BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Apostle Paul: Shinning example of a Christian

The Con position, (mine) is that Paul can be tried and found guilty of crimes against the Church before during and after his Christian ministry. The Pro position, (yours) is that of defending Paul. Con's main body of evidence will be the Bible but Pro can use sources outside the Bible if they want to. Opening argument: 1 Saul of Tarsus hunted down Christians. 2 An eye for an eye is a law still enforce to this very day, (even if you change your name).
Gay-marriage should not be legal in the US

As Pro, I will affirm the resolution and argue that gay-marriage should not be legal in the US. As Con, you will negate the resolution and argue that Gay-marriage should be legal in the US. ClarificationsThe debate topic is that gay-marriage should not be legal, so to say that there are many places in the US which already makes it legal (something which I'm fully aware of), is invalid. If the debate topic was however that gay-marriage is not legal in the US, then it would be valid to say that that there are many places in the US which already makes it legal. In fact, if you have said that, you would have negated the resolution (i.e., That gay-marriage is not legal in the US)Since I'm arguing that gay-marriage should not be legal in the US, that means that I'm also arguing that places in the US which already makes gay-marriage legal, should not make it legal anymore. And since Con is arguing that gay-marriage should be legal in the US, that means that he's also arguing that places in the US which doesn't make gay-marriage legal, should start making it legal. Basically, this debate is not about if gay-marriage is legal or not, but only about if it should be legal or not.DefinitionsGay-marriage: 'The practice of marriage between two males.' [1]Legal: 'Permitted by law; lawful: Such acts are not legal.' [Ibid]The US: 'United States or United States of America Abbr. U.S. or US or U.S.A. or USA. A country of central and northwest North America with coastlines on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.' [2]RulesRound 1 is for acceptance only. No new arguments shall be given in the last round. No semantics.By accepting this debate, you also accept all the rules and definitions of this debate. Violating one of them will lose you all 7 points.Sources[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy of the Messiah (contrary to claims by Infidels)

Isaish 7:14 declares that a "virgin" shall give birth to a son and shall call his name Immanuel. Immanuel means "God with us." This was written hundreds of years before Jesus was born, so no one can argue this was written after the events and hence is not a genuine prophecy. Matthew names the virgin (Mary), and cites this passage as fulfilled when in his day, the virgin did give birth to a son and. (Matthew 1:18-23) So, did she call his name Immanuel? Immanuel means "God with us," and the entire New Testament teaches that Jesus is God as my opponent already conceded in a previous debate. (ie John 1:1-3, 18; 20:28; Acts 20:28) Even as a baby Matthew records people worshipping the infant (Matthew 2:11), as well as the disciples when he grew up. (Matt 28:9, 17) So the disciples had no doubt that Jesus was God. We therefore have no reason to think Mary didn't call him God, which is the fulfillment of what it means to call his name Immanuel. There is nothing in Isaiah 7:14 which says he must have been called Immanuel on the same day he was born, he could receive that name at any time. Since the disciples did recognize him as God, it is reasonable to believe that Mary herself refered to him as Immanuel during his ministry or even before that, seeing as she too would have known about these prophecies. Luke backs up Matthew, testifying that in his day this virgin birth did occur. (Luke 1:26-35; 2:7) Thought Luke was not an eyewitness like Matthew, he got his information from the eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1-4), so we can be confident that this did occur. If Isaiah didn't prophesy a virgin birth, it is rather odd that such did still occur nevertheless. While I'm tempted to offer a preemptive rebuttal to the argument I know my opponent could raise, I'll let him present that case fist. It is up now to him to cast doubt on whether this truely is a messianic prophecy.
Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy of the Messiah (contrary to claims by Infidels)

This debate is not regarding weather Jesus is really the Messiah, but rather the original intent of Isaiah 7:14 was to point to the coming of the Messiah whom Matthew believes to be Jesus Christ. If this can be shown to be a genuine Messianic prophecy it has great inplications for atheism, for it means we have a prophecy recorded in extant scrolls of Isaiah predating Jesus, which are actually fulfilled in the first century in his life. This would be strong evidence for God, but God's existence is not the debate today. I am challenging kohai to this debate because he introduced me to a site called infidels.org who argue that OT messianic prophecies were not really prophecies, but taken out of context by Gospel writers such as Matthew. Let's debate some of these texts one at a time, starting with Isaiah 7:14. Round 1 is for exceptance only. All other rounds are for argugments and rebuttals.
Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy of the Messiah (contrary to claims by Infidels)

Is Isaiah 7:14 a Messianic prophecy contrary to claims by Jews and Infidels? That is the question I wish to answer. I hope, by the end of this debate, that we can conclude that the answer is a big fat NO! Virgin is mistranslatedMy opponent uses the LXX defense, which may seem reasonable, until we look at the problems. Problem 1: Parthenos does not always mean "virgin"1) The 70 rabbis did not translate Isaiah, only the "Pentateuch";2) The introduction to the English edition of the LXX states that "The Pentetuch is considered to be the part best executed, while the book of Isaiah is considered to be the worst;3) In Genesis 34:2-4 the word "Parthenos" is used to reference a non-virgin, young woman that was raped! ; and4) The version you are thinking of is not original, but a later corrupt version. [1] Problem 2: The LXX is not a literal translation. Because it is not a literal translation, it is possible that the young woman was a virgin at the sign of the prophecy, and then concieved in the next chapter. My opponent's "solution" is negated. Context of Isaiah 7My opponent asks: "If this young woman was not a virgin, then how was this quite normal, non-miraculous birth suppose to be a sign? " This is a straw-man argument. The sign was not a miraculous birth, but rather it was the prophecy of the name itself. Notice that in Hosea, and throughout the Old Testament, names have very special meanings and is often a prophetic name. Thus the name, "God is with us" is to prove that God is truly with Israel. PRO then goes on to state taht Ahaz refused the sign. This is true, but God grants him a sign anyway. "Before Jesus reached the age to chose good over bad everything prophesied to happen regarding Assyria had happened, so Jesus still fits the bill fine. "Yes, as does Mahershalahasbaz, which makes a lot more sense than a Virgin Birth. Summary Notice the verse states "ha'almah" or "the young woman," not a young woman as the Christian Bible states. Notice that it states "she will call his name Emmanuel," not "they shall call,"In addition to these issues, it becomes clear based upon the context of Hebrew that the young woman referred to in Isaiah 7:14 knows Ahaz. [2]. "For before the boy will know enought to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken. " Note that the very next chapter states, "For before the child shall know to cry, 'My father and my mother' the riches of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria shall be taken away. " This is a clear fulfillment of the prophecy. Resolution negated. Bibliography [1] Kravitz, Bentzion. The Jewish Response to Missionaries: Counter-missionary Handbook. p 33. Los Angeles, CA: Jews for Judaism, 2001. Print. [2] Ibid. p 35
The earth is a spinning globe

Okay, the lunar cycles do not directly prove whether the Earth is a sphere or a disk, a diagram from the below website explains the phases very well. It explains that half of the moon is always illuminated by the sun, we only see one face of the moon, but because the day time illuminated parts moves around we see lunar phases. http://www.moonconnection.com... I also understand now that during a lunar eclipse the sun, moon and Earth are aligned so when the moon passes Earth's shadow the shadow shape seen is the same whether or not Earth is a disk or a sphere. However, if the Earth were flat then a bigger shadow would be cast during an eclipse since all the surface area of the globe would be laid flat. Of course the shadow from the Earth can appear the same size whether Earth is flat or not, but if the Earth is flat then the Moon would have to be about twice as far away. Ever since Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin left a mirror on the lunar surface scientists have been firing lasers at it for 40 years [1], which prove the moon is around 370,000 km (240,000 miles) - a figure you'd expect if Earth is a sphere. This doesn't prove people went to the moon by the way. The ancient Greeks determined the approximate distance of the moon from the Earth at 397,500 km (247,000 miles) which is pretty close. Anyway I have to provide evidence that will convince you, Earth's movement has been detected, you can watch the Earth's rotation by watching the Foucault Pendulum. Here is a video: Even if the Earth were flat it must still be spinning, as it is the Coriolis effect that causes the motion. All I have to do now is prove the Earth is a globe which I'll do now by asking you to look at a similar video below. If you can see an ocean and only the tops of buildings in the distance the Earth must be round. If you look into a telescope at the same view the bottom of the buildings will still be blocked by the ocean. There is video proof of this, which I've given. On a flat Earth, where the ocean is flat, there is no reason why you wouldn't be able to see the bottom of buildings by looking through a telescope. Since you can't see the bottom of those buildings, just the tops due to the curvature of Earth, the Earth is a sphere. sources [1] https://www.theguardian.com... [2] http://www.universetoday.com...
The earth is a spinning globe

Lunar cycles have nothing to do with the earth's shape whatsoever in either the heliocentric model or the geocentric flat earth model. Heliocentricity says it's the position of the sun in respect to the moons position, however the lunar phases sometimes do not match up with the sun's position. The flat earth community explains that the moon is self luminent, perhaps borrowing some energy from the sun. Both are near, and both circuit above our heads, only moving past the vanishing point when it "sets". Perspective plays a huge part in the sun and moon's activity near the horizon. This video explains it best. https://youtu.be... The earth's movement has never been detected.
The earth is a spinning globe

The moon and sun change positions in the sky, if the Earth was like a big flat pancake you'd expect to see a shadow in the shape of a line varying in thickness each night, or at least once, to see a shadow in the shape of a circle would be rare on a flat Earth. The pancake would have to face the sun and not rotate in order to see a circular shadow across the moon. How do you explain the lunar cycles? Earth rotates, proof can be seen from the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.
The earth is a spinning globe

Thanks for providing a video though it does not prove or disprove anything, I believe this is a serious debate even though I think I can easily convince you that the Earth is spherical in shape and spinning. Earth is spherical "the basic idea of Earth being a spherically stratified planet are well founded" [1]. Seismic wave observations have been used to investigate the interior structure of the planet. S-waves can't travel through liquid such as the mantle resulting in a seismic shadow. Seismographs allow scientists to calculate the position of major boundaries in the Earth's interior [2]. "Aristotle (who made quite a lot of observations about the spherical nature of the Earth) noticed that during lunar eclipses (when the Earth"s orbit places it directly between the Sun and the Moon, creating a shadow in the process), the shadow on the Moon"s surface is round. This shadow is the Earth"s, and it"s a great clue on the spherical shape of the Earth." [3] Earth is spinning My questions to Con is this; if the Earth doesn't spin, does the moon orbit the Earth? Or is the moon stationary like the Earth? The moon clearly can't be stationary because the moon can appear 14% larger - called a super moon due to an elliptical orbit. So does the moon orbit a stationary Earth then? The moon is tidally locked with Earth, that is to say it shows the same side to Earth, so if the moon orbits a stationary Earth why is it that we cannot see the other side of the moon while standing on Earth? sources: [1] http://eqseis.geosc.psu.edu... [2] http://www.indiana.edu... [3] http://www.smarterthanthat.com...
The earth is a spinning globe

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle The earth is not round, there is no evidence of this that can't be disproved. Any media publicly available is presentable until such evidence is proved to be falsified. No kritiks. No ad hominem. Please keep advanced theoretical mathematical equations to a minimum. Burden of proof lies entirely on pro. Thanks for the interest in this fascinating subject, I hope my opponent can give me that 100% empirical or logical piece of evidence. Before accepting this debate, please watch this short video debunking most of the common proofs of a spinning globe, and either find another proof, or debunk that debunk you choose to use. Good luck, and I hope both of us learn something with this challenge! https://youtu.be...
The earth is a spinning globe

If you watch the below video from round 4 you will see that from the north pole you can see the sun rising and falling but not falling below the horizon for the entire summer. In the winter the sun can't be seen at all.The only way that is possible is if the earth is spinning. When the sun sets it doesn't get smaller and smaller to a vanishing point, it goes behind the Earth itself due to it being curved i.e. spherical. There are periods of 24 hours of daylight in the south pole too, but obviously not at the same time. The below video explains why the northern hemisphere is hotter
The earth is a spinning globe

It is pure coincidence that the Sun and moon appear the same size viewed from Earth. The Sun is ~93 million miles away but large enough to appear the same size as the moon. Size and distance away are related, e.g. an object could appear the same size as the moon if it were twice as big but twice as far away, that is how perspective works! None of the people who claim the Earth is flat and stationary are experts. "The age of the Earth is 4.54 " 0.05 billion years (4.54 " 109 years " 1%).This dating is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the radiometric ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples." " The moon's mass is 7.35 x 1022 kg, about 1.2 percent of Earth's mass. Put another way, Earth weighs 81 times more than the moon." wikipedia "from satellite observations we know that the Sun loses about 1.5 million tonnes of material each second due to solar wind." [1]. So, the only way the sun can still be around is because the sun is massive, also to appear the size as the moon it must be very far away (and massive). Why does Earth have polar caps like Mars does? Why can't we have ice caps at the poles? Why would there be an ice sheet at the edge of a flat Earth? You can see the polar caps on Mars through a telescope you can buy [2]. Due to the CURVATURE of the planet, the poles receive less energy from the sun per square metre. "From the equator to the poles, the Sun" rays meet Earth at smaller and smaller angles, and the light gets spread over larger and larger surface areas" [3]. This is because the Earth is a sphere and the equator receives full-intensity solar radiation. There is daylight for the entire summer at the north pole [4]. Watch this video proof: The sun doesn't set below the horizon during summer here because the Earth is not flat, you are seeing the sun at a different angle due to being on a curved surface. It is the only explanation especially when you consider the sun is so far away. A rotating body tends to form an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere. And gravity tends to contract a celestial body into a sphere. The Earth is not a perfect sphere, it is flatter at the poles and bulges at the equator. This is probably why some people can take pictures of the ocean which appear very flat while other pictures show the curvature of Earth more clearly but only when looking at a large distance of course. Boats that go further out to sea don't just get smaller until they vanish, they appear to sink. The reason hot air balloons can't float up and land somewhere else when they come down on a spinning Earth is because objects including planes, clouds etc, are spinning around by gravity like the moon which is further away but keep up with Earths rotation. sources: [1] https://briankoberlein.com... [2] http://www.telescope.com... [3] http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov... [4]
Does 'Doctor Who' have anything to do with science or religion Pro-side-science con-region

Your argument about how philosophy relates to religion doesn't make sense. Please be clear and concise with what you're trying to say. Also, are we arguing about what Doctor Who is about: Religion or Science? You're not being very clear about that as well.The Doctor is more about science than religion. Consider his rampant wanderlust. The doctor wanders around time and space in order to learn, see something new, to meet new people. He doesn't care about being a god; he cares about learning new things. This is especially true in the episode with the Beast "The Satan Pit". He is staring a monster older than time in the face but instead of challenging it to the typical game of good vs. evil he figures out the beast's entire plan. That's the Doctor; a man more focused on figuring things out and learning than any conception of religion.This show reminds me of Star Trek in the sense of exploration. Both shows are in pursuit of higher knowledge and figuring out the truth. Is there aspects of religion in this show? Yes, undeniably. However this show is not about religion primarily; it is about exploration and seeking the truth. Nothing is more scientific than that.
Does 'Doctor Who' have anything to do with science or religion Pro-side-science con-region

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. In more casual speech, by extension, "philosophy" can refer to "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group. so simple terms it can be a religious ideal of the world. So the doctor embraces a form of religion it may be his own counter claim to that point. 1.The doctor's counter to daleks is sensible yet makes sense for him he lost his whole race to them that was a trait of his humanity. He cared to stop them from the start as the daleks have no moral code of right or wrong. so you blame a man for wanting a race of monsters dead. 2.The doctor code's anger does not break with religion at all. the bible had many times where god was an angry god. 3.Mickey was a good guy the doctor later felt guilty for those actions You can see that he and Mickey did get along great but the doctor is a man that always finds problems with others and fights his companions often on thier opnions it is human nature again. 4.It is risky thing to travel with the doctor 5.The doctor has full right as he has to talk too and they wouldn't shut up and listen.
Does 'Doctor Who' have anything to do with science or religion Pro-side-science con-region

I believe that Doctor Who is centered around science. My opponent claims that the Doctor is a man of faith and teaches us good faith. I disagree.Would a holy figure do the following:1) Ask the last Dalek in existance to kill himself?2) Threatens to blow up an entire fleet of Dalek in pure rage?3) Constantly make fun of Mickey for being useless instead of trying to include him?4) Bring a companion along that could easily die from countless threats?5) Tell people to shut up when he's talking?This debate itself is flawed. Please define what I'm arguing. Is it that the Doctor is more a man of science than religion? I'm assuming that's what it is.
Argument for God and the Correct Religion

You very clearly did not actually read the initial arguement in its entirety. No doubt you will claim you did. The asininity of your arguement suggest otherwise. Read the article. In full. I would tell you it answers all your points, except half your points bear so little relevance to tbd subject of the article that it is astounding. Truthfully, I should probably address and and refute each of your idiotic contentions, but that would in volve only requuoting the relevant parts of the original text, a tedious and intellectually unstimulating task, that I suspect would be pointless, as you've made it clear the things I write don't much influence your irrelevant ramblings. That said, I've pretty much given up any hope in this website. Clearly it does not attract any capable of following simple logic and through to the end and spotting flaws with it. Everyone I have debates has either been unable to hold a logical discussion, forfieted, or has debated technicalities and definitions instead of the point of the debate. No one us interested in holding a genuinely productive debate. Clearly this is not the destination for anyone of even moderate intellect. I refuse to waste another minute here, so there will undoubtably be typos, due my refusal to spellxheck. I don't give a damn. This site can go to Hell.