BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution vs Creationism

Pro again forfeited the round. I think my friend Pro has agreed with me that creationism is the fact and truth. and Evolution has no base.There is no evidence that evolution has occurred because no transitional forms exist in fossils i.e. scientists cannot prove with fossils that fish evolved into amphibians or that amphibians evolved into reptiles, or that reptiles evolved into birds and mammals. There is of course no scientific law or demonstrable process that would let something evolve from nothing. If there was nothing in the universe to begin with, obviously nothing could happen to cause anything to appear. Again, there is no scientific law or demonstrable process that can account for non-living objects coming to life. The non-living soil in your garden didn't turn into living trees and flowers. They came from seeds, cuttings, or grafts from other living trees and flowers. Imagine all life on earth disappeared. There are no trees, plants or animals. All we have is rocks, dust, and lifeless matter. So how does the earth get populated with living things? There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind. Insects don't evolve into more complex non-insects for instance, because they don't have the genes to do it. To show that all life evolved from a single cell, which itself came from some type of chemical soup, there would have had to be massive genetic information genes But evolutionists have failed to show how this genes of new information occurred. Where did the information come from for the first bristles, stomachs, spines, intestines, complex blood circulation systems, intricate mouthpieces to strain special foods out of the water, and so on, when these were supposedly not present in the ancestral species? The theory of evolution teaches that complex life-forms evolved from simple life-forms. There is no natural law known that could allow this to happen. The best that evolutionists can come up with to try to explain how this might have happened is to propose that it happened by mutations and natural selection.
Evolution vs Creationism

Pro forfeited this round but I will not leave the topic. Lots of evidence proves that evolution is wrong and creationism is the right approach. I will hit evolution with another evidence. Bats,are the only mammals that can fly. Evolutionist are unable to link with any other mammalian group . Approximately 1000 species of bats exist worldwide. it is suggested that this was because they didn't evolve, but were created as bats in the beginning by Allah(God). The earliest fossil bats(50 million years old), are clearly identifiable as bats, with no hint that they have evolved from anything that was not a bat.
Evolution vs Creationism

Let me put some more facts which support creationism. There is no proof that apes turned into humans. Evolutionists still tell the story that once upon a time humans evolved from ape-like creatures. Things have changed. Thousands of fossils and fossil fragments of apes and humans have now been found " and they don't show a steady progression from apes to humans at all. The larynx, or voice box, sits lower in the throat in humans than in Apes make him totally different than Apes. We also possess a descended hyoid bone " this horseshoe-shaped bone below the tongue, unique in that it is not attached to any other bones in the body, allows us to articulate words when speaking. Lots of other feature like reproduction. our extraordinary brain etc. Most animals reproduce until they die, but in humans, females can survive long after ceasing reproduction. all these feature can not be evolved .
Evolution vs Creationism

Creationism is true and explain how the living things came into being. The whole organized universe points toward this fact that only one power is the controlling authority who created the universe . I accepted the Pro request on the basis that misconduct will not be tolerated. I am sure Pro will take care of that. Evolution can be discussed all day long, but Can evolutionist show me how something comes from nothing wherein it then of its own accord, proceeds to gain intelligence? where there was no intelligence. Further, I'll say this, if man can exercise an ingenuity that creates wonders, why is it not possible for there to be a being of higher intelligence who created us? . I'm saying at least posit the belief there can be a greater being than man (Some scientist). Why do we cling to a moral code among st ourselves? To say it developed just doesn't work . Why were we angry about the Holocaust, Columbine, 9/11, the Boston Bombings? Why does it matter to us? What is it in us that says it's wrong? Are we seriously going to argue that evolution created the ability to distinguish right from wrong in us? If so, what defines good and bad? Why do we look for something greater than ourselves? To say we just decided to start questioning our existence doesn't work. Inherently, you can seek to crush or dispel it all day long, but there is something in us that leads us to know there's more. It's the reason for the space program. It's the reason science even exists.
Moral relativism

Of course morality ITSELF is nearly universal, nobody would debate that. However, finding universal morals is another matter entirely. Every stable society has prohibitions against the unrestrained killing of others, so we might assume that "murder is wrong" is a universal statement. Is the killing of a terminally ill patient murder? Or an embryo? A cow for meat? A felon on death row? Civilians during wartime? "Murder is wrong" is not universal because the word "murder" is not universal. It means different things to different people. What, exactly, it means to murder another depends on exactly how one categorizes the world. It is completely impossible for any two people, much less any two cultures, to conceptualize the world in exactly the same way. Slight differences in the meaning of key words will result in radically different philosophies. This problem is not confined to the problem of murder either.
Moral relativism

The dualism between moral universalism and relativism is one of my favorite topics of discussion, so I am happy to take this debate! I will be arguing for moral relativism, but NOT against moral absolutism. I really don't see these two schools of thought as being opposites. The first thing we have to do is be clear on the distinction between both relativism and universalism. Often it is phrased as "Can we judge the actions of another by our own morals, or must we take into account the culture in which the action took place?". The problem with this is that it actually presupposes a universal moral law: "We should only judge the actions of others by taking into account the surrounding culture". Under moral relativism, no such statement can exist. The actual distinction between the two moral frameworks involves how we use certain words, and how we interpret moral statements. Before I put forth my defense of relativism, I will need to hear my opponents arguments.
There are no true messianic prophecies that can be attributed to Jesus.

Prophecy 1My first point of response is to quote Kohai. In the comments of this debate, prior to engaging, Kohai agreed that the Gospels were legitimate historical data, and agreed not to attack them. He wrote:""Is the NT legit history?" (Quoting me) For sake of this debate, yes...although I can argue it is not. I'm not going to attack the historical aspect of NT--just what it says."As such, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke acknowledge that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. John and Mark are silent on the location of his birth.Furthermore, my opponent quotes Borg who questions the historicity of Matthew and Luke. However, Borg's opinion on this matter is irrelevant. The confusion amongst the people in the Gospels is irrelevant (it was not uncommon in an era with no internet or electronic filing to not be sure where a person was born). The Gospels either state explicitly that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, or are silent on the matter. As such, we must assume that Jesus was indeed born in Bethlehem and fulfills thi sprophecy. Furthermore, I could cite as many, if not more, scholars who do believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Craig Blomberg, NT Wright, Ben Witherington III, William Lane Craig, just to name a few). My opponent simply has committed an appeal to authority fallacy here.Prophecy 2My opponent misses a significant point. We are not debating on if Jesus was indeed the messiah, nor are we debating if he was or was not from God. The resolution of this debate only contains within its scope if there are messianic prophecies that Jesus fulfilled. Anyone who had a ministry of supernatural healing can be said to have fulfilled this prophecy... regardless of if they are Messiah or from God. My opponent has conceeded that this prophecy states that Messiah will have a ministry of supernatural healing, and he conceeded the historical accuracy of the Gospels. And no one can deny that the Gospels report that Jesus had such a ministry. As such, we can affirmatively say (given the concessions of my opponent) that Jesus fulfilled this particular messianic prophecy.Prophecy 3My opponent claims that since Jesus sinned (I am not conceeding that he did), then he could not have fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 53. My opponent is backtracking on himself... he previously claimed that Israel was the fulfillment of this prophecy, surely he is not claiming that Israel did not sin! Furthermore, the text of the prophecy in Isaiah 53 says nothing about being sinless. No where in its 12 verse is the requirement of a sinless life listed for fulfillment of this prophecy. While Jesus being a sinner DOES present major problems for Christian theology, it does not present any roadblock to his fulfillment of this prophecy.Thank you.
There are no true messianic prophecies that can be attributed to Jesus.

I accept the terms as listed. Prophecy 1: The Messiah would be born in the Town of BethlehemOld Testament Text: Micah 5:2 - ESV. to/micah5:2New Testament Text: Matthew 2:1ff ESV. to/Matthew2Not only does the New Testament Record that Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Matthew and Luke, but the Jews of the day indicate that they understand that Messiah will be born in Bethlehem. Prophecy 2: the Messiah's ministry will be one of both spiritual and physical healing. Old Testament Text: Isaiah 35:5-6 - ESV. to/Isaiah35:5-6New Testament Text: Luke 7:20-22 - ESV. to/Luke7:20-22When John the Baptist asks for Jesus to confirm his identity as Messiah, he points him to the fact that Messiah will heal people of their maladies. Specifically, he cites blindness and spiritual oppression. The Gospels record him doing all of these things, and Jesus himself believed that this evidence was enough to identify him as Messiah. Prophecy 3: The Messiah would suffer a substitutionary death for the sins of IsraelOld Testament Text: Isaiah 53:5-6 - ESV. to/Isaiah53:5-6New Testament Text: Luke 23:32ff and pars. - ESV. to/Luke23 and 2 Corinthians 5:21 - ESV. to/2Corinthians5:21The passion accounts clearly match up with the "piercing" and "crushing" described in Isaiah 53. Beyond that, Jesus's death served as a substitutionary attonement, according to Paul, where he "became sin" for us. This is in line with Isaiah's language that "our iniquities" would be "laid upon him. "I look forward to the next round.
There are no true messianic prophecies that can be attributed to Jesus.

Resolved: There are no true messianic prophecies that can be attributed to Jesus. ============ BURDEN OF PROOF ============ My opponent can use any prophecy from the old testament or any verse from the old testament that he thinks can be attributed to Jesus. I will prove how it is not attributed to Jesus, taken out of context, or anything I feel can blow the "proof texts" out of water. ======= MESSIAH ======= The word "messiah" comes from the Hebrew word "moschaich" [a]. The name means "anointed one." Round 1: My opponent will bring forth 3 prophecies he feels can be attributed to Jesus. This debate works like the contradiction debates that RA and I have done. NOTES a. I think I spelled that right.
There are no true messianic prophecies that can be attributed to Jesus.

I will close this debate with a single quote from my opponent."Okay, for debate I’ll even concede the point that Jesus healed people. However, so has a lot of people who clearly were not messiah."This debate is not about if Jesus was the messiah or not. Rather, it was about if Jesus fulfilled any messianic prophecies. My opponent has conceeded both the fact that prophecy states that Messiah will heal people, and that Jesus healed people. While my opponent is correct that this does not prove that Jesus is Messiah, it does negate the resolution. Since at least one messianic prophecy has been possitively attributed to Jesus, the resolution that "There are no true messianic prophecies that can be attibuted to Jesus" does not stand, and therefore Con carries the arguments.
There are no true messianic prophecies that can be attributed to Jesus.

Thank you, ReformedArsenal, for such an exciting debate. You have responded ever so quickly to my arguments. This is, of course, the final round and I wish my opponent the best of luck in the voting period. Born in Bethlehem Again, for the sake of the debate, yes, the NT is reliable history. (This would actually be an interesting debate), and my opponent has yet to explain away any contradictions. Remember: Just because a document is “reliable” does not mean that it is free from contradictions, nor does it mean that every single thing is actual historic fact. Thus, I extend the contradiction argument. All what my opponent does is cite other scholars feeling that he was born in Bethlehem—SO WHAT! That does not answer the fact that numerous scholars also feel that he was not, nor does it answer the blatant contradiction that has serious consequences. Remember, the verse I cited divided people because they felt he could not be Christ (i.e. messiah) because of his birth place. Remember: The Messiah has to be from both DAVID AND SOLOMON, but Luke’s account of the genealogy gives David then Nathan. Healing Okay, for debate I’ll even concede the point that Jesus healed people. However, so has a lot of people who clearly were not messiah. Substitutionary Death My opponent still hasn’t responded to the fact that Jesus sinned, thus extend that argument. My opponent claims that it doesn’t matter if he sinned or did not. Folks, I contend that it does matter. Take a look at the following verse: 2 Corinthians 5:21For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. Thus if Jesus sinned, there would be a major contradiction there. The Bible teaches Jesus never sinned, but I proved otherwise. Remember, for the sin offering, the lamb must not have any blemishes—that includes internal blemishes as well. א. ב. I apologies to my opponent for a terrible round, but needed to finish the debate before school starts. ג. ד. | SUMMARY | Born in Bethlehem. Contradicted; Scholars feel that he was not; No rebuttal. Physical healing and spiritual healing. Not messianic (though conceded). Many people have “healed” other people. Does not prove he was messiah. Substitutionary Death Sin of Jesus. i. Substitutionary sacrifice could not have sinned. ii. Not responded. Reasons for Voting Conduct: I feel my opponent shown superb conduct and feel that this should be tied. Spelling and Grammar: My opponent made numerous spelling and grammar mistakes thus I wish to have that vote, not that it is super important. Arguments:I will the voters decide.Sources: We both used several sources, although I feel his were a bit more reliable with encyclopedia sources and thus wish the source point to go to my opponent.
The Bible is not inerrant.

It's been a while since my opponent and I have debated so I thank him for his time and his meticulous attention to detail. ================ Case Pro- Rebuttals ================ A.)" Assuming a cubit is 18 inches [1] (for the sake of calculations) and a handbreadth is 4 inches [2], we have the following two possible equations: pi = 540 inches / 180 inches = 3 pi = 540 inches / (180 inches - 8 inches) = 540 inches / 172 inches = 3.13953488372093" My opponent has proven the resolution to be true even if we were to follow his tortuous logic. Pi does not equal 3.13953488372093. Pi equals 3.1415926535897932384626433832795…. [1] B.) The claim that Pi equals 3 or 3.14 isn't just an imprecise. It's flat out untrue. Pi = 3.1415926535897932384626433832795…. and the number keeps running until infinity. To say that Pi = 3 or 3.14 would be an obvious mathematical error. C. "The Hebrew alphabet is alphanumeric,… pi = (30 cubits * (111 / 106)) / 10 cubits = 31.41509433962264 cubits / 10 cubits = 3.141509433962264" Pi does not equal 3.141509433962264. Twas a valiant effort at any rate young squire. - Twas is an actual word by the way. =================== The Triumph of Reason =================== 1.) Lets pretend that I take a math test and on that math test I encounter the problem. 2+2 =. If I were to write that 2+2=4.1 would I be correct? (No) Could I reasonably expect my teacher to give me credit for that response? (No). Would the answer 4.1 constitute an incorrect mathematical response to the equation 2 +2=? (Yes) Likewise, stating that Pi = 3.14 would also constitute a mathematical error. Pi is an irrational number and the decimal place for Pi runs to infinity; this is why we use Pi instead of 3 or 3.14 to calculate the volumes of cylinders. [2] 2.) My logic is inescapable. "(The Bible) 1Kings 7:23- And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." 30/10 =3 3 does not = Mathematical Pi 3.13953488372093 does not = Mathematical Pi 3.141509433962264 does not = Mathematical Pi No amount of casuistry or elusion will ever make (mathematical Pi) = 3 or 3.13953488372093- =========== Conclusion =========== 1.) The Bible contains an obvious mathematical inaccuracy and thus has an error. 2.) It is logically impossible for something to both contain an error and be inerrant. 3.) The Bible does contain an error and thus is not inerrant. Vote Con Best, Freeman Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...... [2] http://www.ehow.com...
The Bible is not inerrant.

I will demonstrate that the Bible could not possibly be inerrant using a mathematical proof. (The Bible) 1Kings 7:23- And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. [1] The Diameter D = 10 cubits The Circumference C = 30 cubits 30/10 = 3 According to the Bible (mathematical Pi) = 3 The actual value for (mathematical Pi) is 3.1415926535897932384626433832795… [2] Q.E.D. The Bible is not inerrant. [1] http://skepticsannotatedbible.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... Definitions Inerrancy - Freedom from error en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inerrancy Best, Freeman
The Bible is not inerrant.

This may very well be the first debate I finished within half a day's time. PRO'S REBUTTAL My opponent says, "The claim that Pi equals 3 or 3.14 isn't just an imprecise. It's flat out untrue. " Dear readers, please recognize that the Bible never claimed that Pi equals anything. The Bible makes NO claim about Pi. It merely offers approximate measurements of an ancient object. My opponent's attempt to take these measurements and then twist them into a non-existent claim is highly erroneous. It is non-sequitur to say that because the bible offers measurements of a circle that the Bible is making an absolute claim that Pi equals 3. THE TRIUMPH OF REASON Pro's next two points hardly come close to a "triumph of reason. " 1. My opponent's own logic defeats his argument. Indeed, to answer 2 + 2 = 4.1 would be egregious. Likewise, to say that 30 / 10 = 3.1415926535897932384626433832795 is also wrong. This is due to significant digits. In science, the result only carries as many significant digits as is provided in the data. [1]I'm not sure what my opponent intends to prove here. The scripture in question never actually provided its own value of Pi, so there isn't anything to compare our results to. Given the precision of the inputs, the output is correct. 2. My opponent claims his logic is inescapable, but then he does absolutely nothing to respond to my rebuttals other than to dismiss them. I asked him to explain why the measurements are to be taken as exact values and not approximations. I asked him to explain why the alternate interpretations ought to be dismissed. His only answer is to say that the results do not equal Pi. This is question begging to the highest degree. By way of analogy, imagine I were describing my backyard pool to someone and said that it was 10 feet across and 30 feet around. This is not an error as my description allows the listener to imagine my pool with sufficient accuracy. I know I sound like a broken record, but imprecise does not equal error, and my opponent has not shown us why this assertion is false. CONCLUSION Even if you do not agree with my alternative equations, my opponent has failed to address the approximation issue. The fact that we do not have precise measurements does not permit us to logically conclude that there is an error. Therefore, my opponent has failed to uphold the resolution, so I urge the readers to vote Con. SOURCES 1. . http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca...
The US Should Not Have a Border Fence

Thanks, to start off, I'll address your statement regarding the connection of the border fence and number of deaths. Who said that the death rate would go down? Is that a guarantee that death rate would go down? I should say not. The well-respected Glenn Beck has said before that a fence would greatly discourage a family or person trying to get over, especially if that fence is electric. As stated in the comments, a fence would only have to be built once. (heh heh, thanks dude) Since he helped me I'll help you. Last week, a Islamic terrorist slipped through the border fence, and headed toward Houston.(he was caught by the way) So, back to you All sources from the Blaze.com