BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is there any scientific evidence for creationism

This is a copy and paste of a post I made in the comments of this debate (with a few alterations here and there). Upon further retrospection, I won't forfeit each round as I just learned that would mean that I would have to wait 2 days. Instead what I'll do is leave a response here, so that this mess can be done with asap. The more this lingers on, the more irritated I am going to be at myself for my own sub-par performance in this debate by falling into Rigadoon's gish galloping, and the more irritated I am going to be at Rigadoon for the employment and utilisation of such dishonest tactics. So, in order to keep my annoyance down to a bare minimum, this is probably the best way to go. The quicker this debacle can get into the voting period, the better, regardless of if I win or lose. Rigadoon can use the last round to copy and paste more rebarbative tripe if he is inclined, but as for myself, I am at my wits end with this nonsense and refuse to continue any further. This debate has been a learning curve as I forgot just how dishonest YEC tactics can be, though it has been a very frustrating learning curve for me. I would also like to point out that I did not resort to personal attacks against you; if anything, I made these attacks against myself, by stating that I was an idiot fore falling for your nonsense. The worst I have done is point out that Con utilised an exceptionally dishonest tactic (which you did at the start of this debate), and state that you have no respect for me as an opponent (which you don't), because you utilised this tactic and you didn't even give me the dignity of gish galloping me with your own arguments. Like i pointed out before, you just copied and pasted every single one of your points from a creationist hack of a website, and the poor bugger who has to respond to it (in this case me), cannot even keep up with the number of arguments. Any person who respects their opponents, or even just the concept of debates, doesn't inundate their opponents with arguments which then traps them into not being able to respond to all, or even most of them, due to time constraints, word count and effort. If voters think I should lose this debate, then that is fine by me. I fell into a trap set up for neophytes and I took the bait, hook, line and sinker. I just think it's a pity that my opponent cannot wrap his head around why gish galloping such as this would make his winning of this debate absolutely meaningless. It also is my hope that Con does not resort do such disgraceful tactics again for future debates, as Con will not learn anything from these debates if he gish gallops his future opponents and takes them for a rigmarole too.
Is there any scientific evidence for creationism

I have participated in formal debates before and always had sources for my points. Everyone should be free to adopt or quote material as long as their sources are cited. There are online sources my opponent could have used but chose not to. Let's return to the question that started this debate: "Is there any scientific evidence for creationism?" That was certainly a challenge to present a variety of evidence in favor of creationism. I did that by adopting some online material, which I cited. My opponent started to respond to each point, citing sources as well. Then he stopped arguing about these points and turned to personal attacks. At this stage it's up to the voters to decide who made the better case. I could have gone on, though I am not expert, and we could have had a more productive debate. Since my opponent refuses to further contest the points I made, they still stand. With that, I rest my case. Thanks for your interest and attention.
Is there any scientific evidence for creationism

I said until you can stop copying and pasting arguments, then I see no reason to waste any more of my time. I had no intentions of giving up back then. Though, to be fair, I feel like giving up now. know why that is? You have taken me for a simpleton, a complete idiot and I fell right into your trap. I was reading last night and I was about to go to bed. Before I went to sleep, I actually laughed. I started giggling like a school-girl at 1:30 in the morning. And that was because I realised I had just been gish galloped. Now I know what it feels like to be on the receiving end. Even worse, you didn't even respect your opponent enough to gish gallop me with your own arguments. That would be much too hard. Instead you decided to copy and paste every single one of your arguments from ICR or CRS or wherever the heck you got these from. You've made me look like a half-wit because I did not call you out for this when you first copied and pasted that nonsense. And now of course, I cannot respond to all, most or even half of your arguments because you treated your opponent (me) as a complete buffoon. Now I know to actually set up rules before debates to make it so that I'm not taken for an idiot again. And even now you're doing it again, with the Mt. St Helens trash. Stuff it. You're right; I'm giving up. I'll forfeit my other rounds, and I'll let the voters decide when it comes around to it. Even if you "win" this debate, know that you "won" it by some of the most egregious measures possible. You didn't give respect to your opponent as a debater and inundated me with so many arguments that I do not have the time, effort or even word count to properly address most of them. Even if you won, you won by dirty tactics which any competent debater would not employ, because they have respect for debates and their opponents. You may have been polite in your mannerisms, but you did not respect me as an opponent and you don't even respect the notion of why it is we debate; and that is to learn. So good job mate on your empty win. Thank-you for reminding me the nature of Young Earth Creationism; and that nature is dishonesty. I'll take this loss if the voters feel that I deserve to lose; I really don't care. At least I'll come away from this with my integrity as a debater still intact.
The United States should have a general policy of free trade.

"Free trade" is "a policy by which a government does not discriminate against imports or interfere with exports by applying tariffs (to imports) or subsidies (to exports). .. Under a free trade policy, prices emerge from supply and demand, and are the sole determinant of resource allocation." http://en.wikipedia.org...The resolution uses "general policy" to allow exceptions for non-economic reasons, principally national security. For example, sales of arms by companies in the United States to other countries is forbidden without a license from State Department. That's not a subject of this debate.This debate is about the economics of free trade. I will argue that free trade is economically beneficial overall, and my opponent will oppose that viewpoint. My opponent is free to argue the economic effects on trading partners and the world economy as well as upoon the United States, but he is not obliged to do so.I assume the burden of proof for this debate.Free trade provokes seemingly never-ending controversy, sure to arise in any election year. I'm looking forward to a good debate.Debate RulesI am attaching a set of debate rules as conditions for accepting the debate. I think these are the ordinary debate conventions and contain nothing controversial. The purpose is to make new members reading the debate aware of the conventions.Both sides agree to the following rules, and that violating the rules is a conduct violation, with anything contrary to the rules to be ignored by readers judging the debate:DR. 1. The first round of the debate is for acceptance and for clarification of terms and conditions only. I will provide the specific Pro contentions in R2. Opponents should comment before accepting to seek a rule change.DR 2. All arguments must be made in the debate. Evidence may be cited or linked from the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. Arguments made in Comments are to be ignored.DR 3. Source links or references must be included within the 8000 characters per round limit of the debate. No links in comments.DR 4. Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate. DR 5. No new arguments shall be made in Round 4. Arguments and evidence may be presented in R4 in rebuttal to any previous argument, but no new arguments.DR 6. DDO site rules always apply. Neither side may add or modify rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted.
Evil Proves The Existance of An Evil God

Con Has Violated The RulesCon states "My opponent has unintentionally pointed out that the "con must argue from an atheist standpoint,not a "God is good" standpoint." but it makes me contemplate on the fact of proving something unrealistic. What I mean to say is that, it is impossible to contradict the fact that god is evil without assuming the "God is good" standpoint. Well, that's nothing to ponder upon. This statement may not actually seem to be as enthusiastic but I must admit here that it has an eloquent role particularly in this debate."I clearly stated you must take a atheist standpoint in arguing against me. By definition an atheist does NOT believe that "God is good" nor does an atheist believe that "God is evil" or that "God is somewhat, somewhat evil". An atheist believes that there is NO God, which would still contradict the premise of this debate "Evil Proves the Existence of an Evil God".Since Con has broken the rules I win, hands down unless Con wants to change course and start arguing from an atheist standpoint.To spell it out for you an atheist arguing against the contention that "Evil Proves the Existence of an Evil God" would be trying to show that the amount of evil in the world is possible without intervention from an all-powerful being(a God) to cause the evil.Rebuttal"it is just obvious that god didn't intervene in genetic mutations and natural selections"It is obvious that an all-powerful being never intervened in genetic mutations and natural selections? How?"unchanged effect in DNA overtime."Con offers up no evidence that DNA has never changed.Regardless of your responses to these rebuttals, you will LOSE the debate if you do NOT switch your perspective to the one outlined in the rules for this debate.
Evil Proves The Existance of An Evil God

Rule: Con must argue from an atheist standpoint, not a "God is good" standpoint.Science can not explain evil.Why are people capable of murder, not just a little bit capable such as if we feel threatened, but capable out of pure malice and in large numbers (the Holocaust for example)? Some people even murder innocent children, even babies (and I'm not talking about abortion here, I'm talking about infanticide). That clearly is not a beneficial trait. It would have helped us greatly if humans had an inherent revulsion to murdering each other, and a desire to cooperate with each other for mutual benefit. Cultures and societies would have come together a lot faster. Technologies and knowledge would've been shared. By now we would probably already have a colony on Mars.There are a number of other things which would've been beneficial had we developed genetic mutations to avoid, such as rape and suicide. Suicide is particularly difficult to understand, since the individual is directly acting against their own survival, the individual selecting against him/herself!Since all human behavior boils down to neurobiology unless there is some sort of supernatural intervention it is possible for genes to emerge that would stop these sorts of behaviors, but it didn't happen.There can be only one explanation for why natural selection did not eliminate these things from our DNA.God. There must be an all-powerful evil deity who continuously intervenes to prevent these sorts of beneficial mutations that would've otherwise occured due to natural selection. Nature alone can not account for all the evil in the world.
Evil Proves The Existance of An Evil God

"So what he means to say is that I should take on the 'atheist' point of view ie. just as an atheist does not believe in god, even I should assume to have a 'NO' god standpoint and then contrast the fact 'Evil Proves The Existence of An Evil God'. But if according to me there is practically no god, then how can my opponent remark that god is evil or divine?"Because, the entire point of this debate is that I am trying to prove that "evil" or more specifically "The amount of evil in the world" is actually proof of God's existence because without God (which by definition is an all-powerful being, perhaps you are stuck thinking only of the Christian God, the word "God" does NOT imply any particular religion's deity) intervening there would not be as much evil in the world.If you argue that "God is good" that completely defeats the purpose of this debate! That is why I made that rule!I have a funny feeling that you KNOW that was my intention and you are playing dumb because you are a self-righteous, arrogant Christian fundamentalist who feels upset and offended that anyone could suggest that "God" may be evil.Well, tough sh!t! I started the debate. I make the rules. You violated the ONE rule that I made. YOU LOSE!More NonsenseWhat do you mean "dual-minded"? Are you trying to win this debate with gibberish? Define what you mean!"ardent follower of science"Science is NOT a religion, and does NOT have followers. MOST people, people who are actually intelligent believe in science regardless of their religion or lack thereof.And I NEVER discounted the little steps in the process. What I was saying is that evil tendancies such as suicide or murder go against natural selection. Therefore, those genetic traits should have been bred out. The only way they wouldn't have is with God's intervention to stop natural selection from playing out as it would in a godless world. An all-powerful being could do this in any way he sees fit, including interfering with what goes on in as you so elegantly put it "the internal of a human", because DUH he is all-powerful. If he wanted to intervene during the little steps identified by science (which we have physical proof of, so that's not debateable anyways!) he could. The existence of an all-powerful being and the scientific explanation for evolution, for genetics, for anything are 100% compatible unless we limit the definition of "God" to YOUR particular idea of "God" but I NEVER said that. You somehow got that idea into your head, because you are an arrogant bible-thumper who doesn't understand anything and thinks he has the right to go in and make up his own rules over the ONE that was made in the first place. You are disappointing and frankly you make me sick.I'm done with this debate. I refuse to debate someone so willfully ignorant, and so arrogant as to ignore the rules. All arguments extended to the further rounds. I hope the voters are smart enough to recognize at I WIN given that you won't even follow the only rule I stipulated.
Future Learning Vs Present Learning

I do agree that the future of learning looks a lot better. I don't think there will be machines in any foreseeable future that will be able to analyse a student well enough to teach them to best suit them. That technology would imply that the brain is able to be decoded into visible data like code. If the machines work based on grade numbers, I think that the students could easily accidentally downgrade themselves in a class they excel in. I would rather argue that more and more classes would be taken online, like English, Math, and Science classes would be more machine based, but still with the human interaction I think is important in schools.
Lebron is better than Durant.

A basketball player is a basketball player. Experience does not matter in the case of talent. Neither does friendship. If one is better he is better. Why is Durant better? He's younger: which means he can only get better, and LeBron is at the age where athleticism starts to fade. He's a better shooter than LBJ, and stats show Durant is doing better on defense. He's bigger and therefore more versatile when paired with athleticism, passing, rebounding, and shooting. Complete package.
Is Home schooling better than going to elementary school etc.

Myth of SocializationI think the problem is that you believe homeschooling to mean locking a child at home and never letting her go out to talk with people. That's not even remotely true. Studies have shown, contrary to your claim, that homeschooled children can and often have invested into community participation and socialize with all kinds of people. See, the thing is, the only difference between homeschooled children and children that go to public schools is that homeschooled children are less likely to socialize with children of their age group. This is not the same thing as not socializing with kids of similar age group at all. And anyway, how does this point even weigh up to how it hurts the child's ability to socialize when she gets older? With the child's often being involved with people in the community and neighborhood, I think she is actually much more prepared than public school children who generally only associate and work with children their age. You should read this article: . http://www.homeschool.com...;Learning as a homeschooled childHomeschooled children get to learn under a curricula that focuses on them to nurture their growth. Public schools simply just can't provide that kind of focus. FundingI think this argument goes against public schools more so than it does against home schools. Think about it. Almost all of the money spent on schools is to fund school facilities, transportations, board of education, staff, teachers, maintenance, electricity, water, and school activities. People who go to public schools generally still have to purchase their own paper, pencils, pens, textbooks, and notebooks. That's exactly the same with home schooled children. So the funding point really goes against public school funding with all the extra costs to maintain the school. Power Outtage? ?I think this goes back to your problem of assuming that people who are homeschooled stay home perpetually. You assume first that the family whose house is under the outtage will decide to live in that house without attempting to do anything to fix the problem for weeks on end. You also assume that they have their child take internet courses and only internet courses. I mean, libraries and books and paper curriculum totally don't exist right? Also, a power outtage is just one case. That's like saying all people shouldn't job because of the chance of spraining muscles which might make you unable to exercise for weeks on end. That's silly. Homeschooling focuses on nurturing a child and her growth. Public schools don't really provide that kind of focus. Homeschooling is cheap and allows for versatile time management. Homeschooling socially often prepares people to socialize with all varieties of people, and is actually better than public education in that regard.
Is Home schooling better than going to elementary school etc.

There is still the point of what happens if they don't make friends as kids, if that was to happen what would the output be when you are older and you need to make friends with your boss. Point being it is better to have a place where you can be in constant contact with friends and get the feel for people you should be around from your perspective and not your parents perspective. Then there is also the matter of money where most schools are funded by the government while in home schooling there is the problem of finding the money unless your family is rich it would not be the most reasonable choice to home school. Another problem is the sources of education where they may not be constant. Let's say that your way of being taught was through internet courses if you don't have enough money then what will happen is you will lose 3 days to a weeks of classes. Where in school this is a constant source no matter if there is a power outage they can still be taught.
Is Home schooling better than going to elementary school etc.

Socializing as a homeschooled kidI think one of the biggest misconception about homeschooling is its debilitating kids' social skills. I don't think that is necessarily true. Socializing with kids is not the only way of socializing as lots of anti-homeschoolers seem to think for some reason.Homeschooling lets kids spend more time in their community to interact with a bigger variety of people outside their age group: homeschoolers enter the real world much earlier than public schoolers, who mostly spend most of their school and childhood life with only people that are around their own age group. Homeschoolers are not affected by the bad social dynamics of kids and teens, but can get all the good social dynamics of being used to interacting with people of all age groups.Yes homeschooled kids are less likely to make friends with other kids but so what?Learning as a homeschooled kid Usually parents who homeschool their kids know what they're doing, so I don't think the point about people having more education than moms and dads is a good point. Also homeschooling could include private tutoring. I think that 1-1 teaching or even 2-1 teaching is much better than 1-30 teaching. The kid receives the concentration needed to deal with all his learning questions and problems. The tutor or mom and dad can better concentrate on where the kid needs help. There is no proof that homeschooled kids come out worse than kids that are sent to public school. The kid will have an advantage in education instead of having to plow slowly through the school system.
Should Obama pay for his own vacations

You can find the facts simply Google Obama's 100 million dollar African trip. And I wasn't talking about national debt 100 million would feed a lot of hungry Americans or put a roof if only temporarily over the heads of a vast number of homeless Americans. And yes while other presidents have taken more vacations. I think if you checked it out you would find The majority of bushes vacations were to his ranch in Texas or as many other presidents did to Camp David. All of bushes vacations together Never cost the American people 100 million dollars. Look a little deeper into Obama Look at the family trip to Asia burlesque vacation over Christmas to Hawaii. We're at the end of that vacation As a early birthday gift to his wife Obama gave Michelle A two-week extended vacation And use Air Force 2 To fly 25% of her closest friends there to celebrate the two weeks with her for her birthday all at tax payers expense. I'm a Republican And I'd have no b**** If the federal government would pay for my vacation. By the time Obama is out of office He will a spent over a half a billion dollars on vacations. This flies in the face of Americans who struggle to survive Obama is a disgrace. Just another crooked politicians from Illinois
Should Obama pay for his own vacations

I'd like to start off by saying that I am a registered member of the Republican Party before I continue, who voted for Romney, so the argument "you're just a stupid liberal who just supports Obama no matter what" is not used against me. I'm not saying you would do that, sir, but someone in the comments might, so I'd just like to clear that up. Many other Presidents have taken vacations before, in fact George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan both had taken more time off than Obama has at this point. About the federal government paying for it, I'd support that just fine, especially if they deducted from his salary or if he wasn't just "on vacation", but actually doing something that contributed to the United States. Thirdly, I'd like you to cite your sources, because I cannot find any record whatsoever of Obama taking a $100 million trip to Africa (that wasn't for diplomatic reasons), because $100 million is an absurd amount of money. You can by a 25,000 square foot mansion in California or a 4-lane interstate highway with that, and I'd imagine an African vacation, would cost, far, far, less. Finally, here's a depressing though, but that $100 million? It's only worth 0.00000625% of the national debt. It's nothing.