BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution vs Creation

You have claimed vestigial organs to be nonexistent. You simply say leg bones are for mating. What about the appendix, which is crucial for rodents but worthless to humans? If you take away a persons tailbone, it doesn't affect them at all. Tonsils have no real. Wisdom teeth have no use., they are to far back in the mouth. The little toe has no use, only apes benefit from it. Body hair is next to worthless, there's not enough to be effective. Ear muscles too, have no purpose. Male nipples are clearly useless, why would god give men nipples? Some people are even born with 13 rib bones like apes, which means the trait has been preserved since we were primates. As for biblical aging, what do you make of ice cores dated to hundreds of thousands of years ago. What about every carbon dating test on the earth? What about trees 5,000 years old dated with tree rings. The flood should have killed the tree. The Chinese civilization can be dated back up to 7,000 years ago, that's impossible according to genesis. As for all the civilizations older then 4,000 years, shouldn't the flood have destroyed them? About those sloths, you're source said nothing about sloths moving fast. In fact, it said they were the SLOWEST mammal. Then you claimed that the prehistoric fish were buried in a landslide. As a general rule of thumb, landslides tend to occur on land and assuming the land slide goes into the sea, it couldn't kill a whole population. Even if it did kill all the prehistoric fish, why are no modern fish found at that level, wouldn't the landslide kill the modern fish too? About animals evolving after the ark, creationist do say this. All that stuff about the "kinds" that change into the species of today? That's evolution for you. Ken Ham say that their was one canine kind on the ark that adapted into all the species of wolves and other canines. That can't happen in just 4,000 years. How can all species of wolf evolve in 4,000 years. If you deny this that means Noah take every single species on the ark, which is impossible. You claim genesis is your scientific account of creation. Genesis was never meant to be read like a science text book. Creationist say that everyone use to believe in Genesis until the evils of evolution came in and screwed up the world. Well in saying this creationist have pretty much made themselves the worst disgrace to Christianity since the Spanish Inquisition. Young earth creationism only really gained strength in the 20th century. Even the layer against evolution at the scopes trail, William Jennings Bryan, was an old earth creationist, not a young earth creationist. The jewish philosopher philo and the the christian saint Augustin said the creation account was merely allegorical. http://10awesome.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Evolution vs Creation

first off the leg bones are for mating purposes. second there was probably a piece of land for the animals (cough cough the platypus) to cross on. http://education.nationalgeographic.com... also the sloth is not lazy you should do your research and find they save their energy for emergency because of their predators and other things also they live in trees so they are already high up I do not know how well that argument was thought out http://wonderopolis.org... also the flood waters were not the fastest so the sloth would have plenty of time to climb so thus the sloth has an advantage also the waters were so rough that how could those fish survive if there is a huge major landslide would humans survive that even though we live on land. No of course not! even though we live on land we would die in such a big landslide.also fish are below the sea level sloths are above the sea level so how can you use that argument! and also the platypus' just traveled different ways is that to hard to believe? If you want to know my theory for any of you who are not familiar with this subject read genesis 1-8. I believe in the bible because it is true. back to you pro
Evolution vs Creation

What do you mean vestigel organs don't exist! What value does the whale possibly gain from his legbones. What does the snake gain from his legbones? What does the human gain from his appendix. As for the platypus, did they swim all the way to australia? That makes no sense. Even if they some how did, why did all of them go, and why don't we find the fossils of the ones that dies on the journey in other places. Why did all of the larger platypuses split away and head to south america? As for sediment layers, how can they not exist. Creationist will say that mammels have been found on the same level as dinosaurs. Why is this shocking. Mammels lived with dinosaurs, science has known that forever. You can explain fossil layers to say that they are sorted by ability to escape the flood and that's why clams and such are at the bottom. That's not true, if it were, then how is the lazy sloth higher in the fossil record then faster dinosaurs and some aquatic animals. If all the fish survived the flood, then why are there so many aquatic fossils. Dinosaurs that lived in the sea should have survived the flood by your logic so why are they extinct and at a lower level then sloths. This means that prehistoric fish could not swim as well as a sloth.
The US Constitution Legislates Morality

I am curious to see how anyone can argue that any law does not legislate morality. To this end, I made the statement that the Constitution legislates morality, a point to which CON contested. Resolution:The US Constitution Legislates Morality(i. e. , the purpose of the Constitution is to legislate morality - obviously the Constitution is not a person that can enact laws)Definitions:The US Constitution - the Constitution and all amendmentsLegislate - make or enact laws. https://www.google.com... The term “morality” can be used either descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or, some other group, such as a religion, or accepted by an individual for her own behavior or normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons. . http://plato.stanford.edu...Normative morality deals more with objective morality. Both PRO and CON are moral subjectivists, thus the resolution refers to what is defined here as subjective i. e. descriptive morality.
The US Constitution Legislates Morality

My argument is very, very simple. It's obvious that the Constitution is a set of laws that was enacted, so that portion of the resolution, that the Constitution is legislating something, is not up for debate. The main point of contention deals with exactly what it is legislating. Is it morality? Recall the definition of morality from round #1: The term “morality” can be used either descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or, some other group, such as a religion, or accepted by an individual for her own behavior or Does the constitution "refer to some codes of conduct put forward. .. by. .. some other group, such as a [state]? " Of course it does. Therefore, by the definitions agreed to by PRO/CON in round #1, the purpose of the constitution is indeed to legislate morality. I move to win this debate by this simple argument. I will add some descriptors, but I want to make clear that my key point is bolded above. As long as my key point remains uncontested, I win this simple debate. ---Is this a subjective form of morality? Yes. The constitution embodies a code of conduct put forward by the founding fathers and embody their subjective views, and the amendments embody codes of conduct put forward by subsequent Congresses and embody their subjective views, and the amendments were validated by Supreme court justices in various court decisions whenever applicable, and thus embody their subjective views. This code of conduct, this subjective morality, is the law under which we abide, else we face some form of punishment from the state. Is this a religious form of morality? The founding fathers were certainly religious, but they went to great pains to keep religion separate from the state. Therefore, this would be a secular form of morality. Religion does not own a monopoly on morality. ---Again, I am curious as to how anyone could think that any law does not legislate some form of morality. I await CON's argument.
It is better to have never been

It is better to have never been Introduction: This is the debate I have always wanted to win. Ever since I first came here, I wanted to shock and dazzle people with a successful affirmation on this resolution. Nowadays, I fully understand how insanely unpopular my arguments are going to be. It took me two years to go from Christian to anti-natalism, so I doubt that I am going to convert anyone with what I write here. But I have to argue this. I have to see it tested. My arguments will extend from anti-natalist and efilist philosophy. Whilst on the surface, these arguments may seem abhorrent, I can assure you that at the very least, they are worthy of your consideration. My arguments will be inspired by the likes of: Gary ‘Inmendham’ Mosher, Arthur Schopenhauer, Jim ‘Metamorphhh’ Crawford and David Benatar. The Burden of Proof: I have the BoP, which is to show that it is preferable not to come into existence. Definitions: Upon accepting this debate, my opponent is bound by these definitions: Sentient: experiencing sensation or feeling (Humans are sentient creatures). http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Extinction: the act or process of becoming extinct; a coming to an end or dying out: the extinction of a species. http://dictionary.reference.com... It is better to have never been: It is preferable to not come into existence My other definitions will be provided in my arguments, for if I were to give them here, there would be a lacking in context of which I think is essential for understanding, and thus I will not post them here. I will explain them so that the meaning can be grasped. I do you warn you that whilst the word used to describe the terms used may seem slightly off, all I ask of you is to follow the meaning I attribute to it. And please, I ask that we do not get into petty semantic games over that. Round rules: First round acceptance Second and third for arguments and rebuttals Fourth for furthering already made arguments + rebuttals (no new arguments) Nothing new in the last Voting: 3000 Elo Min required. Sorry to anyone below this.Style is 'Select Winner' (I have learned my lesson). I have chosen my opponent as Envisage, who understands anti-natalism to a great degree. Not only that, but he is desperate to even the score with me :)
It's always God's will to heal the sick (Christian)

During this round I will take some time to lay out other scriptures that prove it is always God's will to heal the sick. "Bless the Lord, O my soul: and all that is within me, bless his holy name. Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits: Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases;" Psalm 103:1-3 Here we see that one of the benefits of God is He heals all our diseases "How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him." Acts 10:38 Here we see that God's was for Jesus of Nazareth to be anointed with the Holy Ghost and Power, so He could go around doing good and healing ALL that were oppressed of the devil, because God was with Him. God's will is still that the oppressed are set free, and it will be by those anointed the Holy Ghost and Power. God's will is to heal all who are oppressed of the devil. This is possible because God is with the one who has been anointed with the Holy Ghost and Power. If a believer has the Holy Ghost, does not this scripture also become relevant to the believer with regards to God's will? "Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him." James 5:14-15 God's will is for the sick to call the elders and for the elders to pray the prayer of faith, so that the sick can be saved (or healed) and his sins forgiven. "Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven." Matthew 6:10 God's will is for His kingdom to come and His will to be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Is there any sickness in heaven? "Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth." 3 John 1:2 God's will is for us to prosper and be in health, even as our soul prospers. "When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses." Matthew 8:16-17 God's will is for all the sick to be healed, because Jesus took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses (prophecy from Isaiah 53:4) Back to you Con
Resolved: that there are moral absolutes.

I set out to prove that there are moral absolutes. I"ll use "moral" and "ethical" synonymously, choosing one over the other as style dictates. By "absolute," I mean something is that true in all possible worlds, necessarily true, and true in all situations. For example, the judgment "lying is wrong" is necessarily true and there is no circumstance when lying is right."My arguments are Kantian, so my opponent should be quite familiar with Kant's moral theory. I put no restrictions on the opponent, but be forewarned that I have a doctorate in philosophy, and I have taught for 25 years. I'm only trying to say that I have a good deal of practice and experience in this area.Appeals to emotion and majority opinion are strongly discouraged, unless my opponent proves these have some value in proving the truth of his conclusions.I assume the full burden of proof.The argument I wish to present is Kant’s proof that lying is always wrong. The conclusion is proved through reductio ad absurdum. Let’s assume that “lying is not wrong,” that is, there are circumstances in which lying is right or even morally necessary.If we accept that there are circumstances when lying is not wrong, we soon learn that we cannot believe anything anyone says to us. (Whenever someone says something, I wonder “is this a circumstance in which he thinks lying is not wrong?") If we cannot believe anything anyone says to us, then no one can lie. Thus, the rule that allows lying makes lying impossible. The negative, “it is false that lying is not wrong,” or “lying is always wrong” is true.
Resolved: that there are moral absolutes.

"My arguments are Kantian, so my opponent should be quite familiar with Kant's moral theory. I put no restrictions on the opponent, but be forewarned that I have a doctorate in philosophy, and I have taught for 25 years. I'm only trying to say that I have a good deal of practice and experience in this area.""I put no restrictions on the opponent, but be forewarned that I have a doctorate in philosophy, and I have taught for 25 years.""I put no restrictions on the opponent, but be forewarned that I have a doctorate in philosophy""I put no restrictions on the opponent""no restrictions"So, what guidelines did I not follow? You specified there was no restrictions on your opponent. This is so lame. Next time try not to make up reasons to justify your failure in debating an opponent. They don't help you.
Resolved: that there are moral absolutes.

"I forfeit the debate. I included comments trying to draw someone more mature (older and more experienced), with a strong academic background, who had read (at least) some Kant. "Why do I have to be older in order to understand philosophy? Why do I need to a strong academic backround? This appeal to authority doesn't help your argument. If you believe you could back your claims, it doesn't matter how much I've learned about Kant or how much of an academic backround I have. You could have just demonstrated why my beliefs are false and yours are correct. Either way, I'm not convinced you have a strong academic backround. You have not demonstrated any extraordinary knowledge on the topic. But, if you really want to forfeit because of this weak excuse, I guess I can't stop you.
The Bible is repulsive

" The problem with just leaving them alone then is that they will continue to have children who will follow in their footsteps, And eventually you end up with a place like the Earth was before God flooded it, " - First of all, By this same logic, You would argue that God is not a " forgiving " God at all. And since the bible also tries to state that God is forgiving, This would be a very blatant contradiction. - Secondly, It doesn't matter the circumstance for their punishment, Killing babies, Women and children are wrong no matter what the circumstance. - Thirdly even if you wanted to argue that god killing them was justified, This still doesn't give God the excuse to make their deaths so violent. " their little ones will be dashed to the ground, Their pregnant women ripped open. " These are obviously very gruesome and inhumane deaths, Especially for women and children. " The Bible is not repulsive just because it gives stories of people doing horrible things, And this was not commanded by God. " - I am not that familiar with the stories of the Bible, However, The fact that God still allows these people to do such horrible is still REPULSIVE. Also please provide me a quote that states that these people aren't commanded by God since the quote states that " Go in peace. Your journey has the Lord's approval. " " Could you provide the verses for your other claims? " Sure I can do that. Before I start, I will probably take 2 of the biggest repulsive things the bible states just to save time. Due to this, I will take 2 major repulsive acts the Bible not only accepts but even encourages which are the stoning of disobedient teenagers, And women having authority. All of that said, Let's begin. "If there is anyone who curses his father or his mother, He shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother, His bloodguiltiness is upon him. " Here in this quote, The Bible is condoning the killing of teenagers. Rather than simply giving the kid counseling or teaching him proper etiquette towards their parents, The Bible instead calls for the killing of the kid. The very idea that the Bible encourages the brutal killing of teenagers is REPULSIVE. "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. " (1 Timothy 2:12) - This is a very obvious sexist statement. The Bible is pretty much exerting a prejudice attitude that Women are inferior to men. The fact that the Bible condones sexism is REPULSIVE.
The Bible is repulsive

Hosea 13 First of all, You have to understand the context here. Israel was (and is) God's chosen people, And he continually showed them favor over and over again. The funny thing is that these people, Who knew of God better than anybody else, Started rebelling against him, While the people who HADN'T seen his goodness actually started coming to him. For comparison, A parent who gives their child everything but never disciplines them is condemning that child to become an ignorant self-righteous person. God then enacted some punishments to gain the attention of Israel, But even then a large majority continued to rebel against him. The problem with just leaving them alone then is that they will continue to have children who will follow in their footsteps, And eventually you end up with a place like the Earth was before God flooded it, Where he could literally find no good except in the line of Noah. This is why God enacted these punishments in Hosea. Judges 18If you read Judges 17, You will realize that Micah was actually worshipping a fake god/idol which he had created from stolen silver. The Danites did the same, But these parties claimed to follow the true God, Even though they weren't doing that. The killing of the people of Laish was therefore not commanded by God. The Bible is not repulsive just because it gives stories of people doing horrible things, And this was not commanded by God. Isaiah 13I'm a bit iffy on this one. What I've seen a first is that the nation did all of the things described to Israel, And so it is an eye for an eye mentality. However, It also sounds like Psalms 137:9, In which Israelites want revenge and are singing about killing infants for revenge. I'm not extremely clear on which. Could you provide the verses for your other claims? Over to you! :)
Smoking should be made illegal

Rules: Round 1 - ARGUMENTS #1 Round 2 - REBUTTAL #1 Round 3 - FINAL ARGUMENTS Round 4 - FINAL REBUTTAL Argument #1 Millions of people around the world are affected by lung cancer. According to the U.S. Center for disease control (C.D.C.) "cigarette smoking is linked to about 80% to 90% of lung cancers." [https://www.cdc.gov...] People can also die from the inhalation of smoke from another person's cigarette, cigar or pipe. The C.D.C. has noted that "about 7,300 people who never smoked die from lung cancer due to secondhand smoke every year." Furthermore, smoking can cause bronchitis, oral cancer, periodontitis (inflammation of the gum and supporting structure of the mouth) and other diseases which can cause intense suffering and/or death. The truth is that cigarettes are far deadlier than marijuana. Marijuana does indeed pose its own risks but it causes much fewer deaths that cigarettes. Cigarettes contain a wide array of chemicals and among the nicotine and smoke is one which will make even smokers cringe. "Arsenic" one of the deadliest chemical compounds in the world. A chemical capable of leaving a person crippled if used in excess. 75%-80% of the arsenic in cigarettes are absorbed by the alveoli. [https://www.verywellmind.com...] The youth of today are being pressured by their elders to smoke. The relaxing, care-free effect it has on their mind causes them to restrict studying and not concentrate in school. Thus, their grades and future suffer. Why go as far as to ban cigarettes? For starters, it is killing millions and the ongoing rampage needs to stop. The tobacco industry does not care about its customers, it cares about the amount of cigarettes customers buy and how much they pay. It's causing our future to fall. Banning cigarettes will encourage smokers to think twice before risking not only their health, but their money which could be spent on paying large fines. It will encourage them to change for the better.