BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution, religion in public schools

I understand, we were all new at some point. However, I cannot rebut what I do not hear, so try to get it out as soon as possible please.I am not going to lie to the readers, I had to do some basic research on macroevolution and microevolution to understand what my opponent was trying to say. For the readers who don't know the difference, here is what I found.Microevolution is below the species level. For example people who migrated to Asia over generations evolving to suffer less damage to sunlight, or Sherpas who have evolved to perform well at high altitudes.Macroevolution on the other hand is at or above the species level. For example the idea that humans evolved from a predeccsor species, or that different species have a common anscestor. When my opponent denies macroevolution and accepts microevolution, his contention is basically that species adapt but are not created. This is a logical fallacy. If a species can change and members of it can change independently of other members, which my opponent has accepted saying "I do believe microevolution should be taught because that is a fact." then", then why can a different species not evolve from a previous one?species: a class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name; specifically : a logical division of a genus or more comprehensive class <confessing sins in species and in number>http://www.merriam-webster.com...If induviduals develop then at some point it would be logical to categorize them separately, simply because after a while of induvidual development differences will arise. Some would argue that Buddhism is a philosophy, not a religionhttp://www.theguardian.com...When you state religion should be taught, can you expand upon that? Do you mean a history of world religion course? A Catholic Social Teaching course? A Buddhist meditations course? What?Darwinian Evolution is just as controversial as teaching a religion class. I can accept that. However, it is a scientifically sound theory that has no major scientific detractors. The very purpose of school is to educate people, and something without any logical flaws that defines the devolopment of life is a very reasonable thing to teach. In contrast following the Bible literally would allow slavery and remove women's rights, just as a few problems. Following it anagogically leads to moral ambiguity.And, people must learn about the Big Bang and Evolution whether or not they attend public school. A private school is still required to teach teach science. The following show requirements present in each state:http://www.edchoice.org...I do not understand how learning evolution leads to atheism. Is it because it shows an alternate method of creation? But even without evolution there already were alternate ways, namely other religions. If they did not convert to those religions then there is no reason they would leave behind their religion as evolution is compatible with any major religion.
Evolution, religion in public schools

Thanks for the debate. I'm new on here so I may not get my point out as I would lie to. It is probably going to take some time. The evolution that I'm saying shouldn't be taught in public school is macroevolution. I do believe microevolution should be taught because that is a fact. You might be right saying Atheism isn't a religion. Buddhism is a religion, yet, Buddhism is nontheistic. When I'm talking about religion being taught in school. I'm saying they all should. Like I stated earlier. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism etc... As you have stated late in your response, "Why should a school today teach a controversial subject because a scientist from decades ago may or may not have advocated for it?" Why then, should they teach a controversial subject like evolution, specifically Darwinian Evolution? Just because someone doesn't make the income to attend a private school they are enforced to learn about the Big Bang, Darwinian Evolution.... Which in my opinion leads someone to believe in Atheism....
Evolution, religion in public schools

First and foremost in the next speech I would ask my opponent to clarify the exact resolution. Need I prove that evolution shout be taught in schools and religion shouldn't? Or something else? Regardless for now I will merely rebutt my opponents claims.1) Evolution should be taught in schools. Evolution does not teach Atheism, it is a theory with no bearing on theism or atheism. I would also contend my opponents definition of religion;Religion: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods http://www.merriam-webster.com...;As Atheists have only one universal belief, no ceremonies, and no rules, I would argue it is not a religion.In addition Evolution is not a worldview per se, it is the result of logical observed patterns throughout the globe. The very purpose of school is to educate children, and teaching the theory with the most scientific evidence seems a very reasonable thing to do.2) Religion shoult not be taught in schoolsMy opponent actually goes against thier previous words when they advocate for the teaching of religion. They claim that nobody should have worldviews forced upon them, and then go and claim that religion should be taught in school. Not only that, but my opponent seems to only argue for one religion. My opponent points out that a famous biologist wanted religion taught, but has provivded no evidence for this and no reason why this should matter. Why should a school today teach a controversial subject because a scientist from decades ago may or may not have advocated for it?My contentions do not neccassirly reflect my personal beliefs.
Evolution, religion in public schools

Since the public school system is government funded, Should the government teach children Evolution in school. Specifically, Darwinian Evolution? I believe Darwinian Evolution teaches Atheism. By, definition, Atheism is a religion (A set of beliefs that contradict other beliefs). If someone doesn't have enough money to attend a private school, why should they force an un wanted worldview on someone else's child. Personally, I also believe religion should be taught in school. Specifically the Bible. Even T.H.Huxley(Person who happened to be Agnostic supported teaching Bible in school. He was also an Agnostic.)
The God of the old testament is not immoral.

No you keep bringing up the moral argument and I sam saying that this debate is not the debate for that. We can discuss the argument in a separate debate but in after I am done my rebuttal I will make a debate pertaining the moral argument. Make sure to look for a debate called morality is grounded in God. Okay so I too have struggled with your doubts in the past. My first doubts were due to my sexual orientation being Bisexual and also the Christian involvement in the slave trade. However I realized that the actions of the Church historically don't disprove Christianity and I began examining the arguments against Christianity and could have very well become an Agnostic but thanks to the works of people like Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. David Wood, Ravi Zacharias, Lee Strobel and others I am a stronger christian than I have ever been and I plan one day to open up a Christian Apologetics Academy in Edmonton, Alberta which is where I live. I want you to watch this video: https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=92t441KLTos Actually I did. My defence was that the kids would die regardless and what is more humane drowning or starvation and being eaten alive. Christian Doctrine pertains that sin=death and thus blood must be shed for the forgiveness of sins. I think Christ coming to die for us is a mark of the personal love by the God of Christianity not seen in any other religion. God does exist and if you would like we can debate the arguments for him. Bring it on! I made the story. Its called a parable. The holocaust, And sex slavery were based in the free will of those who prepartorted these events. Childhood cancer comes from a fallen world filled with suffering and if you truly understood Christian doctrine you would know that from a Christian perspective suffering is expected. Suffering and Evil does not disprove God in fact I would argue that it is a punch in the face for Atheism. No! You made the objection defend it! That is incorrect. I think you are confusing Islam with Christianity. Many turned to Christ through conversion not through war. The war would come later through European Empires. It was Islam that got it's rise through war and violence. The point of this debate is to answer whether the God of the Old Testament is immoral of not based on our moral progressions by addressing Old Testament literature. I made this debate because the world's most influential Atheists use an immoral God as an argument against God's existence. Besides morality what other objections do you have to God? I would like to here them.
The God of the old testament is not immoral.

By avoiding the moral argument of the existence of god you are avoiding a lot of the key areas in which atheists and other religious groups reject your god (logic, Science, & religious affiliation aside). If god was immoral, This would indeed disprove or at least greatly diminish the need to believe or worship the christian god. Is god omnipresent, Omnipotent, & omniscient? God is also supposed to be a loving god and a forgiving god. I"m trying very hard to read thoroughly through your argument and all of the biblical scriptures, However no matter which way you try to rationalize it or make an interpretation of it, It does not change which the bible itself showcases (not to mention I don"t believe in anything from the Bible so this is a circulator argument anyway), But for the sake of the bible: god is omnipresent, Omnipotent, & omniscient. He has a plan, He knows what"s going to happen. He can control it. Why not just make these people vanish? Why does he have to globally mass murder people via drowning to make his point? Also, I"m 100% sure drowning the whole world involved killing children, As did killing every first born in egypt when he was mad at the pharaoh. You can quote every biblical verse you can find and interpret it in your own way and that"s your right. Hemingway"s short stories have the same effect on people, As he never stated what he meant & left it for everyone to guess (as you can imagine, The possibilities here are endless). The bible verbatim condones slavery, Enforced that women are lesser than men and showed god murders people all the time. Interpret it as you wish, It does not change the scripture. You would think an all knowing god would have his word written in a fashion where people can universally understand but as "he"s" proven time and time again, He could give less of a f*** about doing slightly more to avoid brutal mass torture of the people he created, Knowing they would sin. We can argue interpretations of the scripture all day, And will continue to disagree. The ultimate question is: Is god omnipresent, Omnipotent, & omniscient? If so, Why does he let people suffer? Why did he murder people and children? Where is he when innocent people (even believers) are starving to death, Being raped, Being killed? He either cannot do anything, Or he can and is just watching knowing damn well he has the power to change it, Just proving a point. Either way, He"s not worth worshipping. Add into the mix the fact that there"s no evidence even supporting God, Im just as likely to be taken seriously or being correct in believing in leprechauns and unicorns and aliens. Also, Important to note: Christianity has ripped off of many other religions. I just returned from visiting ancient Rome and learned all about how christians destroyed all their religious documents and statues. The bible is no more accurate than believing in Zues or any of the other pagan gods, Fortunately I don"t believe in any of them.
Racism should be gone for good

Well first of all, history books don't really side with the white man except in the instance of the conquistadors, they also side with the rich man consistently by classifying John Rockefeller as a "philanthropist," because of all the money he gave away, they leave out the part about how every cent he donated was blood money, and he was guilty of a massacre, look up "the Ludlow Massacre," it's like saying Adolf Hitler was a philanthropist because he fixed the German economy. This is a little off topic though. Also, you didn't answer my question, how would you enforce a ban on racism?
Racism should be gone for good

In every history book they have told the side of the white people always being nice and the colored people being bad, but they have never told the side where colored people suffered because of their skin color or race. Slavery is an example they treated them poorly like animals selling them like they were nothing. Treating African Americans, Chinese, and Latinos just to name a few like trash beating them up getting disrespected because they were a certain race or skin color. They didn't get choose to be that way they get didn't choose what skin color they were or their race. Some people are racist they just learned how to hide it.
Most Important Battles

The Battle of Austerlitz Napoleons 'perfect battle' in which absolutely CRUSHED the Russian and Austrian forces within Europe. This battle alone ended the Third Coalition against Napoleon, solidified his alliance with Prussia at that time. It was the first and only (to the best of my knowledge anyways) time in history in which a standing army used stealth tactics to march up a hill for cover via fog. Simple and sweet. Napoleon simply drive his forces up the Pratzen heights after giving it to the Czar (he thought Napoleon was crazy) splitting the Russians in half and sending the rest of the army fleeing. This would have Napoleon at the peak of his Empire. Furthermore, Napoleon was outnumbered by 15 thousand men yet only lost 7 thousand, while the Russians and Austrians lost 27,000. However, the Russians also lost 50 standards (or flags) which was a great dishonor to those batallions whom lost them. The battle would end the Holy Roman Empire, and establish the confederation of the Rhine. Videos here: http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Most Important Battles

Spanish ArmadaIn August 1588, one of the largest fleets ever made was put together. The Spanish Armada of over 130 warships were poised to invade Great Britain. Britain's navy had only about 50 ships to defend the island. Each Spanish ship also held some 300 soldiers. This was to board the British ships and quickly conquer them. The British on the other hand preferred to fire their guns from a distance where they had the advantage. Amazingly, the expert British sea tactics defeated the Spanish. The Spanish liked to keep their navy together, but the British formed lines and hammered their close formations. The Spanish could barely turn in their tight formations. The British even built fire ships to destroy the Spanish ships. This led the Spanish to retreat in one of the worst in history. The Spanish were forced to move all across Great Britain and a series of storms devastated their fleet. They would lose a total of 66 ships that were either sunk, captured, wrecked, or scuttled. Had they been victorious it might had changed the course of history as we know it. For more watch this video.http://www.youtube.com...;
Most Important Battles

Operation Neptune / Invasion of Normandy / Operation Overlord / Omaha Beach The significance is pretty straight forward and clear. It marks the first time the Germans are unable to advance as the allied forces teamed up to liberate Vinchy France from the Axis. Not only did it put the Germans on defense, but solidify US efforts into WW2 and alliances with Canada, U.K, Belgium, Netherlands, Australia, Free France, and Poland. France would eventually become liberated, and the Soviets would eventually reach the grave of Adolf Hitler. This is the mark of a sharp turn in history, as the Germans would no longer be able to take over the British by force. This battle is the epitome of friendships, teamwork, and more importantly hard work. Many men never made it to the beaches, facing massive machine gun fire after dismounting from their boats. It would also prove the cunning of Dwight Eisenhower as a general. Historians generally agree that this is one of the most significant battles in American history as the Germans were thus fighting a two front war with the Americans and Russians. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Most Important Battles

Battle of GettysburgThis battle is considered the turning point in the American Civil War. Just like Stalingrad, the battle started out with a rougly small force. A Union cavalry brigade commanded by Brigadier General John Buford and a division of Condeferate infantry commanded by Brigadier General J. Johnson Pettigrew. His superior officer, Major General Henry Heth, wrote in his memoirs that he ordered Pettigrew to move to Gettysburg to search for supplies in the town, especially shoes. The Confederates pushed the Union Cavalry back, but the a Union infantry vanguard arrived to help. By then end of the first day, Union troops were pushed back to Cemetery Ridge, south of the town of Gettysburg. Confederate commander General Richard Ewell decided not to attack.The next day Confederate General Robert E. Lee arrived to commanded the Southern forces. The Union troops were commanded by General George Meade. Slowly Union troops were coming in to reinforce the high ground and they had up to 90,000 men. Lee had 70,000 men. He believed that because the Union forces were still stragling in, he could attack them. He ordered General Ewell on the right flank of Cemtery Ridge to attack when he thought it was practical. However, this was a mistake as Ewell was not directly ordered not to attack. Ewell did not really understand his orders and decided not to attack. During the day, Union General Dan Sickles marched his corps off the ridge allowing Confedrate troops commanded by General James Longstreet. The Union troops were forced back to a hill called Little Round Top. Fighting occured all over the hill, but eventually a bayonet charge led by the Union's 20th Maine forced the Confederates back. The fighting at the hill remained one of the most epic moments in Civil War history.By the third day, General Longstreet talked to Lee about disengaging the enemy and moving south to threaten Washington DC. This would force the Union off the ridge, but Lee refused and instead ordered Brigadier General George Pickett to attack on the left flank of the ridge. Over 13,000 troops led by Pickett marched in close ranks toward the Union ridge. Union musket fire and cannon fire devastated the Confederate troops. They made it all the way to the ridge, but could not press on and the force retreated. On the right flank, Confederate cavalry commander J.E.B. Stuart launched a charge to outflank the Union troops, but Union cavalry commanded by General George Armstrong Custer countercharged and defeated Stuart's cavalry. The Battle of Gettysburg was over. Both sides lost around 23,000 men.Had Lee won this battle he probably could have won the war for the CSA. This key moment showed the consequences of attacking uphill and being outnumbered. Tatics like this would in the end cause the overall defeat of the South. Here are some videos.http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...
Most Important Battles

The Battle of Koniggratz Largest land battle in history (over 9,000 dead). Fought between Otto Von Bismarck's Prussia vs Austria and Saxony. Austria was a major European power at this time and the results of Prussian victory forever changed that. Not only did the battle forecast the unification of the Germanic states into Germany (Bismarck splits Germanic Confederation by giving the Northern States to Poland and South independence with an alliance) but the use of technology in war. Prussians also won due to 3 new inventions: Trains, Watches, and Carbines. The Prussian officers no longer needed to be on the battlefield either, thus showing more modern warfare. This would also be a catalysis for the French to attack Germany only to be badly defeated in the Franco-Prussian War and unify Germany. Bismarcks leadership is also seen as a setting for the foundation that Adolf Hitler would be surrounded with. Also this was the first battle in which War plans take effect and battle plans are communicated much easier. These would remain key elements up until about World War 2 thus proving huge historical significance! Some videos: http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Most Important Battles

Battle of ViennaThis battle is somewhat like the famous battle of Tours (732), but in this case, the less famous battle of Vienna was far more close. Once again the Muslims were on the move in 1683 to claim all of Europe under the flag of the Ottoman Empire. Intially, the Ottomans were trying to siege Vienna, but this actually turned into a battle as things went on. Why? The Ottomans kept dallying and waited to long and an epic battle took place. Basically their commander, Mustafa Pasha, had a force of over 130,000 Ottoman troops. Vienna was protected by 15,000 Germans. Pasha lost his window to attack and now fought on the defensive when a relief force arrived of 100,000 Germans and Poles. What this battle proves is that you should not waste time like Pasha did. Had he attacked, Vienna would had no doubt fallen and he would have had stronghold for the Ottomans to gain reinforcements. The Ottomans lost 20,000 men while the Europeans lost 4,500. For more watch this:http://www.youtube.com...
Most Important Battles

The Battle of Waterloo The Emperor Napoleon's downfall in an unfortunate battle due to mental illness, which would lead to the fall of Napoleon himself, and the French First Empire. The french would never reach the heights as an empire after Napoleon ever again. The Lesson to be taken home here is 1) attention to detail within a battle, and 2) biting off more than you can chew. Napoleon simply had too many enemies when fighting the Seventh Coalition. It would be his greatest army of 125,000 men consisting of french veteran volunteers and his elite guard. This would also be the first and only battle in which Napoleon's elite would be defeated thus signaling a defeat to the rest of the army. His army failed him: Grouchy allowed the Prussians to join the British, Marshal Ney was shell-shocked and forgot to send in Calvary with foot soldiers to break through the British 'squares'. The ground was wet, forcing Napoleon to wait. The decisive ally victory stopped the violence in Europe that had been going on for years since the French Revolution. Even the Waterloo medal would be the first to be pressed from a machine signaling a great technological change, and the first medal to be passed down to next-of-kin should a soldier fighting in those battles get KIA. This tradition has carried even in todays military. Some videos: http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...