BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The "Big Bang" is possible on a Christian standpoint.

"what about other planets? It doesn't say "And God said, "I need to make a planet that people will frown apon" and God made Pluto". So, this still leaves to possibility of God making the universe of just planets with a big bang. .. "I litterally cannot comprehend what form of answer you want to me to create. The logic behind this argument has no beginning nor end. This still leaves to possibility of God making the universe of just planets with a big bang? ?? ? First you have the big bang theorem all wrong. sorry its kinda too late in the debate to make new arguments like that so i am not required to answer that without pulling out new evidence. Because i like logical debates, the big bang is a scientific theory on how a signularity exploded icreating all matter, the dust cooled down and gravity created suns and planets, then thats how we are here today. If God truly made the universe directly by creating planets etc, then this conflicts with the very notion that all matter was created in the big bang. Vote based on the fact that he never presented a reasonable explanation about the time difference and time occurences. Also, the bible endorses a fact that God created everything directly while the big bang theory created naturally through progression and physics.
The "Big Bang" is possible on a Christian standpoint.

You didn't answer the timeframe or the timeline. Since God created everything, why did he fail to mention the planet? God created everything and he did work, if god truly created the universe with work then Creating the big bang would not have been him working. It would rather God doing the work to create everything and as fter the bang, he took a break. The fact is that in the bible, god clearly took an active part in the creation genesis 1:16 "god made the two great lights." If God created the big bang, it would not require work. God did not create an explosion therefore. The big bang conflicts with creation in time frame and according to the bible.
Fish is better then Chicken

Meatros. Fish may be more of value, but long term chicken is a much more flexible meat. It is even easier to cook and handle under the same circumstances. It has about the same health and fat content when there is no skin. It has a vast market worlwide thanks to the industrialized fast food industry. You have to understand that China has over 1 billion people. But the number 1 fast food restaurant is Kentucky Fried Chicken. This in turn will bring more revenue to the States and the franchise overall. This alone generates over 600 million dollars just for that one business alone. I havent even began to talk about the money that is being made daily in independent chains, as well as grocery stores, farms, and other free market venues. Did you also know about the popularity of chicken in industrialized countries such as New Zealand and Canada. 100 pounds per person in America is a lot of meat son ! Anyway. The longevity and endurance and texture of chicken also outdoes fish, as the storage time is not nearly as long. Fish processing less man power but more preservatives. * And again, the taste if better. The meat in chicken is sweeter, and has more flavor. There maybe a ton of different species of fish in the world, but most of it still tastes the same. And chicken can be eaten with more side orders such as cornbread, fries, mashed potatoes, sweet potato pie, hush puppies, brown rice, and more. Fish is more of an appetizer or light dinner if anything. I never hear people go crazy over fish the way they do fried chicken, which is the GRAND DAMN of all meats created. It has zest, and it has pizazz ! This human like characteristic by itself gives chicken a life of its own. Fish is boring. It is not juicy, and as spicy as chicken either. The taste in poultry is more stimulating by nature, and these creatures are filled with hormones and herbs to give it an even bigger advantage in that category. So the processing, the packaging, the seasoning, the marketing, all work in chicken's favor. I rest my case.
Fish is better then Chicken

Meatros. I said that most people eat chicken because of the quality of taste. Second it could be said that the flavor of chicken even seasoned, is much better than fish. Fish is more generic in taste, and spoils faster. The smell is not always as pleasant, as is is sometimes known as the stinch of death. Anyway. Chicken has soul, and that means it relaxes and is pleasing to ones soul. That is why it is considered to be the primary and superior soul food of all time. Billions of pounds of chicken, all over the globe, is consumed yearly. 100 pounds alone here in America per person. That is astounding ! The health benefits of chicken with no skin, and grilled is safer and better to eat than fish. This is a fact due to chicken's high level of protein, which also comes from eggs. This nutrient is a necessity and valuable assett to one's body. Fish has mercury and this has been proven to be a danger to one's health long term. You are more likely to die, or become ill with this very potent toxin. It can cause cancer, liver damage, high blood pressure, paralysis, arthritis, and more. If I had a choice to eat one daily for life, it would undoubtedly be chicken meat. Not fish. Chicken is an international phenomenon. And even in China, an Asian country where fish is widely marketed, and eaten. Chicken triumphs at the end of the day. *
Fish is better then Chicken

Chicken is a poultry styled, very soulful meat. It is consumed by the billions per year. Americans eat over 100 pounds annually. The health benefits are irrelevent, as it cannot be proven conclusively, that chicken is as danerous as you have explained it to be. These are only selective points of information that can be said as well about fish. Not to mention the minute, by deadly amounts of mercury that is lodged into them during the time of processing. Fish are more likely to kill simply because of its toxic environment. Water is a liquid and is a necessity that is consumed daily by almost all living organisms here on Earth. That makes fish itself expendable by far. You can suffer from food poison, and other cancerous diseases. Most of which do occur long term. Some studies even link fish to ADD, and autism. * I think that chicken is safer because they are much more manageable and are kept in captivity. That is my take on these issues.
Fish is better then Chicken

Crispy and well seasoned skin, rendered of excess fat, is a true sign of well made chicken. She is tender and juicy in all of the right places. She can be baked, fried, stewed, steamed, and grilled. Not to mention barbecued. The taste is very fluent, and smooth. The meat is sweet and even better when it is cured. There is no food in the world that is more addictive, tantalizing, mesmorizing, and as hypnotizing as chicken. It pleases all senses from the sense of smell to the sense of taste. A bowl of mashed potatoes and gravy by its side, will do me just fine. However it is made, it is all well with me.
The abortion of fetuses which do not endanger the mother should be outlawed

The pro also hopes that this will be a civil and respectful debate. The pro would also like to clarify its position towards the debate of Abortion. The pro's position is that the abortion of fetuses, which do not endanger the mother, are immoral and should be outlawed by proper legislation. The reason the pro supports abortion if the life of the mother is in danger, is that, if the mother dies, the child inside dies with her. So, in order to save the most amount of lives, abortion to save the mother, such as radiation treatment, is unfortunately justified. Now to begin the case for why abortion should be outlawed if the life of the mother is not endangered by the fetus. Where does life begin? This is the question that must be answered by both sides of the argument regarding abortion. The pro believes that life begins at conception. This belief is based on the idea that there is a set of natural processes which eventually leads to a human being outside of the womb. Abortion seeks to end these natural processes by destroying the fertilzed egg and ipso facto destroying a potential human life. The second argument as to why abortion is a moral evil is that any argument proposing that a fetus is not a human can be applied to the worth of a human being outside of the womb. This is dangerous because it deters basic human worth which can lead to the murder of millions of people. The pro would also like to ask the con if the con believes that abortion is a terrible act no matter the justification for it. I will allow the con to respond to this argument.
Qur'an is more accurate than the Bible

Hi, in this debate I will establish that the Qur'an is more accurate than the Bible, since the Bible contains many contradictions and inconsistencies, It cannot be used as accurate source, while the Qur'an on the other hand has no contradictions, or errors, therefore more accurate from the Qur'an, that is my resolution.This is pure theological debate, you can just accept the first round or present your contention in the first round, you will have to show that the Qur'an has contradictions and errors or put as many holes as you can in my argument.Events mentioned in the Bible and not the Qur'an(OR VICE VERSA) are ignored and not to be used in arguments!! breaking this rule will result in conduct point loss(when voters vote they vote conduct to Pro/Con depending on the case)Good luck to Pro & Con.
Do incidents from the past contribute to influence the present

Well, if Con has not posted his contentions, I suppose I will just post a short, syllogistic argument for the sake of having an argument to judge.I. An "incident" is "an instance of something happening; an event or occurrence"[1]. II. There is no specific amount of time for an "incident", thus the time frame it can be looked at can shorten or widen.III. If the time frame can widen or shorten, then the amount of time for an incident to occur can be infinite.IV. That means there are an infinite amount of "incidents" you can pick out. For example, for 10^-3000 seconds 5 second ago, the universe was existing. This is an "incident". It could be 10^-3001, and so on. V. The motion that con stated was that incidents from the past do affect the future. This is either implying that this is true for all, or true in general.VI. That cannot be true. If there is an infinite amount of incidents, then for this argument to be true, there would have to be quantitatively more incidents being affected by the past than there is not to at least make a generalisation. But if there is an infinite amount of incidents, there are an infinite amount of incidents being affected by the past, and an infinite amount of events not being affected by the past too.VII. Infinity is not greater than infinity.IIX. Therefore there are not more incidents, or not all incidents are affected by the past.IX. Therefore incidents from the past do not in general affect the present.X. Therefore the resolution is false unless Con proves all incidents are affected by the past. Until Con has met that BOP, his resolution is negated and I have the upper hand.
China is a serious, long term threat to American strategic interests.

I thank CON for setting up this debate. I too hope the debate will be interesting and informative.---In the comments section, PRO/CON agreed to the following definitions:Serious threat - Strong possibility of a non-trivial weakening of the US's hegemonic position.Long term - Will not go away in a few decades and will PERHAPS remain a threat for much of this century. (I highlighted "perhaps" because I don't think anyone is able to project past a few decades)American strategic interests - synonymous with the US's hegemonic position - military bases abroad (and other political factors), economic hegemony via dollar/trade hegemony, and cultural hegemony.---CON also gave a common-sense explanation of the resolution:PRO is arguing that China will get strong enough to challenge the US. CON is arguing that this will not happen and that China will be weakened in the future.---Lastly I just want to note that the resolution deals primarily with future events, so this debate will engage in quite a few hypotheticals. Regardless, whoever's scenario more supports their side of the resolution will be considered the victor. Cheers, and good luck.
China is a serious, long term threat to American strategic interests.

This is a response to wrichcirw's claim that China is "the next preeminent threat to America": [http://debate.org...]Allow me to define my position: While I certainly don't think China is not at least a moderate threat to the allies or interests of the US, and I agree on a containment policy, I firmly believe that the current regime is structurally vulnerable and that China's internal and international problems will prevent it from ever gaining real hegemony on a global or even regional scale.From what I infer, Pro's position is that China could actively check US hegemony in Asia and the rest of the world, and has the potential in the long-term future to challenge the US for supremacy in many of its economic, military, and political spheres of influence.There should be no semantics in this debate, as both sides should have an understanding of what the other is advocating. Rules:1. Round One is acceptance and/or rule and definition clarification.2. The burden of proof is divided equally.3. All source material must be easily accessable.4. The rounds must be easily readable in plain text, and usage of Italics, underlining, and bolding should be limited.5. Spelling/Grammar and Conduct should not be voted on unless gross violation of either one is committed.I hope to learn much from my opponent. Thank you; I await his response.
should SAT and ACT test make such a big Impact on Students futures.....

"some of the criteria on the SAT and ACT is rediculus and not needed in the every day world.... math and english is fine but some of the stuff on the tests are out of hand" You consider it "rediculus" because you are not an intellectual. The SAT was MEANT to be challenging to separate the Harvard-bound students from the State/Tech school and Community College ones. Standardized tests were not created to test common knowledge or provide material for everyday life, however to act as a challenging comprehensive exam that evaluates a student's ability to succeed on the competitive collegiate level.
should SAT and ACT test make such a big Impact on Students futures.....

The SATs and ACTs are important because the success for students on these tests has a direct correlation to better success in college and earning better careers. I strongly disagree with your point advocating the negation with the "computerized and stuff" America. Regardless of how "computerized" America is, mathematics and language will always exist. When using technology, one must have a strong grasp of verbal communication and mathematics.
Euthanasia should be legalized but with requirements

That statement was made in regards to someone that is dying slowly or simply has no value hence the sentences before that statement. Again if someone truly feels that they have the right to end their life at anytime for any reason then they do not need the permission of the law. The law would only decree that you would not receive the assistance of anyone else. I understand what your saying and I even partially agree with you but not to the extent that people should be able to help each other die. It has to be through a physician and the patient has to have a terminal illness or some other terrible affliction such as someone that has been paralyzed from the neck down. There is a difference. Me personally, if I wanted to end my life I would not care in the least what the law says about suicide.
Euthanasia should be legalized but with requirements

How ironic as am I! I do not believe there should be an age requirement but again their should be certain criteria that needs to be met such as a terminal illness even among children. I believe that even a young child has the right to end their suffering no matter how hard it may be for the parents and it pains me to think of a situation in which this might happen but I think we can all [pretty much agree that the parent is more likely to cling to false hope when it comes to their child and demand that they fight when it is clear that the child does not want to fight anymore. Everyone should have the right to decide what they want to do with their life regardless of their age. In the case of a parent they would not be the one suffering so I do not believe it should be their right to tell their child that they are not aloud to end their suffering when there is no hope for recovery. I can understand the parents desperation as I am a parent myself and I desperately hope that my child never has to deal with a circumstance like this and I sympathize with any parent that has had to deal with this as it is the most difficult that we can possibly go through. I only hope that I would have the strength to respect my childs wish and end their suffering. For A child to make such a decision takes courage beyond measure and I personally don't think I would have the strength to support my childs decision to end their life even if I knew it was for the best because I love her so much and if it came to a situation like the one we've discussed I believe I would be too weak to let her go.
Euthanasia should be legalized but with requirements

You're saying that young people should have restricted access to suicide because young people are more likely to make short-sighted decisions? What about young people who are capable of making mature decisions? It's ageist to assume that all young people are immature. And what about children with incurable diseases? Why should they have to suffer simply because they were unfortunate to have been born under a particular revolution of the earth? Furthermore, even if a person kills himself prematurely, why should that matter to anyone else? The deceased will be unable to regret his decision; he'll never say, "Oops, I should have waited." Besides, what if things would have become worse if he had lived longer? [Sorry if that was unorganized. It's New Years Eve, and I'm a little drunk.]
Euthanasia should be legalized but with requirements

The debate was originally intended to be about whether or not it should legal at all but no I do not forfeit. I do not believe just anyone should be able to go to a physician and end their life. Many teens choose suicide because they think their problems are just too great and that their life is never going to improve but those of us that make it past our teen years look back and realize how trivial our problems really were. Of course if someone truly feels they have nothing left to live for they don't really need a physicians help to end it do they. Not so much an elder stuck in a nursing home bed 24/7 whom euthanasia is generally pertaining to or for any terminally sick person. We can't stop the vast majority of people but that doesn't mean we should just say o well and help them end it.
Euthanasia should be legalized but with requirements

What I mean by requirements is the person seeking out euthanasia should not granted the request just because they are having the worst day of the life or because their spouse divorced or any reason of the sort. In other words the person would have to be suffering from a terminal disease or just have not intrinsic value. Religion is bound to be brought into the debate as a foundation for why it should not be legalized but I welcome it.
usefulness of history for us

"The purpose of history is not to bore you (although in some cases it very well can), it's to make sure that past mistakes will never happen again. As education in Western Societies increases we must look at the pasts pros and cons and analyze the patterns associated with former events." Really, correcting past mistakes? How does the study of world war help US (Not united states, it is us, as in we) ? Will we be able to prevent world war 3 if it happens? We are not in a political leadership position, how does learning about world leaders help us? Hitler made a mistake by killing religious minorities, but even if I didn't study Hitler wouldn't I know killing is wrong? As for patterns in former events, we can't predict war or revolution patterns due to changes in society and the vast varieties of personality of people. "It also allows us to understand where many of our fundamental ideas about society come from i.e Enlightenment, Scientific Revolution, Renaissance etc." Apart from historians and interested students, why would anyone want to know about the origin of these ideas? I learnt about the Renaissance, yet it ain't helping me in my life at all. If I know the idea, ain't that enough? History isn't useful as it is taking up lot of our memory that could be used for storing useful and practical information. We are learning all that history about kings and imperialist rules, but then very few countries are ruled by kings now, aren't they? And I can bet 1000 to 1 we can't become kings or dictators. Lessons in history such as giving freedom to people and not taking high taxes is known by any person. Through empathy and compassion, it is easy to understand why we should give freedom to others and not make life difficult for other people. Why learn about all those events in history to learn this stuff? Moreover, history is dividing people. Old grudges such as between majority of the countries and Britain, India and Pakistan, Japan and USA are kept alive as schools teach history to the masses. I am not saying not to record history, I am saying to bury it in the old archives where it belongs and won't bother anyone. History is repeated because people remember old events. If people don't remember old events, they would grow and public opinion would gradually change. Who knows, maybe India and Pakistan would have united had history not been given its fake importance.
usefulness of history for us

I will be debating the vast usefulness of history for our ever-growing societies. I didn't notice a formula to this debate so I'm going to go straight to my main argument. Your first sentence is my basis for my argument: ". .. the old mistakes of the gone can become the correct decisions of the now. " The purpose of history is not to bore you (although in some cases it very well can), it's to make sure that past mistakes will never happen again. As education in Western Societies increases we must look at the pasts pros and cons and analyze the patterns associated with former events. It also allows us to understand where many of our fundamental ideas about society come from i. e Enlightenment, Scientific Revolution, Renaissance etc. I looks forward to your additional arguments.