BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution is a religion, not a science

"Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change."-www.livescience.comFACT: The earth is hereFACT: We see Micro-Evolution todayFACT: We do not see Macro-Evolution today, dogs produce dogs, cats produce catsTHEORY: "The big bang theory states that at some time in the distant past there was nothing. A process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity. From that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our Universe was born." Paul Shestople- Big Bang Cosmology PrimerTHEORY: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."-Genisis 1:1-2Evolutionists believe that from nothing there was a singularity, the size of a dime, that created our universe.Creationists believe that from nothing there was God, the size of which cannot be measured, that created our universe. This debate was not to prove or disprove evolution but to determine weather or not you have to have faith to beleive that billions of years ago the Big Bang happened. We still have not seen a galaxy create itself, stars be born, life spontaneousely begin, or a dog produce a non-dog (dog is just an example). If you are to beleive in evolution you must have a certin amount of faith that billions of years ago a galaxy created itself, stars were made, life began- however long it took, billions of years or trillions of years, and speices evolved from one to another, (flightless animals to birds). It is theoreticaly possible that it happened. But you still need to beleive that it did. noun: faith complete trust or confidence in someone or something: "this restores one's faith in politicians" synonyms: trust · belief · confidence · conviction · optimism · hopefulness · believe [ biG2;lēv ] vascript:void(0)"> verb verb: believe · third person present: believes · past tense: believed · past participle: b… accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of: "the superintendent believed Lancaster's story" synonyms: regard as true · accept · be convinced by · give credence to · Religion A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence. Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that are intended to explain the meaning of life and/or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. See more on http://en.wikipedia.org...
Evolution is a religion, not a science

How many times must I explain this? Apes and humans shared a COMMON ANCESTOR. HUMANS did not EVOLVE into APES. You are not arguing with the scientifically respected theory of evolution, you are arguing with a made-up version of evolution that suits your arguments better... (If you are going to quote something please source it. You may just have made it up for all I know.) Also, I think you lack the knowledge of what the word 'theory' means in science. In science, theory means "a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena." - www.livescience.com Also I love how to say "to create biology". This is yet another example of you over-simplifying things to make them seem less professional than they really are. This is one of the main reasons you need to source your quotes. I may be a layman but I at least attempt to use proper terminology. Also, you treat this event as if one second cells were nonexistent and then *BAM* there they are as we know them today. That is not how it works in the slightest. These events occur over time spans of millions or billions of years. Also, believing in Micro-Evolution and not Macro-Evolution is like saying a car can go x feet in one minute but not x miles in one hour. Does that make ANY sense? Also, you brought to my attention that humans apparently evolved from a finned organism, but with the proper time and a little help from macro-evolution, how again is this impossible. I will give in on this last one. I went off topic. I formally apologize on that ground. I look forward to seeing how you respond.
Evolution is a religion, not a science

My reasoning for the last "Apes" question is that apes evolved to humans because of survival of the fittest. If apes where to at all evolve into something different so that they could survive-survival of the fittest- there would no longer be "apes" there would be a stronger, smarter, creature. Not necessarily a human. argument #2 states that something happened a long time ago that created life. "Some chemical reactions occurred about 4 billion years ago " perhaps in a primordial tidal soup or maybe with help of volcanoes or possibly at the bottom of the sea or between the mica sheets " to create biology." It has not happened since for us to see or study. Numerous scientists have tried to re-create the beginning but- "The technology simply does not yet exist to manipulate molecules with the precision required to create all of the inner workings of a cell, built one atom at a time." What you discussed next is micro-evolution, small changes within species. I understand this subject very well, due to the fact that I raise a breed of rabbit that has an exceptional mutation. It's called rex fur. I also own a French Lop, it's about 11lbs and has floppy ears. I also own a Netherland Dwarf, it's about 2lbs and has tiny erect ears. If I wanted to I could breed them, due to the fact that they are both rabbits. And yes, the whole theory of Evolution is impossible without macro-evolution. We see micro-evolution today but not macro-evolution, requiring us to believe in macro-evolution. Your right, I didn't find anything stating that we evolved from apes, but I did find one that says we evolved from fish! "Tetrapods [us] evolved from a finned organism that lived in the water. However, this ancestor was not like most of the fish we are familiar with today. Most animals we call fishes today are ray-finned fishes, the group nearest the root of this evogram. Ray-finned fishes comprise some 25,000 living species, far more than all the other vertebrates combined. They have fin rays " that is, a system of often branching bony rays (called lepidotrichia) that emanate from the base of the fin"-Carl Zimmer Lastly, I do believe that biblical creationism requires faith, that is not the argument- it is that Evolution is also a faith-based belief.
Evolution is a religion, not a science

First off I need to clarify something. The argument that apes would not exist is simply false in every conceivable way. You grandmother gave birth to your mother, why does your grandmother still exist? Now I will move on to your other "arguments". On your '2.' argument you simplified evolution to a very basic state to make it sound unprofessional. This is a logical fallacy. Please attempt not to make void arguments in the future. Evolution is NOT a religion, for it does not require faith. Look at dog breeding for example. Were it not for evolution, how would there we so many different types of dogs nowadays? The entire process would be impossible without both micro and macro evolution. NOWHERE does evolution state that apes evolved to humans. Evolution only states that apes and humans share a common ancestor. That is NOT the same thing as saying that humans directly evolved from apes! Lastly, you do agree that belief in biblical creationism requires faith, correct? If not than please explain to me concrete evidence that biblical creationism is true. I can tell you why evolution has been one of the most respected scientific theories since it's foundation, but can you tell me why biblical creationism is kept separate from professional science. (Same as all other religions...) I look forward to seeing your response.
Evolution is a religion, not a science

I believe that even though Evolution is presented as a science, and taught in public schools today as that, it is actually a religion. Starting at the beginning of Evolution this is list of reasons that I believe supports my case, and my opponent will be arguing against. 1. "The big bang theory states that at some time in the distant past there was nothing. A process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity. From that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our Universe was born."-Evolution- Paul Shestople "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."-Christianity, Widely accepted religion- Genesis 1:1-2 2. "Far away and long ago, chemicals which had been sitting on earth's crust for amillion years or so, reacted in such a way as to create life."- Evolution "And God said, ""Let the land produce living creaturs according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move alaong the groound, and wild animals, each according to it's kind."" And it was so."-Christianity,Widely accepted religion - Genisis 1:24 3."Apes evolved to humans."-Evolution How come wedon't see these things happening today?Where is your proof that it did happen? (Why are there still apes?)
What's black and steals bikes

What's black and steals bikes It is kinda hard not to be a racist When you get robbed by niggers And cops aren't there to pull the triggers It's kinda hard not to be racist When you get beat up by niggers When you get bullied by niggers in school When a nigger takes away your girlfriend I am not that racist, I would give everyone I would give everyone a chance But for niggers, I hope that they all I hope that they all die I hope that they get exterminated I hope they get gassed like Jews Sometimes, In the nights I think how maybe Hitler was right Sand niggers have conquered Europe They are shooting, They are killing people They are raping mothers and daughters Mothers and daughters of Europe But I would tolerate all that If they haven't robbed me If they haven't beat me up If they haven't bullied me In the warm nights I lay down and think Think how maybe Hitler was right
Logic is self destructive as a means of finding truth.

The point is this:If logic is the 'best' way to find truth and if it inherently is meant to determine the degree of truth in an and all statements then it should be able to prove truth in the statement "Is logic, logically the best way to determine truth?" that fact that it is impossible to do so shows a fundamental flaw in logic that it can't prove itself true yet is meant to be the best way to determine truth.
Logic is self destructive as a means of finding truth.

Seeing as the debate is 5 rounds long and my opponent has yet to posit any arguments I will refrain from developing a case until the second round. I will instead provide a basic framework for interpreting the resolution, seeing as the PRO neglected to do so.Logic: A system of reasoning which aims to determine the validity of a statement.Self-Destructive [1]: acting or tending to harm or destroy oneself.Because the focus of the resolution is truth, we can reasonably claim that logic is referential to epistemology and more accurately define it as a term of art.Epistemic Logic: A system of reasoning which aims to determine the truth value of a statement.Therefore we can read the topic more accurately as: A system of reasoning which aims to determine the truth value of a statement destroys itself.The resolution reads as a positive claim - the resolution asserts an epistemic claim that must be sufficiently warranted - placing the burden of proof onto the PRO. This means that as the adjudicator of the debate, the readers will vote in favor of the PRO if he warrants the resolution and his arguments withstand his criticism. Lacking sufficient support, the vote shall be defaulted to the CON. In other words, I don't have to prove that logic is an effective means of finding truth, simply that it is not self-destructive.As I digress I shall leave my opponent with one question: In asking me to provide a logical explanation for logic, are you not conceding that logic is effective as a justificatory tool? In other words, you are asking for a reason to use reason. In doing so you admit to the validity of reason.1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Black lives matter is causing to much problems for America

Even though black protesters are grieving the lives of Michael brown and Trayvon martin they don't have to make their protests violent. For instance even President Obama who is a black lives matter supporter says that this violence needs to stop because I could derail his campaign to federalize state and local police forces. A even bigger problem arose when 5 police officers were shot and killed while trying to block a black lives matter protest in Dallas Texas. So therefore these violent protests are just making black lives matter an even bigger problem.
Black lives matter is causing to much problems for America

Black Lives matter? A lot of people think it is a big problem but I disagree. These members are just trying to get their point out there and make a difference. Black lives matter is a big issue in the debate. Hillary thinks that Black Lives Matter is not a problem and she is for it. Trump thinks that police need to increase law and order to keep people in line. I believe that Black Lives Matter is not a problem because the members are just putting there point of view out there and trying to support African Americans across the world.
Black lives matter is causing to much problems for America

Do you support black lives matter. If you do, you're making a mistake. Black lives matter is a group that is supposed to be trying to stop police killing black people. Instead they are trying to create community's made up of only blacks taking America back to the way it was before the civil rights movement. Donald trump is for and against black lives matter. Hillary is all for black lives matter. This is important because black lives matter is pretty much turning America into what it was 40-50 years ago. I believe that black lives matter as an organization needs to stop before it causes more problems for America.
The Death Penalty's implementation

So specifically in the United States, the penultimate goal of this masterful example in discourse (which will be displayed by myself and myself alone) is to debate over whether the death penalty should be implemented or not. As the title would intimate, I'll be advocating the answer to that question is an unwavering no, yet if some one disagrees with that notion, which is conspicuously accurate because I presupposed it, they'll take the opposing, Pro side.
You Shouldn't Have To Call Someone By Their Preferred Gender Pronoun

At this point in the debate it is clear that my opponents argument is unravelling and falling apart. Firstly I would like to take issue with the assertion that "abnormality" is the result of "something that went wrong" - what in this context do you mean by wrong? Ginger hair is quite uncommon - i'm sure we can agree on that - but does that mean that "something went wrong" if a child is born with ginger hair? does that mean brown hair is "normal" and ginger hair is "abnormal"? does that mean we should shave the hair off all ginger people and force them to live as brunettes? Yes I agree that the existence of six-fingered people "doesn't change the norm" that most people have five fingers - but the norm is just that - a norm. Just because something is considered 'normal' does mean that everything else is invalid. Also, because you haven't really given me a lot to work with here: what is the "reason" that green exists? I'm interested to know...
You Shouldn't Have To Call Someone By Their Preferred Gender Pronoun

It is an abnormality, as something went wrong to make them that way. It is not incorrect to say humans have five fingers because I do (and I assume you do too). People with fewer fingers or more don't change the norm, and we don't teach kids that humans have as many fingers as they want. Things in the world that aren't red or blue have a reason to be a different color. It's also not an abnormality as the other things in that species are the same color or share a different color that's about 50%. For humans as a species, anyone who is born LGBTQ+/ with six fingers/ with six toes/ etc. is an abnormality. I don't believe their sexual preference exists. I do however believe in the mental illness they have (via. gender dysphoria).
You Shouldn't Have To Call Someone By Their Preferred Gender Pronoun

"A person with a penis is a man. A person with a vagina is a woman. How is that debatable?" - in the way I just outlined? Again, my opponent is making no attempt to engage with my argument. Some people who have penises are women, some people with vaginas are men, they might be a small minority of the population but that doesn't mean you can wave them away. You can call anything a binary if you also call everything that doesn't fit the binary an "abnormality" - I could say 'everything in the world is either red or blue', and then when you show me something that's green, i could say, 'that's just an abnormality'. To use your six fingers example - because some people are born with 6 fingers it is incorrect to say that 'humans have 5 fingers'. you don't have to agree with anyone's sexual choices, but you do have to recognise that they exist and respect their basic human rights.
You Shouldn't Have To Call Someone By Their Preferred Gender Pronoun

A person with a penis is a man. A person with a vagina is a woman. How is that debatable? Sure there are some abnormalities (LGBTG+), how is it not a fact. The reason people are LGBTQ+ is because of their FEELINGS not facts. I meant choosing a non binary gender pronoun that you clearly aren"t. Yes I do have to admit my it pronouns don"t matter argument was a bit lackluster. I don"t believe in so called "hate speech" again, and a real hate crime has violence. I simply said calling someone by a racial slur which is 100% okay. I"m a Catholic meaning I don"t agree on there sexual choices morally, politically, or religiously. I don"t even like the idea of LGBTQ+ being taken seriously. I just think they"re a few people with an abnormality, like those babies not with six fingers and toes. My only positive is that it makes them feel accepted.
You Shouldn't Have To Call Someone By Their Preferred Gender Pronoun

The fact that you can't see the difference between names and gender pronouns is sad. I as a Catholic only address people by he/she etc. I shouldn't have to call someone by something that they aren't (and that I religiously and morally disagree with). When will people learn it's so simple. If you have a penis you're a man, and if you have a vagina you're a woman. It's so simple. Oh, but what about my feelings!!! As my favorite quote (which is so true) goes, "Facts don't give a sh*t about your feelings." Honestly, I don't understand the point anyway. Saying your "preferred gender pronoun" is like me saying I'm an anti-LGBTQ+, anti-abortion,anti-immigration, pro-gun, pro free speech, pro-Trump, conservative, Republican. It's more of a political statement, that can either get you treated extremely well or like sh*t. And when do you use their pronoun when talking to them? You would address them by their name, not a pronoun. If you don't use their pronoun it really doesn't matter as they won't know about it since your talking to another person. Making someone call someone else by their pronoun is also a violation of that person's free speech. I can call them anything I want actually. I can call a black person a n***** and a white person a f*****. This is not so-called hate speech as "hate" speech is protected by the first amendment.
You Shouldn't Have To Call Someone By Their Preferred Gender Pronoun

I will be arguing that you should call people by their preferred gender pronouns. My reasoning for this is identical for why we use someone's preferred name. If someone says their name is Harry you are on some level socially obliged to refer to them as Harry, you don't have to interrogate them about what their 'real' name is or anything like that, you just call them Harry. All that is at stake here is that you don't make the person feel weird or upset them. If someone wanted to change the name that was given to them at birth, for whatever reason, lets say they are embarrassed by it, lets say they don't feel like it suits them, the social obligation is to use the new name. It seems obvious that if some did change their name, and adopted a new name full-time in every interaction - consistently using their old name would just be rude and pointless. We can apply the same logic to gender pronouns. If someone wants to be referred to as 'she' you have a social obligation to use 'she', you don't have to find out what sex they have listed on their birth certificate you just use 'she'. To consistently do otherwise is just unnecessarily rude.
You Shouldn't Have To Call Someone By Their Preferred Gender Pronoun

Wrong = not correct/ messed up somewhere at some point. Ginger hair is uncommon yes. But it still fits in the color spectrum. Green exists because it is part of the color spectrum. There are very few colors our hair can naturally be. As long as you fit into one of those few colors your okay. However, the "sex spectrum" is much smaller and only includes two options. But what does any of this have to do the topic of this debate? Here nice and simple, you shouldn"t have to call someone by their preferred pronoun because of the first amendment. You can call them whatever you want. They can"t sue you, or put you on trial, because it"s your free speech to call them whatever.
The Bible Contains Scientific Errors

Arguments extended. Things readers can take away from this debate: *Most of the Bible is literal, especially the New Testament, which states that the Pentateuch should be taken literally, and at the very least, the Genesis Creation story and Noah's Ark. *Christians must accept supernatural and unexplainable causes for certain events. *To claim it is symbolic, figurative, or less than historic fact is to compromise the Bible account and defeat the purpose of the miracle as evidence. *Therefore, the Bible is to be taken literally. *Even so, figurative or literal, the Bible contains scientific errors. The resolution is affirmed.
The Bible Contains Scientific Errors

Will any sensible person take this? Full Resolution: The Bible contains scientific errors. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Definitions: The Bible: The Catholic Bible. Contains: Has inside. Scientific Errors: Statements that contradict science facts or accepted theories (for example evolution). Rules: 1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed. 3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering. 4. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed from all moments after the debate has been formalized. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.
Black is a color.

All colors have shades. Are you claiming that shade of colors don't exist either? If I paint a car red and close my eyes, I now have painted it black according to you. The same can be said for turning the lights off, with my eyes open. Black is a color we can paint on an object and it can be observed with our eyes open and the sun shining on it. Claiming black is not an achromatic color is like claiming the tree that falls in the forest didn't make a sound if no one heard it.