go to the second point and you can go ahead and prove the council
The gospel the truth of prophet jesus .

I accept. I am a Syrio-Malabar Nasrani Christian, whose ancestors were converted by St.Thomas the Apostle himself,I hope this becomes a good discussion. With 5 rounds, I will allow you to formulate your arguments in a more structured way in the next round.I want to know if you want me to prove that the Council was not afraid of those 'Gospels', or should I show how those Gospels were not written by the people it was referred to, and had many falsehoods in them? Should I also dend the authority given to the Bishops of the Councils to determine what is right and wrong?
The gospel the truth of prophet jesus .

The Gospel According to Thomas, commonly shortened to the Gospel of Thomas, is a well preserved early Christian, non-canonical sayings-gospel which many scholars believe provides insight into the Oral gospel traditions. It was discovered near Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in December 1945, in one of a group of books known as the Nag Hammadi library. The Gospel of Thomas was found among a collection of fifty-two writings that included, in addition to an excerpt from Plato's Republic, gospels claiming to have been written by Jesus' disciple Philip. Scholars have speculated that the works were buried in response to a letter from Bishop Athanasius who for the first time declared a strict canon of Christian scripture. and is the earliest one to be found , but the church has taken away. so the question here is that Did the Church suppress the Gospel of Thomas because it was afraid of what it contained?
The Burden of Proof Lies on the Believer

As my opponent stated in the comment section "Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence", I would like to say that both proving and disproving G-d are impossible. You cannot prove G-d, you cannot disprove G-d either. Because neither of them need to be proven and people are free to believe in G-d/a god/gods, to believe there is no gods or not to be sure if there is a god; there is then no burden of proof required. Nobody has to prove the existence of G-d, nor disprove it. People have the freedom (at least where I come from) to worship whatever god he wants or to live as an atheist/agnostic.
mobile phones should not be given to children as it affects the studies

I accept the challenge. My responses will be short since there is a 500 character limit. The only argument Pro makes is that kids will play games on their phone and not do studies. Children can still be given phones, but not be allowed to use them in class, which still abides by the resolution and negates Pro's argument. My argument is that kids should be given mobile phones so that they can call for help (911) when they are in trouble. This will save lives, and outweighs all arguments.
mobile phones should not be given to children as it affects the studies

asalamu alaikum to respected chaira...this as u know is a very current topic...and we all are concerned about this topic. Today i m going to propose i.e say for the topic because today thd saying 'mobile phones are useful'.....no dout that is beneficial but it is spoiling the studies of the children......... If a child is given mobile phone.....he will just play games and will pay no attention towards his studies
Murder is Justifiable morally and socioeconomically

Too bad . . . seems like it would have been a good debate. In case my opponent comes back, I contest his definition of murder as well. Murder is "to kill intentionally" (Princeton's Wordnet). Indirectly causing someone's death, say by having an extra child, causing over-population, leading to some people dying from starvation is not "murder." Having a child should never be deemed "murder." If aborting a fetus and carry the fetus to term can both be deemed murder, the pro-life lobby is in a very strange double bind.
Murder is Justifiable morally and socioeconomically

Thanks for the debate uppitynumber. Definitions According to Princeton's Wordnet, justify means "absolve from culpability." [1] Morally means "concerned with principles of right and wrong, or conforming to standards of behavior consistent with those principles." [2] Burden of Proof My opponent as instigator has the burden of proof. He must provide some sort of system of morality that is consistent with his viewpoint, so I can argue against it. Intro I will answer my opponent's contentions with: 1) The overpopulation myth 2) The other immoral acts he justifies (like stealing being "moral" when you are poor) 3) That rape and torture are also immoral I will then offer two different systems of morality and show how murder is immoral under both. [1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [2] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
Murder is Justifiable morally and socioeconomically

Hi! Pro will argue that murder is justifiable morally and socioeconomically. As with many of the other debates of similar nature, arguments the instigator, I, set forth in this debate do not reflect the instigator's personal opinion and ideology in any way whatsoever. Murder is defined by the action of a person killing another person resulting in the latter's death (that's what killing is, I suppose :P). It does not matter whether intentional or unintentional. Death is in its most simplified definition--the simplest I can think of is cessation of all bodily functions. Ground rules: 1) Keep wordplay, if possible, to the minimum. 2) No ad hominem or profanities. Be respectful. 3) No forfeits. My Overall Contentions: 1) Overpopulation/Competition 2) Humans rape, subjugate, persecute, dehumanize and torture. Structure is 1) intro 2) Arguments 3) refutations 4) conclusions/refutations I thank my opponent in advance. Hope to God I don't get owned. :P
Jesus

Thank you for accepting. My opponents opening line begs explanation, it reads: "I am not going to try to prove Jesus is the son of God because in three hundred years I couldn't prove to you... " The BOP is to prove that Jesus is the son of god. Rebuttal: 1) Irrelevant. 2)"...and by saying the descendants of Jacob he could have meant the Catholic Church being a descendant of the Jewish religion..." Okay, but a little farfetched. 3) It appears that my opponent misunderstood the term generations, in the context of Mathew. If you look over there, in the beginning of Mathew, you will see generations was not referring to period of time, But, rather, a single step in natural descent, (i.e. father to son). 4)"...it could be human error (it was written by humans) or it could just be wrong." Exactly. 5) 1st of all, my opponent seems to have missed my point. What is being presented here is reason to believe that when the NT says Jesus is the son of god it is not to be taken literal. As we find in Deuteronomy 14, which says, all Jews are "children of god". What makes this argument more compelling is the fact that Jesus was a jaw's saying Jesus is son of god is really a derivation of the verse in Deuteronomy, which is not literal. A 2nd point is that my opponent seems to contradict himself: He takes the position of trinity but writes, he is human. And I quote: ""Furthermore the bible itself indicates Jesus was son of man:"-meaning Human" BTW it says son of man all over the NT with regard to jesus here is one example: Matthew 16:13 . When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?"