BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the bible has no significant contradictions

"too vague, as I predicted in the initial post." It is not too vague. It says God is good to everyone. Then the next exert says god will not pity or spare anyone. Major contradiction. "Too vague, as I predicted in the initial post." Not too vague again, it's very specific. God is a man of war. God is a man of peace. Huge contradiction, it's just like saying Zeus is the god of The Sky, Zeus is the God of the Sea. Or Ares is the god of war, Ares is the god of peace. It just doesn't make sense. "I'd say it's a minor detail." It's not minor because if the bible can't get the genealogy correct then we can't expect to say Jesus is in the same line as David. "so what if 'the other Mary' isn't mentioned in one verse? it doesn't mean she wasn't there. plus it's not that significant of a detail." I'll give you that. "Christians believe in the trinity, it's not suppose to make complete logical sense. the Father is God, the Son is God, but the Father is not the son. but given they are both God, logic etc dictates that in a sense they are one." And? that has nothing to do with the contradiction. I know of the trinity. But the posts that I pointed out, Jesus says he is equal to god and then says he is lesser to god. Contradiction. "he might have said all of it, just cause it wasn't an exact paraphrase doesn't mean it wasn't last words generally. i also tend to think it's not all that significant." It shows that even the authors couldn't agree on Jesus' last words. How are we expected to believe what they wrote about his other words? "God in his infiniteness cannot be seen. in human form he can be seen." That still doesn't make up for the contradiction. "too vague almost like the example I used in the initial post." It's 5 descriptions of god, all being contradicted. How do we decide on one?
liberalism is driven by emotions, not truth.

Case in point. Liberals paraded a person,sandra Fluke, to try to get us to pay for her birth control.How sick is that. Let her pay for her own lifestyle. And where is the guys contribution.Or a welfare mother that cant pay for Christmas presents, but looks like she can afford a hundred dollars a week in twinkies. And let us just sugjest that she use better judgment on who she sleeps with and you are hounded as a hater.Or how about saying it is not a baby because he/she doesn't have air in he/she's lungs.Or how about taking our guns away because someone shoots people in a GUN FREE ZONE. We should be outlawing gun free zones. The only thing that will stop a bag guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.Policew were not the first responders at sandyhook. The victims were. And they were ill prepared for what happened.Twenty kids mowed down because of liberalism that outlawed the second amendment.
liberalism is driven by emotions, not truth.

Pro has full burden of proof to show that liberalism, as an ideology, is driven solely by emotions, and not by truth. "That is why liberals always parade people who have problems in front of everybody, never researching WHY they have these problems."Pro made two absolute statements here. All I have to do if find one time where liberals did not parade somebody with problems, and one time where liberals researched why they have problems.I just researched why I have problems: https://www.google.com... Now this absolute statement has been disproven.Here's an example of somebody with problems that isn't being paraded around by liberals: http://www.kiva.org... This woman is having trouble making ends meet as a pharmacist in Mongolia. According to pro, liberals should have thrown her a parade. -Pro has failed to mention which problems these are.-Pro has also failed to provide prove the ideology of liberals is driven by emotion alone, without a single bit of truth. "The worst judgments in our courts are from an emotional response to a situation."Would Pro care to provide examples?In summary, the ideology of liberalism is not driven solely by emotion.
liberalism is driven by emotions, not truth.

This sounds more like a rant than an argument. Pro is using the term "liberals" as if every liberal makes unilateral decisions. The resolution that Pro made was that liberalism is driven by emotion, and no truth. Pro seems to have completely abandoned this resolution."Or a welfare mother that cant pay for Christmas presents, but looks like she can afford a hundred dollars a week in Twinkies"Healthier food is more expensive. It's not a poor person's fault for not being able to afford it. Many people only have the option of McDonalds, and Hostess, and other crappy foods, simply because they lack the funds to buy salads and grass fed beef. "We should be outlawing gun free zones. The only thing that will stop a bag guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."Guns don't actually do that. Not a single one of the 62 mass shootings in (the US) the last 30 years have been stopped by a "good guy with a gun." [1]. Pro's contention about guns doesn't hold water."Twenty kids mowed down because of liberalism that outlawed the second amendment."Is Pro suggesting that we arm elementary(primary) school students? Did he not see the result of a 9 year old girl being taught how to use an Uzi? [2]. Spoiler alert: The instructor is dead.---Pro has failed to give any proof that the ideology of liberalism is fueled by emotion instead of truth. [1] http://www.motherjones.com...[2] http://www.nytimes.com...
Why people with diabetes should not work hard

CON POSITION - PEOPLE SHOULD NOT EAT LESS MEAT. The purpose of meat is for human consumption, as one's body is designated for eating meat - it is part of nature. Meat comes in different shapes and sizes, by which there are different cooking methods for meat and ways to consume it. As stated on January 15, 2018, by The Editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, in an article titled, "Meat: Food, " states that "Meat is valued as a complete protein food containing all amino acids necessary for the human body" (Britannica, T.E., 2018). Thus, people should not eat less meat because it has essential ingredients - proteins, such as amino acids - needed for the functioning of the human body system. Therefore, people should not eat less meat as the consumption of meat is beneficial for the body. One reason why consumption of meat is healthy for a person is that it helps for muscular growth. As stated by Kadya Araki, who is a coach and nutritionist - bodybuilder, on April 9, 2018, in an article titled,"Why Human Need To Eat More Meat For Health," says that " Meat also contains vitamins and minerals that aid in muscle growth like zinc, which assists in muscle repair, and iron, which boosts energy levels and combats fatigue. Meat also contains creatine, a nitrogen-containing compound that improves protein synthesis and provides muscles with energy, encouraging muscle gain" (Araki 2018). This evidence shows some of many benefits meat consists of, such as that of aiding with muscle growth and healthy proteins, which proves how people can only benefit from consumption of meat. Hence, there should be no reason for one to decrease the amounts of meat consumed. Overall, people should not eat less meat due to reason that the myth about eating meat, that it is harmful nutrition and should not belong in a healthy diet, is a fallacy. One should not decrease the amount of meat consumed because they are depriving themselves of the nutritious, helpful, and healthy proteins meat is composed of, which help in muscular growth. Britannica, T. E. (2018, January 15). Meat. Retrieved May 2, 2018, from https://www.britannica.com... Araki, K. (2018, April 09). Why All Humans Need to Eat Meat for Health. Retrieved May 2, 2018, from https://breakingmuscle.com...
Why people with diabetes should not work hard

Many people in the world that we live in eat a certain protein that we love to call meat. People eat meat raw, medium rare,and etc. Any food place around us contain multiple styles of certain meat. But does anyone understand that consuming too much of this product is unhealthy for the body? Well, it is. One reason as to why eating too much meat leads to an unhealthy body is that people will have an increased risk of death from heart disease if they consume the x amount of red meat. According to a research team led by Dr. FRank Hu of the Harvard's School of Public Health, out of approximately 37,000 men of a study from the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study in 1986 and the 83,000 women from Nurse's Health Study in 1980, " Almost 24,000 participants died during the study, including about 5,900 from cardiovascular disease and about 5,900 from cancer. Those who consumed the highest levels of both unprocessed and processed red meat had the highest risk of all-cause of mortality, cancer mortality and cardiovascular disease mortality. Due to this, the mortality increases by 13%". But, if you replace red meat with different types of protein, the risk oh heart diseases will decrease. According to Dr. Frank Hu of the Harvard's School of Public Health, "Substituting one serving per day of other foods-like fish, poultry, nuts, legumes, low-fat dairy and whole grains-for red meat could lower the risk of mortality by 7 to 19%.The deaths could have been prevented if the participants consumed fewer than half a serving per day of red meat".
education once considered a 3 legged tool comprising of academics,arts and sports are the key to the

Con assumed a position against the idea that "education along with sports and arts are necessary for the over all development of a child." I have presented definitions for the words education, sports and arts that seem to include virtually every aspect of human existence. The definition of education would seem to include any and all acts of intellectual development, regardless of where or how the development occured. Con has offered no rebuttal. Vote Pro. Thank you for your time.
education once considered a 3 legged tool comprising of academics,arts and sports are the key to the

Let’s start by laying out some foundational terms: Education: “the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life.” [1] Sport: “an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature”, though also “diversion; recreation; pleasant pastime.” [2] Art: “the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.” [3] If you are opposed to childhood development in these three areas, what areas do you propose should be focused on developing instead? And how you do propose they develop in any area without employing the process of “education”? I propose that there is no method of developing children that does not involve education - be in a group of 200 or in isolation; be it in a school, in a cave, or any other known or unknown environment. But I am curious to hear what pupullama4 proposes. [1]: http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]: http://dictionary.reference.com... [3]: http://dictionary.reference.com...
9/11 never happened proof courtesy of the Blame Game Confusion Cycle

This argument could easily be refuted by saying, just because we don't know who/what did it, doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that we are ignorant of the cause. We have yet to discover who/what created everything or the first something, but we know something exists. Therefore my opponent's argument does not prove 9/11 didn't happen, it at bests proves we don't know who caused it. Also, you can choose if there are many choices by making the best logical decision based on evidence and etc. And saying nobody did it is as easy as saying someone did it.
9/11 never happened proof courtesy of the Blame Game Confusion Cycle

9/11 never happened explained by The Blame Game Confusion Cycle in the cycle, there are 3 choices, Osama Bin Laden, Saudi Arabia, or George W Bush, but we cannot determine who really did it because there are too many choices. we can't choose neither one of those three choices because there would be bias and confusion. If we can't determine who did it, than it is easier to say "nobody did it" if nobody did it, if planes don't fly by themselves, if towers don't fall down by themselves, than 9/11 never happened.
A Perfect Utopia is Possible

Rebutall 1 The problem about one of the points you have given is that there is a worldwide definition of perfection is having no mistakes or flaws. People might twist the definition of perfection to complement someone. Rebutall 2 As I stated in the layout, the definition of Perfect is having no mistakes or flaws. Please do not change this a s you did in the 2nd round. Point 1 By this definition of perfect, perfection is unachievable. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... ; D
A Perfect Utopia is Possible

1st point When I was younger, I used to say "Everything is possible, but that does not mean everything can be achieved." What I forgot to answer in that quote is that somethings were already proven not achievable. Such as that dogs can fly but they don't have wings. Logic, easily proves to us that it is not able to be achieved. 2nd point As I stated in the layout, that the definition of Utopia is "a place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social conditions." if you think about it logically the past also has an influence on modern people. For example Poland is still expecting an invasion either from Germany or Russia, especially now with Putin's attack on Ukraine. Everyone is expecting an invasion from somewhere. France started building a new prototype of aircraft, called the Rafale. Also the Germans have made a MQ-9 Reaper. My point is that the countries are too afraid of a war to unite and form a Utopia. To add on, if a country conquered the world, the people of other countries are going to hate citizens from the main country. -http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com... -http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...? utm_campaign=didsearch
A Perfect Utopia is Possible

Think about it this way Perfect by definition means "when something is as good as it can possibly be" Everyone, however, has a very different idea of what is good. If everyone had the same definition of perfection, then a perfect utopia WOULD be achievable. The question of this debate was not is a perfect utopia REALISTICALLY possible, but simply is it possible? And the answer is yes, it is. Just like it's possible that there is a God, and that there is alien life in other galaxies, that there are ghosts and spirits that haunt the earth, and I think you get the idea. A perfect utopia is possible once a universal definition of perfection has been established.
A Perfect Utopia is Possible

Round1 - Layout Round2 - presentation of points Round3 - rebutalls Round4 - counter rebutalls Rules... - My opponent is not permitted to the final round. - No trolling - No profanity - Only constructive criticism Definitions... - Perfect = having no mistakes or flaws. - Utopia = a place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social conditions. - Possible = being within the limits of ability, capacity, or realization. Citations... - http://www.merriam-webster.com... - http://www.merriam-webster.com... - http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Genetically modified soldiers should be developed and deployed.

My opponents responses are almost completely not really responses to the substance of my arguments. I think it is clear that I have won this round on every possible level. To go to the last point my opponent made and connected it to the first, he tries to imply that I have contradicted myself by saying that individuals are beign dehumanized. However, this is a pretty silly argument as what I am saying is that we are treating these clearly human entities as somewhat less than human. We are creating beings as means to our societal end of fighting more efficient warfare and denying them the basic human choices of agency and actions. We are in a sense depriving these "super soldiers" of what is most integral to being a human being: The ability to live a life with purpose and meaning. In the status quo, we have families who suffer when soldiers die, but at the very least those soldiers have made the choice to become soldiers. They were not genetically modified and forced down the path of combat from a young age. They maintain their faculties of resoning and judgement. They are able to make moral choices. All of these things would clearly not be the case when we deploy super soldiers. I made innumerable morality arguments that were completely ignored by my opponent throughout, and those still stand completely at this point. All of these violations of our basic societal morals and norms could be justified by a reduction in the loss of lives were it not for the fact that it is unlikely that in the long run any lives will be saved. Once this technology becomes mainstream we will be dealing with super soldier against super soldier again escalating the loss of life and turning more and more global citizens into means to a perverted end. We are dealing with an escalation not only of technology but of a disregard for humanity. Moreover, it is silly to say this technology has only one use. If we can engineer human beings to be something from birth than this has countless dangerous uses. We will enter into a war with those countires around us who can afford this technology to see who can create the greatest super humans and will lose sight of those basic essentials of humanity that I talked about above and in my main arguments throughout the round. I don't need to prove that fully grown humans can be made super soldiers, we are dealing in a world where super soldier technology exists and is developable obviously we have a greater understanding of how to modify humans than in the status quo. Moreover, just as dirty bombs use a reduced cost and need version of nuclear technology, we could imagine the creation of hybrid engineered soldiers. A whole slew of disgusting and immoral tests on subjects and the overall suffering of manking caused by the development of these technologies. We could no longer hold any moral warfare standards as there is no guarantee our opponents with this technology would, and there would be a degeneration into human experimentation and exploitation. None of these fundamental arguments are responded to.
Genetically modified soldiers should be developed and deployed.

Firstly, Con argues I have a disregard for human life. However, soldiers that are sent into war are emotionally connected to other humans. When a soldier dies, his friends and family suffer. When a soldier that is bred for war dies, there is no emotional connection. Only the battalion loses out statistically. Before WW1, commanders saw it fit that soldiers stand up to the enemy and fire. Not taking cover, standing in the open, truly risking their lives. Trench warfare came around it WW1 and war changed. We are currently living in somewhat out dated tactics. Soldiers have little cover against air strikes and helicopter attacks. An all out war would simply ensure more and more of our brothers,sister, etc. die. If we developed a super soldier, we are saving human lives by not risking them. Con also argues that 'nuclear weapons are also an expensive endeavour, and yet we live in constant fear of the detonation of a dirty bomb or smuggled technology'. But this isn't an object. Were talking about chemicals and other materials which require huge amount of knowledge and practice to use correctly. Were talking about hardware that would use a lot of electricity and space. One of the reasons terrorists got there hands on vast amounts of nuclear material was because of Chernobyl, where a lot of nuclear material was available. There could be no equivalent to Chernobyl because this technology has only one applicable use of creating a soldier, not producing electricity, bombs and x-rays, to name a few. My opponent argues 'if our enemies can not afford full scale creation they will try the type of individual modification'. Firstly, explain to me how a fully grown human could become a super soldier made from a few modified cells? Secondly, they would only be able to do a handful at a time, thus making it minimally applicable Lastly, my opponent states 'It is deadly cycle here where we will create beings further divorced from their humanity in order to compete and one up our rivals. ' However, this as a contradiction. He says 'they are still human beings being created and developed '. Thus, the more we separate a super soldier from humanity, this can only be a benefit to those who worry about the fact they are human.
Genetically modified soldiers should be developed and deployed.

The pro has really failed to adequately deal with my moral or philosophical arguments and I can only assume this stems from his inability to do so. Either way, most of my arguments clearly were not responded to and still stand. I could argue that the definition of Genetically Modified Soldier in the first pro argument did not at all suggest that the soldiers would be created as super soldiers. Indeed, the phrase modified implies some form of alteration rather than progression. However, I think that in that light side Pro has revealed his disregard for humanity to a degree that should not be supported. Even if these are not direct brothers or sisters of Americans, they are still human beings being created and developed deprived of basic agency or choice and built only for the purpose of fighting and dying. This is an utterly cruel endeavor that is a blight in the eyes of our aspersions to human decency and humanity. We lose all legitimacy in our pursuit of rights or democracy when we are utilizing super soldiers utterly deprived of any humanity and created for the purpose of killing. My opponents other responses are just as weak. The fact is that nuclear weapons are also an expensive endeavor, and yet we live in constant fear of the detonation of a dirty bomb or smuggled technology. Moreover, when we are dealing with the genetic alteration of human beings we probably can not fathom what our enemies can do. What kinds of human aberrations can be created? More importantly, with genetic modifications we should be equally afraid of the results of variations of technology in less skilled hands. Once we let the secret out of the bag that such modifications are possible and result in more efficient killing machines, everyone will try their hands at this leading to a new era of horrible experimentation and modification of human beings. Moreover, if our enemies can not afford full scale creation they will try the type of individual modification that I alluded to in the first round. This cycle of degrading the value of a human being will escalate because every nation will try to keep up. Con suggests that the development of nukes in Russia or China has had no world consequences just because they have not used them, and yet it is obvious that the existence of these technologies in rival hands in and of itself changes our dynamics in the world and erodes American power. It is the threat of these forces that limits our hand, curtails our actions and makes us need to try to one up our rivals. It is deadly cycle here where we will create beings further divorced from their humanity in order to compete and one up our rivals. This is a cycle that we should stop before it starts