BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religion and Science can Coexist.

Thank you, Con. Here's the problem with taking the Bible (and Koran) too seriously. Half of the Bible (the Old Testament) is composed of stories that were written by several different unrelated authors and were passed down mostly orally for hundreds of years. Obviously such stories would have changed a lot from their original states. The other half of the Bible (the New Testament) is composed of stories about Jesus written by 4 authors who were trying to promote Christianity to the general public. Obviously they might stretch the truth a bit to impress a wider audience. Most Christians do NOT take the Bible literally; they view the Bible's stories as metaphors, parables, and allegories that portray Christian morals. All of this applies to the Koran and Muslims too, since the Koran was written in a similar fashion. My "experiences" do include some unexplained coincidences that were so overly convenient that I couldn't believe them to be a result of dumb luck. They also include metaphysical experiences in which I felt God's presence. However, neither of these is really quantifiable. An atheist might argue that all of the coincidences could have really been coincidences, and that the metaphysical experiences were hallucinations and I should visit a psychiatrist. This is why I have stopped trying to prove the existence of God via the scientific method. The only "evidence" I have is not quantifiable and can only be witnessed firsthand, resulting in anyone who has NOT experienced it first hand to consider the evidence to be invalid. Thus it is impossible for anyone to prove the existence of God except God himself, and God only does so when he himself chooses to. In this sense, God's existence doesn't contradict the scientific method, but the evidence supporting God isn't being accepted by the scientific community because it is not quantifiable. Religion is NOT illusion. That is your own opinion, which is fine by me; I am not going to try and convert you (for the reasons stated above). The whole point of me opening this debate was that I was tired of atheists calling religious people primitive, anti-science idiots, and I wanted to make it clear that religion does NOT contradict science. I wanted to prove that religion and science are to totally different pursuits with two totally different goals which are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. I heard a quote once that "Science is the study of God's creation", which I completely agree with. It implies that it IS possible to reach God while knowing about how the universe (God's creation) works at the same time. Back to you, Con :)
Religion and Science can Coexist.

Thank you for your argument, Con. I appreciate that you left the Bible out of it like I had asked (most of my opponents don't listen). However, you said that "every religious claim so far has been shown to be incorrect". Please give some examples of disproved claims. I DO accept your other claim, though, that there is no solid scientific evidence behind the existence of God. I do not think that there ever will be scientific evidence behind God because God is immaterial and intangible. The only evidence for God there has been and ever will be is of the spiritual/metaphysical type. I personally believe in God because my own experiences have proved to me beyond a doubt that he exists. In response to your analogy, I'm going to have to say no. I think it is BECAUSE religion and science's goals are so different that they can coexist. Seeking out the truth about how the universe works (science) has pretty much nothing to do with seeking out God (religion). Therefore, one (like me) can believe in both at the same time. So, those are my arguments on why religion and science are not mutually exclusive. I hope to hear from you soon.
Religion and Science can Coexist.

In essence, the scientific method does not allow for these two views of science and religion to be compatible. In brief the scientific method can be described by the following four steps: (1) a) Observation and description b) Design or formulation of a hypothesis c) Predictions of the hypothesis d) Testing the hypothesis to see if the predictions are accurate. From these steps we can see that if we analyze religion then we are able to design a hypothesis and make predictions of the religions claims. For example if religion was to claim that if you did not eat McDonald's on a Wednesday afternoon at3 o'clock you would start sneezing. This claim could be easily tested by not eating a McDonald's at the appropriate time and then observing what the outcome is. If the outcome of this test is no sneezing, then by repetition of the experiment we can justifiably say the religion is wrong. Science is the search for truth and every religious claim so far has been shown to be incorrect. Religion is not about seeking the truth but accepting supposed truths. It is for this reason that I believe science and religion are incompatible. While I believe they can co-exist superficially. It is important to remember that almost anything can co-exist. Lions and lambs can also co-exist if the lions are kept well fed and have their claws and teeth pulled. However it does not mean it is a good idea that lambs and lions co-exist as they are fundamentally at odds with each other and looking for very different things. Religion and science are like the animals in this analogy, they can co-exist in a very stained relationship as they are searching for two very different things. Eventually the lions claws will grow back and then the lamb is dead, and this is what will happen with science and religion one will eventually die. (1) . http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu...
Religion and Science can Coexist.

First of all, let's leave the Bible out of this. Half of the Bible was written centuries before Jesus was born, and the other half of the Bible was written decades after Jesus died. I'm not exactly sure how it became Christianity's holy book, but I am assuming it is because the stories in it are good METAPHORS, PARABLES, and ALLEGORIES for portraying Christian teachings. Now that we have that out of the way, tell me exactly what part of science directly contradicts religion, or vice versa. I look forward to hearing your reasoning.
from an official capacity, the catholic church has never contradicted itself

You said we were not able to use the bible in our argument so half of your response is illegal according to your rules. Also I did not go through all of your previous debates on the same topic I only went through the one, its kind of hard to find a point in time which the catholic church said a contradiction when you have had over 5 debates on the same topic. So I will come up with a new argument. Some things pope John Paul II has said that are contradictions are is. 1. People can be saved by living a good moral life, without knowing anything about Christ and the Catholic Church. 2.There is sanctification outside the Catholic Church. 3.The martyrs of any religious community can find the extraordinary grace of the Holy Spirit. Also a pointer for your future arguments on the same topic: learn to start sentence with capital letters, also if you want to nitpick about your spelling I can go on you 26 year old washed up community college dropout.
from an official capacity, the catholic church has never contradicted itself

you are being too literal with the prohibition on "father". first, that is a practice, not a doctrine. and second, we have to look at it as less literal. Jesus meant not to call people father as if they are God etc. here are some father son verses from the New Testametn. "I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment" (Philem. 10). None of these men were Paul"s literal, biological sons. Rather, Paul is emphasizing his spiritual fatherhood with them. "But Timothy"s worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel" (Phil. 2:22). "To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior" (Titus 1:4); "No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth" (3 John 4). In fact, John also addresses men in his congregations as "fathers" (1 John 2:13"14). plus if you were to take the verse as literally as you could, that would mean you cant even call your own dad, father, which everyone does. and it'd be ridiculous to expect otherwise that argument has been used before (again in a way violating the rules). I have debated this topic many times, and if you are curious, you can read all my replies in my profile. also calling someone stupid in the same sentence as you are misspelling words doesn't make you look good. "your stupid" (right after using the wrong form of then and than id much rather stick to the rules of the debate. I suppose if you have more rule violating objections, I will entertain them for your benefit, knowledge.
from an official capacity, the catholic church has never contradicted itself

I will accept the challenge. Now, you said that you would rather not use the bible so I will not use the bible , but you must know that the religious book of a religion that is being debated on is a big factor. I will start with this: The Pope says he follows God. He contradicts God. He contradicts himself. That is the biggest contradiction that the Pope could have. Again, you would rather not use the religious book that this religion is based on. As I have said, it will be VERY hard to debate religion if we do not use the basis for that religion...which is the whole point for that religion. The fact you don't want to use it and then go on to exclude other huge aspects of Catholicism ("in this debate, I am not counting the issues of limbo, or no salvation outside the catholic church".) tells me you are trying to defend your position by taking out the basis for any argument to be made."you would think if the catholic church were not true, that it would have contradicted itself at some point in two thousand years." John Paul II contradicted the fact that only Catholics can be saved. You basically say, "the Catholic church has not contradicted itself so I challenge someone to say otherwise...but you can't use this certain contradiction against me." That defeats the WHOLE purpose of the debate. Again, I'm not using this as an argument against you...I'm just pointing this out to show you why you can't pick and choose things like that in a debate. I thought one who held to the bible was one who seeks truth? Yet it seems you try to run from it and mold it into whatever you want it to be.I am diverting from the topic, I apologize. But I feel those were very valid points to make. I have stated my argument: The Pope says he follows God. He contradicts God. He contradicts himself.
from an official capacity, the catholic church has never contradicted itself

in this debate, i am not counting the issues of limbo, or "no salvation outside the catholic church". you would think if the catholic church were not true, that it would have contradicted itself at some point in two thousand years. the only things that count are statements that are authoritative, things that could be considerted "infallible". the pope, intentionally, teaches, the church, on faith and morals. that is the criteria. it includes many councils and other statements by popes. note: -this does not include moral corruption, only official teaching. that means you can't use bad priest, even peodofile priests. it means you can't use the inquisistion where millions were killed by catholics. can't use the sins of past popes. it has to be actual teachings of the church, as said, councils and statements by popes. etc. impeccable v infallble, there's a difference. -since we are comparing official statements, id rather not use the bible either. it's usually too open to interpretation to begin with. we are examining the church's consistency on its own anyway... and you'd think even beyond the bible, it'd have contradicted itself within two thousand years. -also there's a differnce between widespread belief and doctrine. that so many believed the earth was made in six days, that the earth was flat, that man wasn't from apes etc... only shows they are human. it'd make sense at first impression. this isn't doctrine. you have to cite a quote or citation. -there's a difference between practice and doctrine too... preistly celibacy is practice, reading the mass in latin is a practice... etc
FeedFond's philosophy on Dog's Diabetes : Causes, Treatments & Everything in Between

Greetings, adrianastepheny. I look forward to an edifying and sesquipedalian debate. Dog diabetes truly is one of the great medical challenges of our times, and I am without doubt that all of us here have known a furry fwiend who has been afflicted. Given that you have exhausted your first round asking open-ended questions, I'm not quite sure what exactly the resolution to this debate would be, and which side of the argument you are wishing to advance. This being the case, I look forward to hearing your impassioned defense/refutation of FeedFond's philosophy on Dog's Diabetes. P.S. Hey DDO community, Wag! has published a comprehensive guide on feline AIDS: https://wagwalking.com.... Did ya read it? What's your opinion? What types of mistakes have they done? Did they miss anything? or it is the perfect post. Let me know!
The U.S. Gov't should decrease its authority to search w/o probable cause.

I'm sorry, if I misunderstood what your saying there, but are you honestly stating that people should have more of a right to search? If everyone could search anybody's house they wanted to how would our society even work? "Oh, I thought you were the guy that stole my wallet, that's why I broke into your house and tore it apart?" First off, how do you suggest you get in the house in the first place? The only two ways I could think of would be break a window and climb on in, or of course knock on the door and say you want to search there house. If someone knocked on your door RIGHT NOW and said that you looked like the guy that stole your wallet and stole their wallet what would you do? Let them in? What happened to privacy? Being able to search without probable cause would be one of the stupidest things we could do as Americans.
The U.S. Gov't should decrease its authority to search w/o probable cause.

Say that a man stole my wallet. I don't see his face and I lose him in a crowd for a while. A short while later I see the man with my wallet and I follow him back to his house. I am 99.9% certain that he is holding my wallet and that it is in fact the same man who stole it from me. Should I then be required to wait for a warrant to enter his property and retreive my wallet? Or should I be able to use the confidence I have in thinking I have found the theif and have what is rightfully mine returned to me? If it is not my wallet it is a harmless misunderstanding. If it is my wallet I have caught the thief without allowing him time to cover up his crime.
Development Antagonistic to Environment

Back to my first point. I don't deny that development has often brought negative effects. I simply claim that it is not evil by nature. Development has often been perceived badly, but it is important to remember that outside of the past century, environment played a much smaller role in decision making. However environmental concerns are now ,in many parts of the world, key social, political, and economic concerns. Now, in many countries, mining companies have to jump through a massive series of hoops in order to start new projects. Also alternative energy is being highly publicized and research. In short, the trend is that the more developed a country gets, the more environment takes presidance as an issue. In the long term it is possible that the environment will in fact benefit from our achievements. Regardless of the fact that the benefiting environment will not be identical to the environment of way back when.
Development Antagonistic to Environment

Quoting My Competitor. "If I was born a women instead of a man, that wouldn't be bad. Just different. Similarly, if an ecosystem is destroyed and a species is made extinct by another, that would not necessarily bring forth a worse world, just a different one." ------------------------------------------------------ Think. If we didn't have moved forward, didn't have thought about it, how the world works, the hows, the why's , the where's, wouldn't it had been a "natural world for the social animal"? The ecosystem would had been the same, the flora, fauna, everything. Wouldn't this difference would have been the one, when we didn't kill someone for our "Extra Luxury"?
Development Antagonistic to Environment

Good evening. This is an interesting topic so lets get into it. :) I will start with 2 main points. 1. Development can bring a positive effect It is true, that in large part development has been antagonistic to the environment, however it is well within the realm of possibility that development can in fact benefit the environment. For example, through the use of well implemented irrigation, one can bring a higher yield to crops as well as their surrounding area. The problem arrives when technologies are implemented poorly. In these cases, over logging, dangerous damming and other negative effects arrive. Other examples of benefits to the environment, include the production of medicines. Whilst many overseas diseases have been introduced around the world. Human culture is beginning to unify through overseas travel. In the modern era, common diseases are already well spread, and therefore the environment is perhaps in a poorer state than it would have been without human development. However, research is progressing at an unprecedented rare into medicine and science, meaning that now there is a greater chance that development would be beneficial to the environment compared to previous eras. 2. Is change antagonistic? As a result of human intervention the world is undoubtably different, however is this bad. If I was born a women instead of a man, that wouldn't be bad. Just different. Similarly, if an ecosystem is destroyed and a species is mde extinct by another, that would not necessarily bring forth a worse world, just a different one. For example in the era of dinosaurs, the danger factor was higher than now apparently. They were largely made extinct, but I would argue that based on perception that was beneficial to many species on the planet, both flora and fauna.
Development Antagonistic to Environment

I believe that the hunger to know more has led mankind to forget about the gift given to them by God. Mother nature has frequently experienced the hard bows of humans to satisfy their needs. Every innovation has its own side effects and to cover those side effects , man has to make more attempts and in turn, harm the environment more. Slowly, slowly a time may come when everything will die and the earth will fall. Think about it. If Adam and Eve hadn't eaten the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, I wouldn't have been writing this debate. I would have been in a state of eternal peace. Total innocence. No questions. How beautiful it would have been if we were to be living with no distinctions, no boundaries, no groups, and not segregated. I believe higher knowledge has resulted, to utter disaster
A question about god

Ok but the devil does things right? And the devil supposidly has free will? God couldnt take the form of a snake? He took the form of a man Well surely the bible wouldnt tell you that god is the devil, When the bible is supposidly from god Are you saying god couldnt protect Jerusalem to fool extremly gullible people to make them think he is not the devil? People get to places on their own. . We got to the moon in case you didnt notice
A question about god

I know God is not the devil becuase in the bible the devil appears to adam and eve as a serpent(snake) to which is actually a symbol of malice and evil and is a forbidden form God chooses to take as it represents evil, Also in the bible every story of what God creates is explained with a backstory it never stated God was a devil or was at one point the devil. God made a vow to protect the people of Jerusalem and if he were the devil that would break the vow and corrupt the world of trust between the people and God which again was never explained and if God were the devil iy wouldn't explain why the people of jerusalem made it to the land of milk amd honey.
This House Believes In Banning Factory Farming

"well can u give me a list or any examples of morally right slauthger?" Animals have been historically slaughtered for human consumption since the dawn of man. Morality is only one of the issues that I have raised. Although animals will be slaughtered, the quality of their life and circumstances of their killing still have value to people. Besides this point, my opponent has failed to answer any of my arguments. He has only made unwarranted claims and assertions. The economic impacts, health issues, and severe ethics violations call for immediate reform. Extend all previous arguments.
This House Believes In Banning Factory Farming

My first main point on Fartory Farming is that we will have to slaughter animals for meat, one way or another. Being the dominate species of the animal kingdom, human beings have always somehow gathered or hunted animals for their meat. Now we are living in the modern ages, factory farming is a convenient, partical method of distributing meat for low income families on a regular basis. Meat was and always will be apart of our diet so why ban something that would get the meat at a more affordable and convenient way than free-ranged farming? Factory Farming will be that answer!
Auto Failure...Bank/Insurance Success

My opponent has created an incoherent argument that lacks any supportive evidence. Simply, my opponent has created an argument based merely off opinion and really has not created argumentation. I support bank/insurance success because success in banking and insurance companies help with money circulation and the welfare of the people. I support auto failure because it is a failure that is automatic. Automatic failures are one of the best kinds of failures because the failure is realized instantly and has time to be changed into a positive. Resoultion affirmed. I heavily urge a Pro vote.
Auto Failure...Bank/Insurance Success

I don't understand where the United States gets off just handing out money to banks (Bank Of America) and Insurance Companies (AIG) but they fought it every time General Motors and Chrysler requested some money. I believe that the automakers actually somewhat benefited from the money unlike the banks/insurance companies. Even though the automakers went in to bankruptcy they actually used the money. The others used their bailouts and went on an "executive" "meeting" in Hawaii and in California. I also think the the government forced General Motors into bankruptcy (not Chrysler just GM). I am for the automaker success Do you think the choices by fighting the requests from the automakers was right or wrong? Please note this is my first debate via this website and I am still learning. My debates will eventually get longer
Resolved: United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan

As my opponent forfeited, it still falls on me to post a case. Thus, my case is in the following link.https://docs.google.com...#Now, lemme take a moment to clarify on how my case interacts with the resolution.By providing assitance to Pakistan, we are thereby reducing the amount of suffering in Pakistan. As my case clearly shows, a reduction in the amount of suffering corrolates with the loss of the value of life. In order to return life's value, we must suspend all assistance to Pakistan.Therefore, I urge a pro vote.