BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Creationism is scientific

The truth is, I am not science oriented at all. I am more right brained than I am right wing, which says a lot. In fact, my biggest hobby is writing stories on my computer. I'm currently writing a sci-fi novel, and I've written more than 300 pages of it. I don't know that much about science or math. In fact, half of the time when I'm talking about Creationism I don't completely understand what my opponents are saying. However, so that I don't look bad, I've accepted this challenge and I'll try to do the best I can. I'll probably lose, but hopefully I'll put up a good fight. First of all, I would like to say that Theistic Evolution is incompatible with several religions, such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. All of these teach the Earth was created in just a few days, literal 24 hour days. If you deny this is true, then effectively you are denying Christianity, Judaism, and/or Islam.
God most likely does not exist and is not necessary

I'll keep this short to spare voters too much unnecessary reading. My opponent's arguments in the previous round are baffling. I never engaged in a god of the gaps type argument. My arguments have been backed by evidence not by lack of evidence. I point out that my opponent is making some arguments from ignorance and he does nothing to provide a rebuttal for that. He states that sometimes a lack of evidence is evidence. However I never said it wasn't. I merely showed he was arguing from ignorance. My opponent actually sent me a pm conceding this debate. I'm not exactly sure why he let the round expire instead of just typing that in.
God most likely does not exist and is not necessary

Rebuttals Premise 1: God was not necessary for the beginning of the universe. "As Stephen Hawking said, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." There is evidence directly contradicting all known religious accounts of creation, since we know there was a Big Bang. Quantum fluctuations are most likely the cause for the Big Bang, which would come from a quantum vacuum that's equivalent to nothing." This theory of Stephen Hawking wasn't well explained by my opponent. The whole theory, rests on a few assumptions. The first is that the universe has a zero total energy. That claim was in part derived from the Big Bang Theory. Thus, creating a a positive feed back loop each part confirming tho other. AKA, circular logic. There is no way to know the total energy level of the universe and with the lack of data it is irresponsible for scientists to speculate on it. Another theory that is depended on for this is quantum gravity. Quantum gravity is in it's baby stages and scientists really don't even have a working model for it. What it mostly boils down to is what scientist call HUP(Heisenberg's uncertainty principle). In the quantum world you have things on the quantum level seemingly popping into and out if existence for a really short period of time. What some misguided people have done is apply this to how the universe may have popped into existence. Things happen different on the quantum level then they do above it. You don't just randomly seeing cats pop into and out of existence. It's the same with universes. Universes are above the quantum level, just like cats. Universes don't just randomly pop into and out of existence. If you want an explanation for how the universe came to be, than you'll have to look at something different than quantum mechanics. Premise 2: There is no real evidence for God. This is not a good argument against God being necessary for the universe to exist. It's fallacious and can be considered an argument from ignorance. http://www.fallacyfiles.org... Conclusion My opponents arguments hold no water. One argument is a complete logical fallacy argument from ignorance. The other argument doesn't really give much information and is easily refuted.
God most likely does not exist and is not necessary

I don't want to have an extra round then my opponent to argue. I will give my opponent a very basic outline of what I'll be arguing, so that he has something to argue against. I'm going to be borrowing heavily from what I call the simulated Earth Hypothesis, by Nick Bostrom. . http://www.simulation-argument.com... I'm also going to be reading through a lot of the user known as Bornofgod's posts, and weaving his stuff in with the Simulated Earth Hypothesis. . http://www.debate.org... To form the ultimate trifecta, I will also be borrowing from a lot of the theories presented in " Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman. "
God most likely does not exist and is not necessary

In this debate, I will be defending the assertion that there is no God and we do not need Him in life or for the beginnings of the universe. I must stress that I am a Christian, but I would like to play devil's advocate here and take the other side. My opponent, being an atheist himself, will also play devil's advocate an argue that God's existence is valid and that He is necessary for the universe to have come into existence. .. There is only one definition that needs to be clarified for this before starting, and that's the definition of God: "1. God a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. " . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Islam is a barbaric religion that has no place in modern, civilized countries.

My role in this debate is to refute Pro's contention, BoP is on Pro, I will show the definitions and then begin my short rebuttalDefinitions:barbaric: "very rude or offensive : not polite or proper : very cruel"[1]Modern: ": of or relating to the present time or the recent past : happening, existing, or developing at a time near the present time" [2]civilized: " : marked by well-organized laws and rules about how people behave with each other : polite, reasonable, and respectful : pleasant and comfortable" [3][1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2]http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3]http://www.merriam-webster.com...Rebuttal:Pro has stated used to be tough and harsh, but it is in harmony with the modern world today, then goes on about the Sharia Law, first the full Sharia law is not applied fully in any country even in Saudi Arabia."every rapist and his victim being punished equally under law."False statement with no proof, Imam Malik commented on this:"In our view the man who rapes a woman, whether she is a virgin or not, if she is a free woman he must pay a “dowry” like that of her peers, and if she is a slave he must pay whatever has been detracted from her value. The punishment is to be carried out on the rapist and there is no punishment for the woman who has been raped, whatever the case." Al-Muwatta’, 2/734 Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: "The scholars are unanimously agreed that the rapist is to be subjected to the hadd punishment if there is clear evidence against him that he deserves the hadd punishment, or if he admits to that. Otherwise, he is to be punished (i.e., if there is no proof that the hadd punishment for zina may be carried out against him because he does not confess, and there are not four witnesses, then the judge may punish him and stipulate a punishment that will deter him and others like him). There is no punishment for the woman if it is true that he forced her and overpowered her, which may be proven by her screaming and shouting for help." Al-Istidhkaar, 7/146 The punishment for the rapist is death by stoning or 80 lashes, depending on the case.
Islam is a barbaric religion that has no place in modern, civilized countries.

Islam has always been a religion that has been resistant to change. Think back to the crusades with the catholics, the radical and violent beliefs the catholic church had held. Nowadays the church has mended its ways and adapted to a modern world. Islam refuses to change and whenever someone so much as begins to criticize its practices they're lives are threatened. Think about sharia law, the eye for an eye mentality that the middle east is known for. Would such beliefs really benefit a modern urban city, every rapist and his victim being punished equally under law. Of course not, its a barbaric and ancient system that refuses to adapt to modern standards. My point is, is that the religion of Islam is in dire need of a reform and the first step to that is admitting that it is not without faults.
Islam is a barbaric religion that has no place in modern, civilized countries.

Ill try my best to respond to all your points Point 1: Your basically proving my point when I say that no muslim wants to reform Sharia Law. You say that it is the law of God and does not need reform. You basically proved my point when I said that it is a law that can never be reformed and by extension can never be improved Point 2: You are using sources from Imams, people who lead prayer in islam. Because they are from Islam they are supposed to defend islam. My sites offered stories about people who are persecuted by Islam, and the people on my sites have no obligation to defend islam as your Imams do. Therefore your Imams are untrustworthy as it is against there moral fiber to admit anything wrong with Islam, as its against there religion. They are blinded by there obligation to there church and as such they couldnt say anything negative about Islam even if they thought something negative about islam. Point 3: The Jizya is a terrible tax that burdens people simply for not following Islam. You have proved my point by offering an example about how the law in muslim countries oppesses non-muslims. Point 4: You admit that stoning someone to death in public is a possibility, also lashing someone a hundred times for sleeping with another mans wife is still pretty barbaric. Imagine in the UK or US if everyday men and women were brought out in the middle of the street and lashed a hundred times in full view of the public for commiting a "sexual sin" in the eyes of the Quran. Not everyone follows the Quran so the law shouldnt affect those who arent muslim but it DOES, making your last point even more ridiculous. Point 5: Many non-muslim people do complain about Sharia Law, it hurts local businesses that sell things Sharia Law bans and opresses those who arent muslim. Not everyone thinks and worships like a muslim so not everyone should have to follow muslim laws. Many people who are non-religious also hate Sharia Law because it limits there personal freedoms to eat, drink and party how they want. You cant expect everyone to be a muslim, and Im correcting in saying that a country should base its laws on the entirety of all people, not a particular group. You muslims have been oppressed in the past under Christian laws, now you are oppressing anyone who isnt muslim in muslim countries under your laws. The law shouldnt be religiously based because no matter where you go not everyone is religious. Im sorry if I sound a little hateful when I write these words, its just Ive lived under Sharia Law before and it hurt my bar business forcing me into homelessness for three years of my life. Sharia Law does hurt people and if you looked at non-muslims lives youd see that not everyone benefits under Sharia Law. I hope you can have some valid points that contradict anything I have said in the next round, because so far you havent been able to.
Men have it worse than women in the United States.

Men have it worse than women in the United States. Women have a much better chance of getting into college. Also, they get paid more in their early years (20's). The only reason that women technically make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes is because they make different decisions in life. Also, men tend to work full time while women tend to raise children later in their life. Men have a higher chance to be raped, victims of homicide, suicide, and get much more harsh prison sentences. Men lose in a large majority of child custody cases. Lastly, men are much more likely to be hurt or die at their work.
The Digit "1" is in the Neither Category in Relation to Prime and Composite Numbers

"But both of the numbers are the same thing, therefore "they" are one, and as such "they" are not both and cannot be both, for "they" will always be one." The number one is divisible by both one and itself. No matter whether or not the number one is noted as both or as one, it is in fact divisible by both, no matter if 'both' is the same number. In the definition of and that you supplied, it says 'in addition to, also, etc'. The number one is divisible by itself, and also the number one. The number one is divisible by both itself and the number one. Although both are the same, this does not qualify it to be placed in neither group.
The Digit "1" is in the Neither Category in Relation to Prime and Composite Numbers

Okay, since me opponent failed to respond within the time allotted, I shall restate my position upon the subject. The number one is in the neither category in relation to prime and composite numbers. The reason being is simple: One is only one number, and therefore the statement "One and one" is invalid in cases relating to the same thing and number. Prove me wrong.
The Digit "1" is in the Neither Category in Relation to Prime and Composite Numbers

"the number IS in fact divisible by both" But both of the numbers are the same thing, therefore "they" are one, and as such "they" are not both and cannot be both, for "they" will always be one. "and therefore fits the requirments you have stated." But, in fact, it doesn't, for both of the numbers you have stated are the same thing, and are therefore one number in truth. http://dictionary.reference.com... - "2. added to; plus: 2 and 2 are 4. " This can simply be restated as "in addition to" To have something "in additon to" another, those two things must be different.
The Digit "1" is in the Neither Category in Relation to Prime and Composite Numbers

You say that one is in the category of neither prime nor composite. I believe it is prime. The number 1 is divisible by one and itself. Although itself and one are the same thing, the number IS in fact divisible by both, and therefore fits the requirments you have stated. prime number-a positive integer that is not divisible without remainder by any integer except itself and 1. The number 1 is divisible by itself. It is also divisible by one. Therefore, I believe it is a prime number.
The Digit "1" is in the Neither Category in Relation to Prime and Composite Numbers

OKay, this debate stemmed off a mini-debate that we had in math class. We were discussing prime and composite numbers, and my teacher told us that zero was special and was neither, and so the class argued for five minutes about whether one was in the neither category or the prime category. We never reached a conclusion. Anyway, I'll start my debate. One is in the neither category of numbers instead of the prime category simply because to be a prime number the number in question must be divisible by one and itself only. Well one's only divisible by one number, one. And, to back up that argument, I will point out that "and" means 'in addition to'. Prove me wrong.
Circumcision without absolute medical necesity is genital mutilation and should be banned:

Actually debates and discussions such as these will have an effect on the world. Here is a video explaining:Now let's move on to debating the issue:The resolution consists in 2 points which I must now prove- first, that circumcision is genital mutilation, and second, that it should be banned. I. THAT CIRCUMCISION IS GENITAL MUTILATIONGenital Mutilation is defined as: {1}"Any type of cutting or removal of all or some of the genital organs"Circumcision is defined as:"To remove the prepuce of a male."Circumcision refers to the removal of part of the genital organs, which fits the definition of genital mutilation- thus fulfilling my first burden of proof. 2. THAT CIRCUMCISION ON MINORS SHOULD BE BANNEDTitle 18 Section 116, United States Code, prohibits the removal of any part of the genitalia of a female who is under the age of 18, save out of absolute medical necessity, and only permitted to be done by a licensed practitioner. Though this law only explicitly prohibits the mutilation of female genitalia, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection of the Law to all citizens of the United States, men and women. Therefore, male circumcision should be illegal- as to keep it legal is a violation of the 14th Amendment. {3} {1}. http://www.dictionary.com...{2}. http://www.dictionary.com...{3}. https://www.law.cornell.edu...
Circumcision without absolute medical necesity is genital mutilation and should be banned:

Standard resolution- I am just going to copy paste from a previous debate- the circumcision, or any other form of genital cutting, of anyone under the age of 18, unless out of absolute medical necessity, is genital mutilation, and should be banned.Alright, so I've talked about this before, my whole life is not about penises if you were wondering, but I found this debate in which you defended this barbaric practise, and so- were going to talk about it. Again- oh well, let's get this nightmare over with. I can't believe I have to have a huge debate to show how holding down a baby and slicing off half of his erogenous tissue is wrong, and should be illegal.
The Communist Experiment 2.0

Communism, like any form of government, is but an experiment at trying to make peoples lives better. Some of these experiments succeed ( republics) some fail ( despotism) and some reach gray ( monarchy, depending the monarch) If an experiment fails repeatedly, then it becomes apparent that one should abandon what ever they are experimenting in. The hypothesis behind communism is to create a workers society, were all wealth and property is distributed amongst the working population evenly, and for the workers to have control of the means of production. Please correct me if I am wrong on this or I have forgotten something. Many would argue that first experiment into communism was with the Russian revolution, in 1905, then in 1917. The hypothesis behind the Russian revolution, was that if communist leaders rose up with a proletariat army and seized control of the government, that a perfect communist society would be formed. As we know,this did not form a ' dictatorship of the proletariat' but instead a dictatorship over the proletariat. The soviets as they were then called did not accomplish the goal of a perfect communist society and therefore failed. This however, is only one failure, a proper experiment requires multiple experiments. Experiments such as China, DPRK, Poland, Albania, Yugoslavia, East Germany, Bulgaria, Romania, Mongolia, Hungary, Checkoslavakia, and Somalia. All of these nations had the same hypothesis, and they all had the same results: a brutal dictatorship. When the results of an experiment do not match up with the hypothesis, does that mean that the results are wrong? No, it means that the hypothesis is wrong. Many would also like to argue that all of these nations were influenced by the Soviet Union which was already a failure and is therefore the other experiments do not count. If this is true, we then go back to a time period when the soviet union did not exist. In 1870, the Paris Commune was formed. The Commune lasted 72 days and destroyed a third of Paris and killed over 12,000 people ( note that many of those killed were priests in Commune ordered mass executions) However, some would also argue that the reason so many died and so much of the city was destroyed was because of the Franco-Prussian war. As there are no certain statistics on the matter, we cannot draw any clear conclusion. In light of this, we must then go back to the very first experiment into communism ever. In 1825, New Harmony, Indiana was purchased by a wealthy Welsh business owner. Yeah, that's right, communism was invented in America. Just blew your minds! The exact ideas of communism were enacted in New Harmony 30 years before the communist manifesto was ever written. The town lasted 2 years before it collapsed in on it self. Numerous experiments have been made into communism, all of them ending in failure. A reasonable scientist would know that by now, it is without a doubt, a failure. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Communist Experiment 2.0

This is the second time that I have started this debate, but the last time my opponent just didn't care enough about the debate to continue on. This is the redo round. Many have argued that nations such as the USSR and China were not true communist states and that if a new nation were to try communism again, they would experience different positive results. For this debate we will apply the scientific method in seeing if this at all likely. Con will be arguing that if a new attempt at communism were to take place that it most likely be a success.
The United States has a moral obligation to mediate and alleviate international conflicts.

My opponent did not make his rebuttals on my arguments. I only hope he can somehow save some of his dignity by posting a closing argument while fitting rebuttals and actual arguments in his round. My points still stand as they were. Seeing as there is nothing to rebuttal, I will simply go straight to my closing argument by reclaiming what I had already written. 1. National security and self-preservation (the highest law) is what we should strive for. 2. We get nothing for our troubles of fighting and mediating. 3. We should not interrupt in other countries problems because we make enemies out of it and we tarnish our economic trade. 4. We should become an isolationist nation. 5. Our allies are almost completely useless to us. 6. National security and self-preservation will protect our isolationism. Therefore, the U.S. does not have a moral obligation to mediate and alleviate all conflicts. I have provided the problem and the solution to the debate, as my opponent has not.
The United States has a moral obligation to mediate and alleviate international conflicts.

One of my main points is going to be that the us has a moral obligation to protect its allies as it is a big United States interest. Thus if one of our allies was in a international conflict we have a moral obligation to protect them. Second we must not look to my opponents value because they cannot make up which one it is I'd like to stick to one value My oponents criterion in a nut shell is isolation. I'd like to see how isolation will protect national security. Sorry for he short arguments but I would like to see some standards first.
Get Rid of Affirmative Action

I will start my arguments in the next round. In this round, I will explain the Affirmative Action policy as it is outlined by the United States Department of Labor. This will offer a more comprehensive definition of what Affirmative Action is, so that it can be debated more clearly. . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org...
Get Rid of Affirmative Action

(This is my first debate so if I mess up the set-up I apologize in advance) To me Affirmative Action is a hypocritical idea and policy. It supposedly is a program to end discrimination, however all it does it promotes discrimination. Affirmative Action makes race and gender play an role in gaining admittance to a school, or to land a job. I find it unfair that someone who may be smarter and overall better for acceptance to a position would be rejected because of the school or company has to allow a certain amount of minorities into its ranks. Its true that some people may be better off than others in terms of finances and environment, but that's not anyone else's problem and no one should have to suffer because of it. This country is built off the premise that hard work will have you be successful in life. There shouldn't be any free passes to someone because of their race. If they work hard, they will be successful, the program shouldn't be taking opportunities from those who truly deserve them.