BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Humans and the universe was created by Intelligent Design

Even though there is an overwhelming amount of evidence, I am going to focus on a certain area- Historical (and some scientific). To start, there is historical evidence. The bible has the most amount of prophecies fulfilled than any other document known to man. Among the more than 2,500 prophecies in the Bible, 2,000 of those have already been fulfilled to the exact way they were prophesized. Some of these prophecies are 1) Israel will prevail over its enemies (Isaiah 41:12-14), 2) The ruins of Israel would be rebuilt (Amos 9:11, 13), 3) prosperity for modern-day Israel (Ezekiel 36:11), 4) Trees again would grow in Israel (Isaiah 41:18-20), and 5) Jerusalem will be trampled upon (Luke 21:23-24). Along with the prophecies, there is also the written documents, written eye witness accounts, and other forms of documentation that proves the existence of Jesus, Jesus performing miracles, and His crucifixion. There are over a hundred eye witness accounts documented of people witnessing the crucifixion of Jesus. Besides that, there is also evidence against the theory of evolution, crumbling the majority of atheist's foundation of beliefs. Evolution suggests that things changed and evolved over a long period of time (billions of years). It was proven wrong, as in one of the rings of the earth that has fossils of some of the animals that were thought to be early animals have fossils of some of the modern animals that weren't supposed to exist then (or evolved yet). Now onto some of the scientific proof. .. With all those points, there was also an experiment conducted by Stanley Miller in 1953 failed to prove that life could randomly form under proper conditions. In his experiment, he and Dr Harold Urey combined a mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor and passed the mixture through an electric discharge to simulate lightning. At the end of the experiment, the products were found to contain a few amino acids. This proves that amino acids could have been formed, but not life. Life was never formed in that experiment. The product was amino acids, which are normal everyday chemicals that do not "live. " Even unto this day, there is no known process that has ever converted amino acids into a life form. We are the only planet known so far that has 1) water, and 2) has life. We just happen to be the only planet out of an entire universe that has life?
atheism=a religion, like an opposing religion

The point remains that if you don't use the word "religion" in a trivial way (a way in which even sticker collecting is a religion), then the resolution is false and Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is either a lack of belief in God/ religion (Weak Atheism), or belief/ knowledge that God doesn't exist/ religion is false (Strong Atheism) [https://sites.google.com...] Because the resolution is false under any meaningful/ intuitive definition of "religion"; the resolution is negated.
atheism=a religion, like an opposing religion

My opponent claims that Atheism is disbelief, not non belief. However, "disbelief" and "non belief" can be essentially synonymous, but this depends on the definitions used. Oxford defines "Disbelief" as simply a denial that something is true, not necessarily an affirmation that something is untrue:Disbelief (Oxford) - "Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real." [1]However, Webster provides a different definition:Disbelief (Webster) - "Mental rejection of something as untrue." [2]When it comes to non belief, Oxford has a definition as lack of belief:Non Belief (Oxford) - "Lack of belief in something, especially religion." [3]Webster defines non belief as:Non Belief (Webster) - "Refusal to accept something as true." [4]As you can see, the truth or falsehood of my opponent's statement is completely dependant upon the definitions used. If we use Oxford's definition of disbelief and Webster's definition of non belief then my opponent's first statement is self-evidently false.Since his statement depends on particular definitions, it isn't very substantial (and also has no bearing on the resolution).Now, is Atheism a religion? It all depends on how one defines "religion"; Oxford has a few definitions (I will provide two).Religion (Oxford) - "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." [5]Religion (Oxford) - "A pursuit of interest followed with great devotion." [6]According to the first definition, Atheism clearly isn't a religion, but according to the second definition it can be. However, according to this definition, sticker collecting could be a religion if followed with much devotion; it would be a religion but in a trivial way. Webster's definitions aren't far off, I think everybody gets the point. Are disbelief and non belief the same? Yes, according to some definitions. Is Atheism a religion? Yes, according to some counter-intuitive definition, but Atheism is not a religion based on how the word religion is commonly used; which I think should have much more bearing on the resolution. -Sources-[1] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com...[3] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...[4] https://www.merriam-webster.com...[5] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...[6] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
Rap battle

Dude why did you accept your inferior I already broke your exterior and I'm in your interior You suck so obviously I'm superior You nothing bit a piece of sh!t Your so weak you can't eve take a hit Might as well quit before I leave you falling in a bottomless pit You should just admit that your weak and unfit You didn't even rap so you don't have a flow Unlike me who's flow will hit you like an immense blow I see your obsessed with a cow it can show Your so stupid you talked to a cow and you thought it said hello You don't have a heart or a soul Your nothing but a no life internet troll Leaving you beaten and dead is my main goal You better do something soon cuz right now I'm in control
This House Believes That Creationism Should Be Taught In Science Classes

Moving onto a summary of my summaries for my arguments. My first argument entitled Scientific Discourse displays the need for Creationism to fulfill three important criteria in order for it to be considered as true science. These three criteria are; 1. It has to study the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world. 2. The study has to be through observations 3. Observations have to supported by experimental evidence. Creationism does not fulfill these three criteria and therefore, cannot be considered as true science which can be taught in science class as a theory or hypothesis of any sort. My second argument entitled 'The Laws of Science' tries to argue that creationism does not suffice as a hypothesis or a theory and thus, cannot be taught as real science in a science class until it is able to provide reasons as to why it should be considered a valid hypothesis or a valid theory of science. Since it has not been able to provide any such reasons, it cannot and should not be taught in science class and therefore, should be taught in a philosophy class or a theology class or at a church, if you will. I thank Pro for an interesting debate and will wait patiently for his summary of his arguments. I hope you have a nice day.
This House Believes That Creationism Should Be Taught In Science Classes

"'Creationism should be taught in science class because the universe may actually be a computer program' This is pure speculation. It might very well be true that we are in a computer program but that gives us no reason whatsoever to teach creationism in science class."Actually scientists right now are measuring the trajectories of cosmic rays to see if they are coming more from a certain direction than others to try and find evidence that the universe really is a computer program. It would be evidence because if the universe were a computer program, some things would not be perfect such as random directions of cosmic rays."'created by an incredibly advanced race who to our limited perspective could be considered gods' Again, pure speculation. According to the definition of Creationism in the context of this debate, it is the belief that the universe and the various forms of life were created by God out of nothing. Note that it states that only one being was responsible for the creation. So your hypothesis is still valid but it does not constitute any reason why we should teach creationism in the classroom."It's because the computer world hypothesis is a hypothesis! "Even if it were true that there was an incredibly advanced race who would be considered gods, it doesn't mean that they have all of the characteristics of a god, such as omnipotence, omnipresence etc. They would be gods in the sense of having a higher form of technology than ours. But they wouldn't have the qualities which we think gods would ever have if they did exist. Also, this advanced race would still be the result of some sort of evolutionary process, so different from ours that they might have a different language from ours and even better technology.I completely agree. (If I were a creationist I would say)You just need to have faith.
This House Believes That Creationism Should Be Taught In Science Classes

For my rebuttals, I only have one rebuttal as Pro only provided one argument. 'Creationism should be taught in science class because the universe may actually be a computer program' This is pure speculation. It might very well be true that we are in a computer program but that gives us no reason whatsoever to teach creationism in science class. 'created by an incredibly advanced race who to our limited perspective could be considered gods' Again, pure speculation. According to the definition of Creationism in the context of this debate, it is the belief that the universe and the various forms of life were created by God out of nothing. Note that it states that only one being was responsible for the creation. So your hypothesis is still valid but it does not constitute any reason why we should teach creationism in the classroom. Even if it were true that there was an incredibly advanced race who would be considered gods, it doesn't mean that they have all of the characteristics of a god, such as omnipotence, omnipresence etc. They would be gods in the sense of having a higher form of technology than ours. But they wouldn't have the qualities which we think gods would ever have if they did exist. Also, this advanced race would still be the result of some sort of evolutionary process, so different from ours that they might have a different language from ours and even better technology. I conclude by saying that Pro has to make a rebuttal against all of my arguments in Round 2 before the summaries in Round 4.
This House Believes That Creationism Should Be Taught In Science Classes

Let's have a good debate, shall we? Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Arguments Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Summary Definitions: Creationism: The belief that the universe and the various forms of life were created by God out of nothing. (1) Science: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. (2) Rules: 1. No swearing or cursing. We want a friendly debate. 2. Follow the definitions as closely as possible. The last thing we want is to go off-topic. 3. Separate each point of contention/substantive/argument into paragraphs with a clear title for each of your argument. This is for the purpose of Rebuttals. If there's nothing else, then let's get started. (1) http://global.britannica.com... (2) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Captialism vs Socialism(Specifically in America)

This round was supposed to be a rebuttal; however, I have nothing to rebut, so instead I will make another case. Unlike a socialist government, private corporations don't have the worker's best interest in mind, and instead only care about making money. This means the workers are always getting the short end of the stick. On the world stage, The U.S. is way more conservative than pretty much any other first world country. When Germany, and Japan had their militaries taken away after WWII, they were able to invest the money that would go to their militaries into their economies and they have had incredible success with their economies. When you invest in the people it pays off.
Captialism vs Socialism(Specifically in America)

A big problem with Reagan capitalism is its trickle down economics. It just doesn't work; when the rich have more money they don't shop at small businesses more but instead either hoard there money or spend it on extravagances. This means there is no way for their wealth, which makes up a substantial amount of America's wealth, to get to the poorer people because they don't work at the places the rich are buying from. The wealth never trickles down and thus this system of economics only benefits the rich. Capitalism does not reward hard work the way it claims it does. Instead, the wealthy are born with a silver spoon in their mouths, and no matter how hard the poor work they simply can not beat this kind of privilege.
space exploration is waste of money and time...

'It does sound unrealistic but It is very likely to happen' Red herring-even if this were the case, the debate is on whether it SHOULD be the case, not whether it will be. Furthermore, you appear to agree with my summary of your position with this statement. Potential voters should bear this in mind. 'It sounded impossible when we first planned to land on the moon until Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin' Flying a couple of people to the moon is one thing. Moving the entire population of earth to another planet is another prospect entirely. 'There was also one other moon landing in 1969, and four more over the years 1970, 1971, and 1972. It is not a waste of money' Yes it was. There, I have provided as much evidence in support of my assertion as you has for yours. Just because people keep doing it doesn't mean it isn't dumb. 'Without exploring the space we wouldn't even be having this discussion' Woop de do. Underlining the butterfly effect gets you nowhere. 'without exploring the space we might not have the technology we have today' Again, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this. 'We need to colonize the planet. Mars is similar to Earth. It has water. After many years, earth might not be able to accommodate the human race, but mars will' Finally, my opponent suggests a planet. However, even if Mars does have water (and this is by no means proven), a great deal of other things are required for humans to live there- . http://en.wikipedia.org... Mars lacks many, many of these, and so is an unsuitable candidate. Furthermore, my opponent has still not solved the transport problem. 'Think about it people! Some day the earth will fail. Would you rather die or find a way to live? ' This is little more than an appeal to emotion. We can find ways to sustain the earth. We do not need to resort to my opponents suggestion. I await my opponents last round-I suggest he makes it count.
space exploration is waste of money and time...

It does sound unrealistic but It is very likely to happen. It sounded impossible when we first planned to land on the moon until Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin became the first humans to land on any heavenly body outside earth when they landed on the moon on July 20th, 1969. There was also one other moon landing in 1969, and four more over the years 1970, 1971, and 1972. It is not a waste of money. It helps in the future but also loses money at the same time. It will be always be a helpful thing later on. NASA had a budget of $16.2 billion with human spaceflight division but also other engineering projects and science funds by NASA. Without exploring the space we wouldn't even be having this discussion, without exploring the space we might not have the technology we have today. We need to colonize the planet. Mars is similar to Earth. It has water. After many years, earth might not be able to accommodate the human race, but mars will. We study about mars and other planets all the time. And if it is true, if we are really able to live in such planet then it'll all be worth it. Think about it people! Some day the earth will fail. Would you rather die or find a way to live? Even if it takes us to exploring each and everyone one of planet everyone will rather live than die. And it is not like we are going to spend the whole money on space exploration.
space exploration is waste of money and time...

'ok. .. so first of all are you trying to say we should kill people to decrease the population? ' I am saying that given that the earth's population could potentially increase to the point where the average person lives in squalor, a mass curb of the planets population might indeed be the moral thing to do. If you consider that option too extreme, there are other options. For instance, a state induced population control or ultra efficient housing, farming etc. 'We cannot predict the what would happen to the earth in the future' Sure we can- you're about to point out a few of them. 'Something bad can happen (e. g. Global warming, H1N1) so we need to explore and find a backup just in case the earth fails to stand in a good position' Neither Global warming or the H1N1 virus pose any threat to the earth- what you mean is that they pose a threat to humanity. However, both are containable provided WE INVEST FUNDS INTO COMBATING THEM. Funds which could come from cancelling space programs. I ask you this question- should we spend money searching the galaxy in the vain hope of finding a new planet to start over, despite there being no evidence (at least that my opponent has provided) that there is such a place, or should we invest in THIS planets future? I think the answer is clearly the latter. 'And we can use the information from the space exploration to help us improve on science. It can be a way to solve the problem on this planet as well' The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this. Until you do, it is mere speculation. On the other hand, we know that investing in, for instance, green technologies produces clear progress- . http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk... 'The money that we use to explore the space is used will be helpful and make the space exploring successful and more money we will earn' Lets see if I understand my opponents logic here; 1. Spend billions upon billions of dollars/pounds/euros on finding a habitable planet (despite no evidence that one exists). 2. Somehow create giant space transports to move the earth's population to said planet (emphasis on 'somehow'). 3. Build an entire new civilisation on new planet (and promise we won't screw up this one, really). 4. Offset the massive costs from steps one, two and three by. .. exploring space? (I assume he means space tourism). Is it just me, or does this seem a little unrealistic? I await my opponents response.
space exploration is waste of money and time...

ok... so first of all are you trying to say we should kill people to decrease the population? We cannot predict the what would happen to the earth in the future. Something bad can happen (e.g Global warming, H1N1) so we need to explore and find a backup just in case the earth fails to stand in a good position. And we can use the information from the space exploration to help us improve on science. It can be a way to solve the problem on this planet as well. The money that we use to explore the space is used will be helpful and make the space exploring successful and more money we will earn.
space exploration is waste of money and time...

1. How are we going to hold all these population in one planet called earth??? As I said before the population is growing and it is not like we are going to kill those people to decrease the population. 2. Studies have shown that there is water on Mars (http://news.nationalgeographic.com...) And we found other planet that is OUTSIDE the solar system with water. (http://www.space.com...) This is one of the reasons why people think there is life on earth. 3. Exploring space will be more helpful to the planet Earth and this is to study how planet works. How we can improve the planet. If we want to find the way to sustain the earth like you said, then explore the space. When a poor country wants to improve on make the country better they observe the rich country and see how their works, so if our planet is failing then observe other planet and see what the planet has. Does the other planet have some kind of special resource? Do they have some kind of chemical in the ground? And that's when we study more and more and make our planet the way we want. 4. We get expanded understanding of the of the universe. 5. Cellphones, GPS devices, Video Games, computing devices have all benefited from technologies coming from space exploration. If you like video game or any electronic device it is a benefit for those things too. 6. The world is spending more on war and weapons, porn movies, human trafficking, animal cruelty, and prostitution. I think yes it's worth it and many people think this too. At least if you don't want us to become extinct in a few thousand or hundred years. I had fun debating with you! Thank you for debating with me.
There should be curfews for minors under the age of 18

Thank you thebestdebater for a quick response. My opponent mentions that child offenders are sent into a psychological state where they view themselves as criminals. This has not been cited so how often does this actually happen and does it have a permanent affect? Secondly, my opponent mentions that having a criminal record prevents a child from getting to a good university. However, once a child reaches the age of majority all such records are cleared so would have no effect anyway. Breaking a curfew is a minor crime so would definitely be cleared. Assuming such records did stay wouldn't that just provide incentive NOT to break curfew? It's also true that some minors may work night shift, but surely in such cases curfews wouldn't apply anyway? Work is quite a different circumstance from roaming the streets for recreation. Again, my opponent provides no proof for his claim that most juvenile offenders commit crimes from 3-8. However, assuming this is true he seems to be missing the fact that there's also more people around at that time to see things occur, thus they're more likely to be reported.