BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Macro evolution 6

Special thanks to solo for taking up 2 of my debates. Ok my debate will be posted in one piece which is a general statement because many of you made the same argument. I would appreciate if you would be so kind to read any of the other debates so that I don't end up copy pasting the same argument several times First my general argument ok next I don't want to here about carbon dating ok because all that says is that the fossils are in the earth and because how far down they are we know how old they are. This then immediately posses the question well how do we know that. Here is the answer creationist receive well that's how old the dirt is. This posses the question "how do you know that. " here is the answer we receive oh well its cause off the fossils that are in it then we say well you just told me you date the fossils by the dirt which you date by the fossils. isn't that the same thing as saying we date the fossils by the fossils and there fore I say well then cant i say the fossil is 6,000 years old and there for the dirt is and then the fossil is. Those who would like to post links that would explain this in a scientifically provable way please. Ok next many of you brought up the fact of me not providing evidence for the earth being under 10,000 years old 1. The gravitational fields of the sun and stars pull cosmic dust toward them known as the pointing-Robertson effect. Our sun sucks in 100,000 tons a day if our son was more than a couple million years old all the dust would be gone better there is still some in our system and estimation sets it that 10,000 years of dust has been sucked out . 2. ok second you say well no duhh it would take light billions of years from the farthest star to get here. (well this part not scientific but religious if god created it couldn't he have light were he wanted it if he created the universe) ok also it has been scientifically proven that light is slowing down and 6,000 years ago the light from all the stars would have arrived in three days in time for animals to start seeing it. 3. ok now the hottest stars burn well really hot and if we were to go back more than 100,000 years they would fill the entire universe currently and from what I have read monkeys were evolving into humans must be monkeys wearing real good sun screen 4. ok here is my two favorites the moon we all believe in the moon I hope. Ok well the moon has been slowly moving away 2 inches a year ok so 4.5 billion years ago the moon would have been 142,045 miles closer to earth hmm let me check that would mean that the earths gravitational field would suck the moon down and ka boom no more life on earth. 5. next the Eagle(the piece of the Apollo space craft that landed on the moon) was designed to land in 6 ft of moon dust which would roughly line up with some millions and billions of years but no there was ï¿½ of an inch (easly visible go look at any one of the pictures of the moon foor print) well guess what that is the 6-10 thousand year period. Ok well there you go
People should be allowed to own guns

I understand your point completely. No one should have to go through such a traumatic experience. However, since this is a debate about gun ownership, I must keep defending my stance. I believe it is smart to let people own guns because banning them would just be stupid. In the past, when the government takes everyone's gun rights, terrible things happen. I agree that the shootings at Virginia Tech were horrid things to take place, but when you try to compare that to World War II, for instance, I think the latter was much more tragic. I don't think we can prevent killings either way, because sometimes guns aren't even the problem. Bad people don't need guns to kill. It might make easier for them if they had gun rights, but there are always plenty of other options. The fact is, with gun rights people can defend themselves. If our guns are taken away from us, we are at the mercy of a hostile government and a world of corrupt human beings.
People should be allowed to own guns

I understand what it is you are saying but I want to just say I was at Virginia Tech when the last few shooting have happened and I am blessed to still be on my feet today. It is scary being there and see how that person goes from a happy fun person to someone who holding a gun to the crowd at a football game. I really see no problem with people owning guns, it all comes down to is it smart to let people have a gun. I know I didn't say much but just think about it.
People should be allowed to own guns

First off, I will quote the Second Amendment where it clearly states that individuals have a right to own guns. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " History has proven that when the people in authority take away our gun rights, bad things happen. Hitler removed everyone's guns, and the result was the killing of innocent people and World War II. The Turks took the Armenians guns, and over one million Armenians were murdered by government. The authorities of Guatemala seized everyone's guns, and an estimated 100,000 Mayan Indians died by the hand of the government once again. Now let's look at the Revolutionary War. The colonists had direct access to weapons, and what happened? The colonists were able to overpower the British troops, with little help from the militia. This is what caused the writing of the Second Amendment. Guns protect us from a hostile government. There are many other examples of terrible things that happened because of gun control in U. S history, as well as good things that happened when individuals had a chance to actually defend themselves. Second, I would like to address my opponent's point that was made about the mass murderer story. I will go deeper with this story. My opponent stated that without gun control, a murderer could simply go out, buy a gun, and kill whoever he wants. I would like to point out the catch to this story. If a murderer can get a gun that easily, then the people he wants to kill also have access to weapons. Thus making it way harder for him to get away with it that easily. With guns, people can actually defend themselves not only from a hostile government, but other evil things out there as well such as wild animals, criminals, and other dangerous concerns. Let's go back to the murderer story, but this time the government has all the guns. Chances are, if this criminal is not phased by the act of killing somebody, having to steal to get his hands on a weapon will not be a problem for him. Only now, he can kill all he wants and the people cannot defend themselves as easily. It can turn into something much bigger if people as individuals have no way to get guns or other weapons. . http://constitutioncenter.org... . http://connection.ebscohost.com... . http://www.history.com... . http://www.armedwithreason.com... . http://www.mercyseat.net...
People should be allowed to own guns

I do not agree with this because one person who is capable of having a gun who knows how to use it is not the same as someone who has a gun and does not know how to use it. I give the example of the Virginia Tech shootings. That kid was a bright student and very smart but because he was mad at something he got a gun and now a ton of people are dead. The aftermath of people having guns is not worth the mess that will happen after. The trouble that people to throw to get a gun is not worth it. If you are going to get a gun you need to be clearly eligible to buy one. There should be something that goes on your driver's license or something stating that you are under no law saying you cannot buy a gun or fire arm of any sort. A mass murder gets out of jail goes and buys a gun and is not stopped because the people he is buying from don't know he just got out of jail for killing people. Do you follow? You have to think about it first before you ask.
theism=atheism, as truth is the opposite of belief

Refutations What has been said in this Round by the Pro, who has the BOP as the instigator and against the status quo, is that atheism equals disbelief and theism equals belief. He does this with some equation and saying that christians must disbelieve in unicorns in order to beleive in their own faith. It is true that you must disbelieve in something to believe in something; however, this does not mean that disbelief=belief. Pro's premise was that disbelief = belief is proven false by definition "Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty. " Wikapedia "Disbelief: inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real. "Google. By definition you can tell that disbelief is not the same thing as belief. . http://dictionary.reference.com...- Dis means negative or away, thus disbelief is the opposite of belief and theism is opposite of atheism Conclusion By definition, theism is opposite of atheism because the prefix "a" means not. Disbelief is opposite of belief. I thank the Pro for an. .. interesting argument.
theism=atheism, as truth is the opposite of belief

disbelief is belief a(theism)=disbelief=belief=theism theism is the opposite position of atheism, but any christian disbelieves unicorn heaven to accept christianity agnotic is the opposite of atheism and theism, theism and atheism are false and agnostic is the only true position on an unknown claim, the maybe position i have a(1, all) soda in my hand
theism=atheism, as truth is the opposite of belief

Acceptedhttp://www.merriam-webster.com...theism:belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world http://www.merriam-webster.com... a disbelief in the existence of deity By definition these terms are opposite, but Pro is attempting to claim they are equal. Atheism means disbelief in God Theism means belief in God.http://www.2think.org..."Now let's move on to theism briefly. Theism is simply the opposite of atheism. A good definition of theism is "a positive assertion that god does exist". Whatever this god may be to the theist is irrelevant to the definition of theism as a word on its own. Based on these two definitions, everyone is either a theist or an atheist. Either you positively assert that there is a god or you lack such a positive assertion. There is no middle ground--which brings us to our third word of agnosticism." http://www.britannica.com..."To say that atheism is the denial of God or the gods and that it is the opposite of theism, a system of belief that affirms the reality of God and seeks to demonstrate his existence, is inadequate in a number of ways. " "A" as a prefix to theism means not; by definition atheism does not equal theism
Percy Jackson could beat Harry potter

Shield Charm + Stupefy (Stunning Spell) + Avada kadavra (Killing Spell) = Good Fight Manumad?Shield Charm - a term applied to several varieties of charms that create a magical barrier to deflect physical entities and spells. (1)Ah, so all your water and sword attacks are now rendered useless? Sounds good. Stupefy - The Stunning Spell (Stupefy), also known as a Stunner or Stupefying Charm is a charm that renders a victim unconscious and halts moving objects. (2)So let's go ahead and stun your sword/water/you. Avada kadabra - The Killing Curse (also known as the Avada Kedavra Curse) is a spell that causes instantaneous death and is one of the three Unforgivable Curses. (3)StrategyHarry uses shield charm to deflect physical attacks from Percy then starts spamming stupefy to slow his attacks and eventually stun Percy in which Harry uses Avada Kadavra for the win. Is this a realistic strategy? Hell naw. Is it a possible strategy? Most definitely! In addition, Harry is the master of the Elder Wand which not only gives him like lots of power n' stuff, but is also fabled to render him unbeatable in a duel. (3)"It (Elder Wand) is said to be the most powerful wand that has ever existed, able to perform feats of magic that would normally be considered impossible, such as mending another wand damaged beyond normal magical repair." (4)This means that the strategy I gave is actually completely plausible, as it gives Harry the capabilities to perform all magic, in addition to magic that would normally be impossible. (1) http://harrypotter.wikia.com...(2) http://harrypotter.wikia.com...(3) http://harrypotter.wikia.com...(4) http://harrypotter.wikia.com...
Drug Legalization: The War on Drugs has been a failure.

Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited his third round. I extend all my arguments and await his final rebuttals. The only thing that I ask from my opponent is that he does not present any new arguments next round, as I will not be able to respond. Closing StatementsI have concluded that not only the War on Drugs has been a failure, but drugs should be legalized. The statistics prove that the Federal Drug War's two main goals, reduce availability and reduce users, has failed greatly. I have also provided information proving legalizing drugs would dismantle Mexican Drug Cartels, would reduce the non-violent prison population, would create massive tax revenue profits, would reduce AIDS/HIV contamination, would save billions of wasted dollars every year, and create a more efficient way of rehabilitating drug users. Once again, I'm not arguing we should use drugs, I'm arguing prohibition actually increases users, and more advanced methods of prevention and rehabilitation/treatment centers drastically reduce problem users. I will not await my opponent's rebuttals.
Drug Legalization: The War on Drugs has been a failure.

Resolution: The Federal War on Drugs has been a complete failure, which should lead to all drugs within the United States of America being legalized. DefinitionsWar on Drugs: Campaign adopted by the U.S. government, specifically the Nixon Administration, along with the foreign military aid and with the assistance of participating countries, to both define and to end the import, manufacture, sale, and use of illegal drugs.Illicit Drugs: Drugs which are under international control (and which may or may not have licit medical purposes) but which are produced, trafficked and/or consumed illicitly.[1] Examples of these drugs are, but are not limited too: Heroin, Cocaine, Marijuana, Ecstacy, etc. Rules:1. No semantics, trolling, etc.2. Follow the round guidelines.3. Keep to the topic.4. Use sources.Rounds:1. Acceptance: Definition of Terms. If you have issues with definitions or want to add/alter one of my terms, let me know in the comments. Otherwise I assume the terms are mutually accepted. 2. Opening Arguments: No rebuttels from con please, we'll have the other rounds to do that. Round 2 is strictly arguments 3. Rebuttals4. Rebuttals/Closing statements. If anybody has issues with the terms i have outlined here, or want to add/delete other specifics, let me know within the comments. Please only accept this if you have the time and want to actively engage in the debate. [1] http://www.unodc.org...
Christianity and its Validity

Some of your questions are put in such poor grammatical form that it's difficult for me to perceive what you're asking, but I'll do my best to decode your speech. First: To what are you referring? Second: Gods were created from a number of sources but the ability to use the "authority of god" to justify unjust actions was always a plus for rulers. They could use deities as simple pawns. For example, ancient Egypt comes to mind--The pharaohs quite literally identified themselves as gods, forcing people to worship them as such. Of course, this obvious and heavy-handed approach didn't work particularly well, but rulers found much more subtle methods of bending the devout to their will. Seeing as you didn't specify a third, fourth: If you perfectly well could find evidence, please do so. You took on this debate. I don't particularly care if you don't have the time. Moving on, I never questioned the existence of Jesus as a person, simply his holy authority, so to speak. And there are other sources from the bible that attest to his life, so honestly, using the bible was quite unnecessary, particularly as this is an argument contesting the validity of the book. You're using the exact definition of circular reasoning. "The bible is right because the bible says so," will not be accepted in this debate. Give me something to work with, this tripe is hardly worth responding to. And yes, I do need evidence that God created the universe. Why? Because there is proof to the contrary. If you cannot provide proof for the issue, I'm inclined to support the theory that has evidence, no offense. Fifth: To begin, I'll use a quote from the bible. "But now ask the beasts to teach you, and the birds of the air to tell you; or the reptiles on the earth to instruct you, and the fish of the sea to inform you. Which of all these does not know that the hand of God has done this? In his hand is the soul of every living thing, and the life breath of all mankind."(Job 12:7-10) This passage quite clearly shows that animals are aware that god has created them, according to the bible at least. Like so many passages in the bible, this contradicts some of its own teachings. I'll add another verse now: "The living creatures give glory, honor and thanks to him who sits on the throne" (Revelation 4:8-9) This indicates that animals do praise god. However, many of the sins listed in the bible are also present in the animal population. Not to be crude, but I worked at Zoo Atlanta for two years, and more than once I've seen primates pleasuring themselves. I've also seen animals display homosexual behavior. Good luck.
Christianity and its Validity

First, i think it should be possible to put your answer into a simple sentance or two. Second, (speaking as if you are right, no offense.) rulers shouldn't have created gods because even if the people wouldn't revolt against the god itself that doesn't mean they wouldn't revolt against the ruler. Even if he identified himself with the god the people would not necessarily be inclined to believe him. Fourth, I perfectly well could find evidence but unfortunately I do not have the time,I will attempt to oblige however. Jesus was seen by thousands of people, there are accounts of this in the bible, if you see a problem with my using the bible as a source because it is a biased source then I would like to point out to you that all sources are biased. And to be honest it is rather stupid to leave the bible out of an argument about the bible. I see no need for proof as to that God created the universe, it's here, what do you want me to say. I would like to ask what you would like proof of, as in the flood, the Christ, just specifics would be highly appreciated, I'm not saying you haven't been gracious, because you have, extensively, but I would like specifics. Fifth, "if religion where self-evident, wouldn't we see animals performing the rites thereof?" No we would not. The reason animals don't do almost anything we do is because they are not made in God's image, people are. All of them. Left me partially support this by that studies have been done that specifically state that animals do not do anything for ' fun' but humans do. You probably think that that's because we're "more evolved" but it's not, it's because we're made in the image of God, that doesn't mean we look like him, it means we share some of His characteristics, we love, we actually care about things, if you tried to explain religion to an animal lets face it, it wouldn't work. And, you never addressed the second half of my question, I would thank you if you did. See, really what I'm trying to argue is that religion is a God invention, but unfortunately, some people made their own. Please excuse any typos I have made in previous posts, I have auto correct that auto corrects wrong.
Christianity and its Validity

If you don't understand the answer, please tell me what I might clarify to help you. Your second question: "Why would rulers admit to them not being the highest authority?" Because if they can mold a deity to serve their means and perhaps not inspire defiance in the populous, why shouldn't they? People are less likely to revolt against what they can't see, and thus the unknown remains a source of mysterious power. People simply don't recognize that it's all systematically set up to control them and keep them as placid little sheep in the herd of humanity. Third: "Special privileges." You quote me as saying special privileges? Where precisely did I say that, or anything even equating to that? I mentioned that Christians are given guidance (according to the Bible) when they have accepted God as their personal savior, but I don't believe I ever said anything regarding special privileges--I in fact made the opposite point, by mentioning that God tests even his most loyal followers through hardship. Fourth: "Proof" You say "done, has happened... Also done" but provide no evidence. Please cite your arguments, and provide me with the same courtesy I've given you. You cannot ask me for evidence and leave your own debate completely devoid of it. The mere fact that you cannot find evidence should be proof enough that I'm right in at least that. Fifth: "Afterlife and death" I do, in fact, think I turn to dust. I think the ceremonies surrounding death are unnecessary, and that death is simply a part of life. Just as you, I'm sure, feel that the burial customs of the ancient Egyptians and Chinese are ridiculous, in their provisions for property in the afterlife, I feel that funerals and the like are truly quite morbid. Death should be regarded as simply providing room for new life. Fertilizing plants, that feed new animals, that feed new humans. It's the life cycle, put simply. If religion were self-evident, wouldn't we see animals performing the rites thereof? But we don't. Religion is a purely human invention. Good luck.
Christianity and its Validity

First, I don't completely understand your answer to the first question. Secondly,I am wondering, if the rulers, be it a king, a emperor of whatever, why would they admit that they aren't the ultimate authority? That the is in fact someone with more power than they? In my opinion this in it of itself doesn't make a lot of sense because the rulers of the ancient world where often tyrants. And, in my church and Christian community, the young and old are highly encouraged to ask questions. Third, I in fact would say you are incorrect. The only 'special privileges' we, as Christians get is the help of the Holy Spirit with our "internal" problems, and the wonderful promise that we will not have to stay in this earth for ever and we'll not have to go to hell. That it. We don't get god stuff here. We get it later. And really, ask of the stuff we do on earth is useless for eternity. And the fourth thing, what proof do you need? Do you need to be able to see Him? Done, has happened. Do you need to see him demonstrate how He can create a entire galaxy by saying it should be there? Also done. What proof do you want? Once more thing, what do you think will happen when you die? Will you turn to dust? What? You can't tell me that it doesn't disturb you at least a little when you think about how you ' won't exist' when you die. Think about it, by atheist thinking you will have no mind, no soul, nothing. Our tiny mind can't understand this. And why should we? Thank you.