BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible morally contradicts itself

In summary so far, Pro has argued that (1) God took away Pharaoh's free will, but has not shown any part of the Bible that says God cannot, or does not have the right, to do this. Therefore, he has not shown a contradiction in the Bible morality. He needs to show it is immoral, not from HIS point of view, to take away Pharaoh's free will, but must show its immoral according to some part of the BIBLE to do so. Pro argued that (2) the only way God could get Pharaoh's heart hardened, was to take away his free will. This is an ASSUMPTION. The Bible doesn't say this. It's just how Pro interprets the passage, but the passage is open to interpretation by scholars who would disagree with him. No Bible verse concretely says that God ever took away someone's free will. Pro has argued that (3) it was unfair for God to punish the Egyptians based on Pharaoh's decisions, but has not shown that any part of the Bible that contradicts the fact that God had the right to punish them. Finally, all the contradiction's Pro brings up are between the Bible, and his own version of morality, not between morality in one part of the Bible versus a different morality in another part of the Bible. Pro needs need to show the verse of scripture that gives one morality, then the verse which gives a morality that contradicts it. Only in this way can he truly show there is a contradiction in Bible morality. He hasn't done so, and if he attempts to do so, I will show that he has taken the verses out of context, and doesn't understand them. When properly understood, no verse in the Bible contradicts any other verse, as far as they are translated correctly.
There are no contradictions in the Bible.

Galatians 4:4-7 shows that we( Christians) are all sons of God, but at the same time there is only One Son of God or begotten Son. You say that other translations render it only son and your absolutely right. Now you know why I asked you to stick with the KJV :). Well I would disagree that I'm changing the definition of begotten, because I'm only telling you the Biblical definition and not modern definition (Historical Context!) No No No! Ascending is not the same thing as being carried up/ Going up. Ascending is where you take YOURSELF up by your own power. And yes he actually was carried up. You'll realize that he was carried up by a chariot of fire. If your being taken up by a chariot of fire, then that chariot is obviously carrying you up, and your not ascending. It's as simple as that. Now imagine for a second that a man for into a car accident. 2 people run up to him and realizing that he's going to die he tell them to "Tell my wife and children I love them." Soon afterwards a debate arises( Pretty weird debate) over whether his last words were "Tell my Wife I love her," or "Tell my Children I love them." The simple answer is that both are true. In this same way Jesus said both of the things you claimed were a contradiction. We also need to remember that they were his last WORDS as in more than one. So we can safely conclude that what he said went along the borders of "It is finished. Father, into your hands I commend my spirit." "He that is not with me is against me" and "He that is not against us is for us." What's the problem here? Jesus said that if your not with him then your against him and we see that in Mark 9:40 that they were not against them and therefore they were for him. I literally see a confirmation and not a contradiction here. Thanks and back to you
There are no contradictions in the Bible.

RebuttalsI checked Gal 4:4-7 and did not see anything refuting the definition of begotten I posted, nor did I see anything about legitimately or illegitimately begotten sons. Regardless, the fact remains: The verse says, "By faith Abraham, ...offered up Isaac, ...his only begotten son." Its quite telling that other translations of the verse (Hebrews 11:17) just say, "his only son." You're trying to make this work by changing the definition of begotten."Elijah went up..." It does not say "carried up" The hebrew word used in that verse is "vaya'al" or "ויעל." The word means "and he went up" which is essentially the same thing as ascended. ErrorsJohn 19:30 "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, 'It is finished': and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." Luke 23:46 "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, 'Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit': and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." In the first verse his last words were, "it is finished," in the second, his last words were, "I commend my spirit."Matthew 12:30 "He that is not with me is against me..." Mark 9:40 "For he that is not against us is on our part." Luke 9:50 "And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us" Are those that are not with Jesus for or against him?Thats is all for this round. Your turn.
There are no contradictions in the Bible.

Rebuttals 1) I concede this point. If the words "unto thee" mean for your own use or desires, than the graven Cherubs would not fit into the prohibition of not making a graven image.2) Apparently the KJV chose the wrong word, and they should have said "testeth" instead of "tempteth" to match the hebrew, but I'll assume your translation of "nacah," and concede this point.3) I concede this point.4) "Isaac was the only begotten son" "by God's standards" Begotten- Past particple of beget, Beget- bring (a child) into existence by the process of reproduction.I'm not sure how you know what God's standards of "begotten" are, but unless his standard of it is a different deffinition of the word, Ishmael was begotten. The verse doesn't say, "his only holy son" or "his only son begotten to him that fulfilled a promise," it just says, "...his only begotten son."More Contradictions/Errors1) John 3:13 KJ translation- "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." In Kings 2 (old testament) 2:11 it says, "and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind." That seems to be a direct contradiction. 2) Another problem with the above verse (John 3:13), is that it says, "...even the son of man which is in heaven." If heaven is above us, how could the son of man have gotten there without ascending?3) Matthew 20:20-21 read: "Then came to him the mother of Zebedees children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him. And he(Jesus) said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom." Later, in Mark chapter 10, verses 35, 36,and 37 read, "And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire.And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you?They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory. So who requested that the sons would sit in the kingdom? Was it the mother, or was it James and John?4) In Matthew 21:2-7, Jesus told two disciples to bring him an a(beep)ss and a colt. In Mark 11:2-7 when the story is related, it only mentions a colt, "ye shall find a colt tied..." In Matthew, Jesus wanted an a(no profanities)ss, but Mark has no a(potty mouth)ss!5) In John 13:27 Satan entered Judas while he was at the supper. In Luke 22:3 it appears that Satan entered Judas before the supper happened.Back to you.
There are no contradictions in the Bible.

First I'd like to start off with Exodus 24 and Exodus 25:18. Exodus 24:4 says "Thou shalt no make UNTO THEE any graven image". .. .. Well the first thing we need to notice is the big UNTO THEE which means to not make any graven image to yourself and your desires. Making images unto yourself is another way of saying don't make images, such as idols, to yourself and your own needs. Unto Thee means worship and reverance many other times in Scripture so all we have to do is put 2 and 2 together. The rest of the verse also reads " Thou shalt not bow thyself to them nor serve them for I The Lord thy God am a jealous God. " This points back to the fact that unto thee was referring to bowing down and serving images. Second we have the issue of whether or not God can tempt a man or not. Well the Hebrew word nacah which is rightfully translated as tempt can mean test, try, prove and tempt. In this way we see that Abrahams test of Faith matches up with the word try or prove. Third, it seems you didn't quote John 5:37 correctly. The verse actually says that no man has heard the FATHER. It doesn't say God it says Father. Now, according to Scripture God is one yet has 3 distinct persons who are God the Son( Jesus) God the Father and God the Holy Ghost. No many has heard God te Father, but men have heard the Holy Ghost and the Son. And considering that it says God came down and WALKED with Adam and Eve we can tell that this was the Preincarnate God the Son(Jesus. ) And lastly we have an apparent contradiction of sons, or is it? Truly, we can say that Isaac was the only begotten son, but Ishmael was also a son. We need to realize that Isaac was the promised son that God would give him, while Ishmael was a son born from another woman to fulfill Abrahams promise in vain. So we see that Isaac was the Legitimate son while Ishmael was a bastard child. Another point to make is that Ishmael may have been a son of flesh, but Isaac was the son given to. Abraham in a spiritual promise in the form of Israel. Therefore he was the only Begotten son by God's standards. It goes hand in hand with Gideon who has 70 sons while he also had one son from his Concubine. But that one son is never counted in the 70 sons. The same thing goes with these verses. I'll turn it back over to you. Good luck
There are no contradictions in the Bible.

My opponent is allowing me to present arguments first, so here we go.First, in Exodus 20:4 is says, "You shall not make yourself a carved image nor any likeness of that which is in the heavens above..." Then, in the very same book of Exodus, 25:18 says, "You shall make two Cherubims of gold." Making Cherubims seems to contradict the first verse, as the Cherubims were statues of two angels, who are in the heavens above.Here is a picture of the biblical account of Cherubims so you can see the carved image for yourself. The next apparent contradiction is (James 1:13) "...for God can not be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man"But, in Genesis 22:1, "...after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..." It would seem that God does in fact tempeth some men, as he tempted Abraham.Third, there seems to be a contradiction on if man can hear God's voice. John 5:37 says, "...Ye have neither heard [God's] voice at any time..." The problem is, Genesis 3:9 and 10 say, "And the lord called unto Adam, and said unto him, were art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid..."The fourth contradiction is as follows. Galatians 4:22: "...Abraham had two sons; one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman." Abraham's first son was Ishmael, and 13 years later he had Isaac. (Hebrews 11:17) "By faith Abraham, ...offered up Isaac, ...his only begotten son." Even if you say that the second verse meant that it was Abraham's only begotten son at the time he offered up Isaac, that would still be false because his son Ishmael was older than his son Isaac.There are plenty more contradictions within the bible, but I'll leave it at that for now.
There are no contradictions in the Bible.

My point about the other translations is that its more it seems likely that the verse did not mean any Biblical or historical definitions of begotten, It probably meant just meant begotten as we know the word today, as in had a child. The other translations just say "his only son.," it shows the verse wasn't attaching any conditions of "holy son" or anything of the like. But even using the KJV, it just says "his only begotten son."I said ascending is pretty much the same thing as "went up," which is the truth. Again, The hebrew word used in that verse is "vaya'al" or "ויעל." That is the exact word used multiple times throughout the bible to say someone is going up by their own will. One example: Genesis 26:23; " ויעל משם באר שבע" Which is translated, (KJV) "And [isaac] went up from thence to Beersheba."I would agree with your argument, someone's last words could have been confused or misheard. Or he could have said both in sucession. The problem is, isn't this the word of God? God should know exactly what his last words were, not have two different things quoted as being his last words.Thanks, back to you.
Undocumented Democrats need to be shot.

Undocumented Democrats are here illegally. Humans have the right to life but humans can lose the right. If someone invades your home you can't just sit there. Just like illegals there taking our food jobs women turning white kids into white gangsters. There just like home take over robbers! We can shoot theves who are stealing our stuff. The Undocumented Democrats have a right to life if their legal or in their country! Undocumented Democrats don't have consititual rights because there not here legally! It would not be murder it would be justified. The illegals striked first in coming here expecting free everything. God lets people kill. The commandments ment not to unlawfully kill. Illegals are here illegaly and its lawful to kill em. Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12) Kill Witches You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17) Kill Fortunetellers A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 ) Death for Hitting Dad Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15) You can kill it must be lawful! Undocumented dumbocrats need to be shot i prove it.
Undocumented Democrats need to be shot.

I think I should offer the readers a little information about Undocumented Democrats. The term was coined to replace the term 'illegal immigrants'. In fact the term was used on the NBC’s Tonight Show, host Jay Leno said, "They will now use the phrase ‘undocumented Democrat’" . http://newsbusters.org... The Associated Press announced it will no longer use the term "illegal immigrant. " Rush Limbaugh was asked about the comment by Jay Leno, "Since AP is not gonna be calling 'em illegal immigrants anymore, we can call 'em undocumented Democrats. " "Yeah, we invented that term back in 2010 here on the EIB Network. " . http://www.rushlimbaugh.com... Me and my opponent can agree that undocumented democrats are here illegally and are criminals. This does not give us the right to kill anyone because of it. The rest of my opponents claims are irrelevant. All people have the right to life, it is guaranteed in all international and regional human rights instruments. There are some variations in formulation, but it is universally accepted that the individual has a right not to be arbitrarily or unlawfully killed by the state. . http://www.essex.ac.uk... Immigrants have human rights as anyone else. America even gives rights to immigrants and upholding the rights of immigrants is important to us all. The fundamental constitutional protections of due process and equal protection embodied in our Constitution and Bill of Rights apply to every "person" and are not limited to citizens. . http://www.aclu.org... Intentional killing as my opponent suggest equals to murder and we have laws against murder. 18 USC § 1111 - Murder (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree. . http://www.law.cornell.edu... If that is not enough we have the commandment from God to not kill. The sixth of the ten commandments reads, "Thou shall not kill. " Neither accidental killing (Numbers 35:22-25) nor justifiable homicide (Ex. 22:2) are a breaking of the sixth commandment. Neither killing in war nor capital punishment are necessarily forbidden in this commandment since God required both in certain cases (Ex.21:12). So the preferred translation is, "You shall not murder. " . http://www.christianhomesite.com... I think I have shown that killing illegal immigrants is wrong. It is against the law and against the rights of the immigrant. I think I have negated the resolution. I turn it back over to my opponent.
Undocumented Democrats need to be shot.

Undocumented Democrats are here illegally! They invaded. If someone comes into your home you shoot them! Someone invades the country (good ole USofA) they need to be shot, killed, skinned, hung! They have no right to be here! Ever since these Undocumented Democrats came to the USA crime rose. (1) The mexicans come here and do their crimes and litter all over the place. Illegals need to be shot deporting them dont do no good! Deporters always come back. THeir lifes are useless. They need to die. (1) http://www.renewamerica.com...
Undocumented Democrats need to be shot.

Thanks Pro. I do not know about everyone else but I feel like Pro failed in his burden. Pro never supports one of his statements. Then he fails to show that Undocumented Democrats are stealing more money than the government. I make the same claim, our government steals more of our money then anyone. It is not morally legal to shoot anyone unless it is in defence of your life. People do not lose their rights because they infringe on others rights. Pro has a twisted view of the world and his world view is unsupporteed as well. 'Pro offers us some Biblical passages but then he does not explain what they have to offer on this debate""Uhhhhhhh bro you brought it up! " I did but I explained what use the passages had and you simply showed us that God said to stone people. You never showed us why this supports your position. If any it supports mine as that God has specific reasons for people to be killed. You never showed that illegal immigrants were killed by God and the Hebrews. Pro really showed us nothing but a desire to kill people and pass blame, from his government to Undocumented Democrats. I showed that it is illegal in America to kill people in any fashion. I showed that Undocumented Democrats have rights as anyone else, as well as human rights.
Undocumented Democrats need to be shot.

Everyone knows illegals are taking jobs. Everyone! You just going to let someone steal from you? It is morally legal to shoot an invader. Everyone knows this. You will lose your rgihts if you infringe on the rights of others! Like the right to property and white kids.'Pro offers us some Biblical passages but then he does not explain what they have to offer on this debate"Uhhhhhhh bro you brought it up!I proved killing undocumented democris moral and should happen.
Undocumented Democrats need to be shot.

Pro verifies that Undocumented Democrats are here illegally. He then says that humans lose the right to human life if they invades in someone's home. We do have laws that take the right of life away from some individuals but this is not for someone breaking and entering nor Undocumented Democrats. My opponent has not shown that Undocumented Democrats are taking jobs and turning white children into gangsters. My opponent must show that it is legal to shoot someone breaking into your house. I maintain that it is illegal to shoot someone who has broken into your house. My opponent mistakes the human right to live for the American constitution. All people have the human right to live. Pro has yet to provide justification for killing Undocumented Democrats. We cannot kill intruders, we contain them, we disport them. Pro offers us some Biblical passages but then he does not explain what they have to offer on this debate. The state kills people for murder and other mandated violations of the law, like the Bible. Pro has not shown us that Undocumented Democrats are one of those violations.
...."Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright will stand with Muslims",Are we suprised

First, I would like to acknowledge the great debating skills of Tide_Bleach and the challenge Tide_Bleach would have been had he decided to debate me. I'm sure that it was only a matter of previous commitment that didn't allow for him to participate in this debate. But back to the debate, ."Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright will stand with Muslims", are we surprised, that "Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said this. ."Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's statement is just a symptom, an indicator of the leftist domination of the democrat party hierarchy and its party members at least since Franklin D. Roosevelt became president . It isn't surprising , or should it be, to anyone who has followed America's History since President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Election in 1933. I recalled a quote by him in which he said, "....there is nothing wrong with the Communists in this country; several of the best friends I have got are Communists." Obviously the democrat party has given its approved of communism as well. Read more at http://quotationsbook.com...
...."Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright will stand with Muslims",Are we suprised

...." Clinton Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright says she is ready to register as Muslim in a show of solidarity.....Jan.29Th.2017are we surprised. Those who have held the position of "Secretary of State," under democrat presidents, has been reserved for a select group of individuals, those individuals with personal peccadilloes, those personal peccadilloes which endeared them so much to fellow democrats but turned off Americans .especially those who were Americans first. For instance democrat Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright under Bill Clinton, had a fondness, aparently, for communist dictators and expressed that fondness while in North Korea. She was seen waltzing around with communist North Korean dictator, Kim Jong. "....In a rare direct meeting in October 2000 with Kim Jone.... dictator of North Korea, ....at which she danced with the dictator..." Taken from " PowerLiNE,"under title, " save the Last dance for them.." Would it then seem strange and out of character that ...."Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright says she is ready to register as Muslim....." Then Hillary Clinton, former secretary of State under Obama, Cozied up to Communist Russian leader with her little "Reset Box." " State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov press the "reset.. button" and seemed to be having a laugh together, or was "Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov," having a laugh at Hillary Clinton and democrat President Obama's navite. Vladimir Putin most likely felt about Hillary Clinton the same way that Vladimir Putin felt about Obama, for instance.... " Vladimir Putin is reputed to have said that, " " Dealing with obama is like playing chess with a pigeon; it knocks over all the pieces, craps all over the board, then struts around like it had just won the game." Author unknown Not to be ignored, is Former Secretary of state, John Kerry of Swiftboat fame honored in a Book Titled," Unfit for Command." "Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry is a 2004 book about then U.S. Presidential candidate John Kerry by John O'Neill and Jerome Corsi " In the book it revealed the character, or lack there of, of John Kerry according to those who knew John Kerry and served in the military with him All of these former democrat Secretarys of state had their "personal peccadilloes,"Anti American, and Country were ill served.