BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
u cannot find three bible verses that contradict each other

con would have been better to find additional contradictions to meet the three quota, but chose to defend the ones she listed. that was her problem. 1. it basically says thou shalt not murder. or kill wrongfully, whatever that means. con is being unreasonable to be so literal for something that is not meant to be taken that way. 3. i gave context to the quotes and gave the verses from where the context came from, the sources. 4. again, to be clear, matthew 2 doesn't say what you said it does. you cited the wrong verse. i dont know if the actual word is house or something else. and again, a manger can be in a house. there is no contradiction. 5. i gave my own interpretation, no sources are needed. con is being unreasonable in what to expect from such mystical langauge
u cannot find three bible verses that contradict each other

Rebuttals:'killing isn't necessarily wrong, it's a general command. no one says you can't kill to defend the innocent. or for a righteous cause.'In the commandments [as given to Moses] is explicitly states 'thou shalt not kill'. Thus, a verse in which God is advocating killing is an obvious contradiction. 'this one might work, but it's the only one that i count. the apologetics that i read seem pretty weak on this supposed contradiction.' In that case, Pro concedes that the verse is in fact a contradiction and fails to offer any additional explanation for it. 'Jesus says his father bears witness to him, so he's not alone in bearing withness. that is in chapter 8. in chapter 5 he says john bears witness so again he doesn't bear withness to himself alone.' Pro has *not* provided any source[s] in support of this, therefore it is simply their own personal interpretation. 'a manger can be in a house. it's a lot to nit pick on the word house too, stretching things beyond what's reasonable. plus on looking at matthew 2 it doesn't say what you say it does. you must have a typo.' All verses come directly from the Christian Bible, so absolutely no typing errors have been made. As can be evidenced in the verse, explicitly different words for Jesus' supposed birthplace are used--thus making it a 'contradiction', a brief look at the definitions provided are confirmation of this. 'jesus is describing a mystic union. you can say you are one and not the same if you are talking mystically. if Jesus is love incarnate, and God is love, it would be fair to say they are one but not necessarily the same, for example.' Once again, no source[s] have been used so this is exclusively Pros *own* interpretation. Pro did not make any reference to the *context* that may actually be behind Biblical verses in round one, therefore when assessing this verse with the verse I compared it with, it IS a contradiction.
u cannot find three bible verses that contradict each other

1. killing isn't necessarily wrong, it's a general command. no one says you can't kill to defend the innocent. or for a righteous cause. 2. this one might work, but it's the only one that i count. the apologetics that i read seem pretty weak on this supposed contradiction.3. Jesus says his father bears witness to him, so he's not alone in bearing withness. that is in chapter 8. in chapter 5 he says john bears witness so again he doesn't bear withness to himself alone. 4. a manger can be in a house. it's a lot to nit pick on the word house too, stretching things beyond what's reasonable. plus on looking at matthew 2 it doesn't say what you say it does. you must have a typo. 5. jesus is describing a mystic union. you can say you are one and not the same if you are talking mystically. if Jesus is love incarnate, and God is love, it would be fair to say they are one but not necessarily the same, for example.
u cannot find three bible verses that contradict each other

Accepted.==Opening Case==Pro asserts in their resolution that you 'cannot' find three Bible verses that contradict each other, however in displaying Bible verses that *very* obviously do, this is easily negated. As Con I will assume that Pro is referring to the Christian Bible, so will thus use verse[s] from both testaments.To offer some *clarification* of the debate, definitions of the term 'contradict': 1. to assert the opposite of a statement or an idea put forward.2. to be contrary with; be inconsistent with. So as not to confuse any readers, I will use two verses [each] contradicting one another in a numerical order. Biblical verse: [1.] Exodus 20:13--'Thou shalt not kill.' Samual 6:19--'The people lamented because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter.'[2.] Genesis 32:30:--'And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel; for I have seen God face-to-face, and my life is preserved.'John 1:18:--'No man hath seen God at any time.' [3.] John 5:1--'if I bear witness on myself, my witness is not true.'John 8:18--'I am the one that bear witness on myself.'[4.] Matthew 2:1--' On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.' Luke 2:7--And she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.' [5.] John 10:30-- 'I and my father are one.'John 14:20--'I go into my father, for my father is greater than I.' These are just but a few of the Biblical verses that openly contradict themselves, and of course, Pro has been shown that there exists more than three.
The United States should adopt Universal Healthcare

1st round is for accepting the debate2nd round is to argue points3rd round is for rebuttals4th round is for further rebuttals and closing statementsDefinitions:Universal Healthcare: Universal health care, sometimes referred to as universal health coverage, universal coverage, or universal care, usually refers to a health care system which provides health care and financial protection to all citizens of a particular country. It is organized around providing a specified package of benefits to all members of a society with the end goal of providing financial risk protection, improved access to health services, and improved health outcomes.
Animals getting put down for "Aggressive Behavior"

I thank you for your well thought out response. I suppose I was quite unclear with what I meant. I meant aggressive as in, yes, biting, scratching, growling, etc. I am strictly talking about domesticated animals, particularly cats & dogs, but other animals, if brought up, are okay too. A lot of people get animals without knowing how to properly take care of them. It's sad, but seen all the time. Most people think having an animal would be fun and carefree. They don't exactly think of all the work they have to put in, to not only make the animal socialized, but to also provide it with a good life. When an animal shows aggression, it's not their fault. They have a need that isn't being met. Whether it be a neurological need, a need for love, patience, food, water, etc there's still that need. If a need isn't being met, then yes, it may turn to aggression. The longer an owner leaves that need unmet, the more aggressive the animal may get. That is in no fault of the animal. Each animal has a truly loving nature. Each "Aggressive" animal CAN be rehabilitated IF the owner takes the steps required. Sometimes all if takes is just some simple playtime to make your animal from a devil to an angel. It's up to the owner whether they want to take time out of their day or not. I mean, that IS what they signed up for when getting an animal. There are certainly boundaries for each individual pet, as there are boundaries for each individual person. Some pets just wont be lap pets. Do you then FORCE them to be on your lap? No. That's just asking for trouble. It's common sense to back off when an animal is giving you clear signs to do so. If you don't, then honestly, whatever damage the animal does is justified. Saying this, I do have to say, sometimes animals do not warn you. It still isn't their fault. If an animal decides to fight you instead of warning or fleeing, then there is probably a chemical issue in their head. Whether they're lacking certain chemicals, or that they have too many. Watching "My Cat From Hell" can prove that any cat can be rehabilitated, and the feral ones can become more trusting. Cesar Millan can prove that any dog can be rehabilitated. It's truly amazing to see how doing simple things can make your animals life 10x better. Eg; walking them, playing with them, feeding them a balanced diet, routine. I do believe that people who own "Aggressive" animals are the ones at fault. It is shown that given the proper care and attention, an animal can thrive and be sweet. So.. There's proof that animals can be rehabilitated IF the owner takes the time. So tell me this: Is it fair that animals get put down because their owner is lazy? Is it fair that an animal gets put down because the owner didn't want to commit to responsibility?
Are potatoes just big strawberrys

Your argument is off topic. I like mashed potatoes. I don't like mashed strawberries. They have different chemechil components. They have different seeds that produce different plants.https://www.nutrition-and-you.com... the potato nutrient values.http://www.whfoods.com... the strawberry's nutritional values.Therefore, theya re different plants.I await your responnse, if you even respond.
Ronald Ryan was Innocent

Ronald Ryan was an innocent man, hanged in 1967. (Last in Australia to be hanged.) They say that he shot a police officer in the heart right after his prison escape. There was never any evidence - forensic nor verbal - that proved he was innocent/guilty. During the trials, he never hinted any signs of guilt and he passionately stuck with the statement that he was innocent. Many victims of the law, who have afterwards been proved innocent, have passed away; they have been hanged. The law was their murderer, and the guilt of the crimes lies on the public conscience. Capital punishment is absolutely worthless as a deterrent to crime. This could have been the case for Ryan, as well. One man, named Peter John Walker, was Ryan's accomplice in this prison break. Recently, he has stated that he is so sure that Ryan was innocent and that he didn't kill the officer, because Walker himself had JAMMED Ryan's gun prior to the incident. http://www.theaustralian.com.au...
Smokeless Tobacco

The use of smokeless tobacco does, in fact, impact other parties. Health care costs for those who suffer from health issues stemming from tobacco use puts a huge burden on other tax payers. 8.6 million Americans suffer from illnesses caused by tobacco use, and the total annual public and private health care expenditures caused by smoking is $96 billion. [1] Taxpayers' yearly fed/state tax burden that comes as a result of smoking-caused government spending is $70.7 billion, or $616 per household. [1] The financial burden that tobacco users put on tax payers is immense, whether the tobacco is smokeless or not. Therefore, all tobacco consumers (even those who opt to use smokeless tobacco) should pay taxes for tobacco products. [1] . http://www.tobaccofreekids.org...Thank you.
Smokeless Tobacco

Should the same laws regarding cigarettes be used for the use of smokeless tobacco? I say no. Personally, I'm a supporter of let smokers smoke, but I do understand why they tax cigarettes more heavily than other items. Cigarettes have been proven to harm people other than the person smoking. Second hand smoke has been linked to lung cancer and various other health problems. Third hand smoke is the stuff that lingers on the clothes of a smoker, and it also can cause health problems, especially to infants. However, smokeless tobacco only harms the person who is using the smokeless tobacco. I find it disgusting, but there is no reason to tax smokeless tobacco as heavily as cigarettes and other forms of smoking tobacco. I understand, smokeless tobacco is just as harmful to the person using it as cigarettes, but that's a personal prerogative. If the user chooses to risk his/her life using a product proven to cause gum/mouth cancer and gum disease, then why stop them? They are hurting no one but themselves.
Women being drafted for the military.

I will 110% agree with you on one thing: feminists can be used for psychological warfare. Just imagine: instead of using extreme torture tactics to get information out of terrorists, you get feminists who will nag at the terrorists saying "CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE," and such. The terrorists would certainly do anything just to stop listening to this feminist talk.In all honesty, I do agree that women can fill roles outside of combat, but the biggest reasons a draft is called is because of the lack of combatants. As I have stated before, standards would be lowered for women, morale would be hampered, and the quality of soldiers would be decreased dramatically. As of this moment, the American Army is prospering well. Our tactics are getting smarter, weapons are improving in ease and effectiveness, and we're even finding less of a need for human volunteers as technology is gradually ushering an age where drones and robots will fight on the front lines.
Women being drafted for the military.

There are more than one job in the armed forces,https://www.google.com... my little brother was a 91Z, (yes i had to call him) he was a supervisor, he never saw combat, and perhaps you can use the feminists as psychological warfare, station thousands of them outside towns and have them do what they do best , they well win that war for us because 99% of the enemies brain well be on the wall or more people hanging from rope than the magician industry. (sorry i got to keep this short, these sedatives makes it hard to think)
Women being drafted for the military.

Point One: Physical AbilityIt is a known fact: on average, men are conventionally stronger than women. This can be backed by many biological studies such as a publication created by the Department of Physical Education of McMaster University. It concluded that approximately women were 52%-66% as strong as the men in terms of upper and lower body strength (S1).Point Two: Standards This leads me to my next point. Because women on average have less physical strength and agility than men, standards would be lowered if there was a draft. Already, women have lower quotas in the military. They are called "gender diversity metrics." Additionally, women get promoted at a rate greater or equal to men. No, this is clearly not because women naturally make better soldiers, but for inflated reasons of "equality," (S2).Point Three: MoraleI apologize for what happened to you with the coffee incident, Doom Guy 666. But just imagine: World War Three has just been declared, and a draft has been called. Then imagine that half of your battalion consists of female hardcore feminists and baristas with a stick of lipstick in one hand, and a cup of boiling hot coffee in another. It'd be the military's worst nightmare.But in all seriousness: women can be detrimental to morale. As the political news website, Forbes, says, "recruits who want to serve and succeed are likely to perform better than draftees who want out, the sooner the better," (S3). Additionally, according to Congressional reports on how our all-volunteer force, "Even when the army was reducing its requirements during the worst of the Iraq years, its quality standards remained well above those of conscript forces….The end of the draft also has dramatically improved commitment and morale in the armed forces," (S4). Currently, a fair amount of women, even feminists raving about equality, do not anticipate a mandatory draft for women. In summary, women involuntarily conscripted into the army will deter morale and hamper the ability to work as a team and the success of missions (S5).Sources:S1) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...S2) http://www.dailywire.com...S3) https://www.forbes.com...S4) http://thefederalist.com...S5) http://sistersinarms.ca...
Women being drafted for the military.

My pleasure to debate with you as well, some back story on why a started this debate, my little cousin turned 18 yesterday and i dropped him off at the recruitment center, while waiting i went to go grab a coffee and i struck up a conversation with the barista, somehow she brought feminism into a conversation about me being impressed at the design she did, i then asked her if women should also be drafted, after all, feminism is all about "equality" and you also well be getting your free college you have been crying about, it ended with her tossing really f*cking hot coffee in my face and having the manager put some ice on my face while a ambulance arrived, she lost her job, and i well probably have even more scars, But, this is my argument, the more hands we have on deck, the better, they don't have to be front lines, they can be engineers, lab rats, even field medics, but it is just good to have that much more help. And a answer to a question you asked me a month ago, i am not active duty, that picture is 10 years old.
Women being drafted for the military.

It's a pleasure to be able to debate you again, Doom Guy. Personally, I do believe that women should be put into selective service, but I will thoroughly research the topic and such to produce a fairly good con argument.For my argument, I will discuss why women should not be in the army for the following reasons: women are less physically adept than men naturally (and because of so, standards may be lowered), force women into a role that most of them are, whether by nature or socialization, not suited for and be detrimental to morale.
Schools should ban animal dissection

These statistics were from polls given to high school students. The students are suppling the results. Furthermore, we can not rely on the chance that the polls might be up to 60% because nobody can predict the future and this number could go down. As I have said over and over again, there are alternatives which have been proven to be more effective than dissection in the educational setting. Cures and medical advances have been made through using animals but, there have never been medical advances made, at least in my knowledge, in the high school setting using animals.
Schools should ban animal dissection

You don't know what a child wants to be when he grows up. I know I wanted to be a forensic anthropologist. So, anything could happen. It is the child's choice whether or not he wants to go to the medical field, so we must not rely on statistics because the next year it could be up to 60%. I had a difficult time during dissections. Most people don't enjoy "cutting into" an animal or sifting through its insides. I would become physically ill-dizzy, sweating, light headed- totally freaked out. But it was worth it. My understanding of human body was enhanced by my experience dissecting an animal. But there are benefits through the sacrifice. So many cures and medical advancements have been made because of animal usage. Thank you.
Schools should ban animal dissection

When you are dissecting an animal you cause extreme pain and suffering to the animal not matter what as it is living. Also, students are not trained surgeons they do not have the expertise or skill to cause as little pain as possible. Neither are most teachers for that matter. I will say again that alternatives to dissection have been proven to be more effective than actually dissection. I'm going to assume high school age. In high school most children do not want to be surgeons and would rather enter other fields. Schools need to adapt to the majority. A survey showed that 12% of students wanted to be doctors and of this number even less will specialize in surgery.
Schools should ban animal dissection

I was part of that 86% and what I have to say is just give it a try. When a student is carefully monitered, they can be taught a healthy respect for life by dissecting the animal with care and dignity. Animal dissection produces a unique experience for a student, where he gets to explore and learn from a once living organism. The experience is not soon forgotten, therefore the information learned is retained. Also, if a child is interested in being a surgeon, dissections encourages the skills needed for surgery. Students retain 90 percent of what they physically perform and only 10 percent of what they see and hear, on average. The tactile experience gained from animal dissection is not matched with a virtual alternative.
Schools should ban animal dissection

A recent survey of high school teens 86% said that they did not want to participate in animal dissections and would rather use alternatives to dissection. Over 30 studies published in scientific journals have shown that alternatives to dissection are more educationally effective. Many different people such as Nancy Harrison MD, Dr Kathleen Brown agree that alternatives are better for learning. Dissection is inhumane many animals are alive when their dissected. [1] There are many alternatives to dissection included CDs and software. These CDs and software have been screened by The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and have shown to be effective. [2] Vote pro alts. are more effective. 1 animalearn.org 2 dissectionalternatives.org
Schools should ban animal dissection

At first, I do admit, I freaked out when it came to dissections. I thought I would throw up or faint or something. But, I found out that I was overreacting. The experience turned out to be fun and it taught me a lot too. So, the idea of banning dissections seems incredulous due to the fact that most of the school population excels through kinesthetic means[1]. Kinesthetic learners are most successful when totally engaged with the learning activity.[1] So, if you take away dissections, you are taking away a child's means of learning. Sources: 1 http://school.familyeducation.com...
Smoking Marijuana Is Bad For You

This should be brief so I'll jump right in. My first argument can be summarized with this quote from the American Lung Association's website, "We caution the public against smoking marijuana because of the risks it poses to lung health. "[1] Marijuana contains 33 chemicals and cigarettes contain more than 7000. [2] While cigarettes are obviously worse, inhaling any chemicals will still harms your lungs. When the same amount of marijuana and tobacco are smoked, marijuana inhalation brings four times as much tar as tobacco into the lungs. [3] Also, people who smoke only marijuana, have more healthcare visits for respiratory conditions compared to nonsmokers. [4] I may put more arguments in later rounds, but I'll leave it at that for now. 1) . http://www.lung.org... 2) . http://www.lung.org... 3) . http://www.snopes.com... via the ALA 4) Polen MR, Sidney S, Tekawa IS, Sadler M, Friedman GD. Health Care Use by Frequent Marijuana Smokers Who Do Not Smoke Tobacco. West J Med. 1993;158(6):596-601.
United States federal government should substantially decrease its authority

1) Many cases involving the standard basis for search 'probable cause' including Cost v. Commonwealth and many more didn't result to a conviction- law enforcers make assumptions and jump into false conclusions. Source: http://www.vachiefs.org... 2) Police officer's hunch or also called 'probable cause' is not enough to legally search someone's car. It is not enough facts or evidence to believe that someone is involved in a criminal activity by smelling any type of drugs or liquor. Source: http://www.flexyourrights.org... Source: http://fox6now.com... C) United States federal government should substantially decrease its authority