BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Humans Have Souls

*No round rules.*No acceptance round; just start debating 1st round.ResolutionHumans have souls.ProHas the Burden of Proof and 4 sets of 10,000 characters to demonstrate that humans have souls and refute Con.ConHas only 3 sets of 10,000 characters to refute Pro and make any counter claims.*Definitions can be changed, in the comments section, before posting your first argument, as long as both Pro and Con agree.Otherwise...*Definitions below are agreed on by posting your first argument.Definitionshuman - a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...have - possess, own, or holdhttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com...soul - the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...spiritual - of or relating to religion or religious beliefhttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com...immaterial - spiritual, rather than physical or contingent on the physicalhttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com...*May the better argument win.*
In the event of a Korean War, South Korea is more likely to win

I don't know why my opponent hass forfeited this round, but I shall continue the debate regardless. I believe the one factor that would tip the balance in North Korea's favor is the fact that it has nuclear weapons, which South Korea lacks. It also has a large army, with half the annual budget going to the Military. It also may receive aid from China, whu, though not Communist anymore, do not like the United States, who will likely be against North Korea in the event of the war starting up again.. There are American soldiers in South Korea, but they are not large in number. A lot of the American Army's standing force is in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they would be unable to retaliate fast enough in North Korea attacked South Korea. I would like to say that I in no way support North Korea, I am simply analyzing the situation.
A Third Party Based On Surveys Will Succeed.

I am introducing a hypothetical new third party called the "Survey Party". The outline of the party can be found here: http://thenewthirdparty.blogspot.com... The gist of the party is that each issue is surveyed and the results of the survey form the platform of the party. The politician that runs under the "Survey Party" must vote on the side of the survey results. The politician must follow the party platform in Congress. A party designed in this manner would succeed in getting politicians elected to Congress. Success here and in the title means to gather enough votes to elect politicians to Congress that run under the Survey Party. Some pre-debate notes on issues that tend to arise: 1) This is a new third party in politics, just like the Green Party or the Libertarian Party. It is not a call for direct democracy nor am I calling to abolish the other parties. Its simply another choice of parties. 2) The surveys are taken in a scientific manner and accurately reflect the views of each Congressional District. This is a mental exercise so I do not want to lose focus by debating how surveys should be administered. Thank you to any challenger who takes the time to read this and accepts the other side. Good luck!
The Bible contains FATAL flaws.

Thank you for your reply. I also thank you for your tremendous conduct.A simple Google search will reveal thousands of Churches that practice casting out of demons, speaking in tongues (both in a "prayer language" format, as well as speaking existing languages that are not known to them), snake handling, and drinking various kinds of poison. These Churches also practice healing services and claim effectiveness. This point is moot as these signs are present in the modern Church, as well as throughout the historical record.There are many other healing that have failed--many can be explained scientifically. Most protestant churches hold the view that the Spiritual gifts only lasted a short time. Furthermore, why don't they just go into hospitals and heal cancer paitence and heal the deathly ill? Isn't it quite evil if you know you have the power to do that and don't?My opponent claims that Solmon and the other people were eventually punished. I would urge my opponent to provide some kind of evidence to show this. There is nothing in the Biblical record that shows that Pilate was punished temporally by God for his part in the crucifixion. The same can be said of Herod. Are Pilate and Herod in hell today? For a Christian, the answer is yes. Therefore, that was their just punishment. As for Solomon, his kingdom will not be given to his sons (1 Kings 11:9-13) and the fact that enemies will envade them. (1 Kings 11:14-40)My opponent again refers to "These Things" as iron-clad proof that Christ is talking about his second coming. However, he has given no explanation of what "these things" are, why they are such iron-clad proof that Christ is referencing the second coming. In fact, no where in the entire chapter of the references he has provided (Matthew 16, Mark 9, Luke 9) does the phrase "these things" occur. Pro will have to explain more of what "these things" means in order to invalidate my argument, as it is a commonly held Christian belief that the Kingdom of God was initiated when Christ died and rose again.Let us look at the verses before and after to show what "these things" are.Matthew 16:27 says this For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.Then the very next verse he says that Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.Clearly this is talking about the 2nd coming. Did he reward every man according to his works in the ressurection or the crucifixion? no.Furthermore, my opponent did NOT respond to my argument that Jesus says "Some (Plural)" and not "One (Singular)" if he is referring to John.I would like an answer from con. Back to you.
The Bible contains FATAL flaws.

Thank you for clearing up your C2 argument.RC1) Pro dropped the contention.RC2) A simple Google search will reveal thousands of Churches that practice casting out of demons, speaking in tongues (both in a "prayer language" format, as well as speaking existing languages that are not known to them), snake handling, and drinking various kinds of poison. These Churches also practice healing services and claim effectiveness. This point is moot as these signs are present in the modern Church, as well as throughout the historical record.R3) Let us pretend that my best friend calls me Jessica, and I graduate from Grad School in 2013... so I create the account Jessica13. If people take that to mean that I am a 13 year old named Jessica and I do not correct them, I have not lied but I have decieved them. If I SAID "I am a 13 year old name Jessica" that would be a lie, but if I only allow people to think something incorrectly, that is not a lie.Furthermore, it is not a man enticing Ahab, it is an angel. God supported the idea of a person lying to Ahab in order to lead him into judgment, but that does not mean that God lied himself.Finally, the prophet is not being held accountable for being decieved, he is being held accountable for idol worship. The deception is a means of punishment, not what he is being punished for.RC4) My opponent claims that Solmon and the other people were eventually punished. I would urge my opponent to provide some kind of evidence to show this. There is nothing in the Biblical record that shows that Pilate was punished temporally by God for his part in the crucifixion. The same can be said of Herod. RC5) My opponent again refers to "These Things" as iron-clad proof that Christ is talking about his second coming. However, he has given no explanation of what "these things" are, why they are such iron-clad proof that Christ is referencing the second coming. In fact, no where in the entire chapter of the references he has provided (Matthew 16, Mark 9, Luke 9) does the phrase "these things" occur. Pro will have to explain more of what "these things" means in order to invalidate my argument, as it is a commonly held Christian belief that the Kingdom of God was initiated when Christ died and rose again.Back to you Pro.
The Bible contains FATAL flaws.

My opponent has requested that I expand upon argument number 2. I shall do that.In the book of Mark, Jesus says And these signs shall follow them that believe; in my name shall they cast out devils; and shall speak with new toungues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.Now, people today cannot cast out devils, speak with tounges (unless they learn the new language), and if they drink any deadly thing it will hurt them. This is the point I was saying in contention 2. I hope I cleared up my argument.Your RC1 says this RC1) My opponent is correct in that indeed YHWH is speaking (through Ezekiel) in this passage. However, he is incorrect in that the "statues" in Ezekiel are the same as the "Law" referenced in the Psalms and other places.I can agree with what you are saying. No need to discuss this. RC2 I have just explained. Now, I shall expand on the RC3.My opponent says that if you were to create an account Jessica13, most people assume your name is Jessica and you ar 13. Obviously, you could be talking about your daughter. However, what if you actually posted that on DDO? Then it is a lie.You are saying that it is the same way how God decieves people. However, this is absurd. Let us look at 2 Kings--the verse you expanded on. Here we see that the man said that he would resort to lying in order to entice Ahab and God supported the idea and told him to go ahead and do it! (i.e. God supported the idea that a man lied to entice Ahab.) Furthermore, if the prophet is being decieved, and the people are believing the prophet, how can the prophet be truly accountable for his lies? After all, God is deciving that prophet and since he is getting it from the LORD, he obviously would believe it.RC4 is absurd. Solomon and the other people were eventually punished. Psalm 73 agrees that they will get their just reward in the end--however, we do not see that in that case.RC5) I will go with two of your possible explanations.Possibility 1: The first is to see the kingdom inaugurated when Christ defeated death a sin on the Corss. My opponent assirts that what Jesus was talking about was that some here will not die until Christ is ressurected. However, this is clearly not the case.In order to understand why it has to be the second coming, we need to understand what "These things" are. Luke 9:27 Jesus uses the phrase, "Until THEY see the Kingdom of God." They died without seeing it. Not it was just the ressurection of Jesus and it being inaugurated, but actually seeing the kingdom of God.Possibility 2: John wrote Revelation, John saw the vision; therefore it was fulfilled. "There be some (plural) standing here..." not "There be one (singular) standing here..."I'm looking forward to your responses. Good luck.
The Bible contains FATAL flaws.

I contend that the Bible contains some pretty fatal flaws. My opponent will prove otherwise.Contention 1: Ez. 20:25 God wrote laws that are "Evil"http://www.biblegateway.com...Wherefore I (The LORD) gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live; (Inserted "The LORD" for clarification)One may say that this is out of context and that the LORD is not speaking. However, if you read the whole passage, you clearly see that the LORD is speaking.The Law of the Lord is perfect as it says in Psalms and throught the Bible. So, how can God give them statutes that were not good? If God is perfect, how can this be? There is clearly a problem.Contention 2: Mark 16:17-18http://www.biblegateway.com...And these signs shall follow them that believe; in my name shall they cast out devils; and shall speak with new toungues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.Contention 3: Ezekiel 14:9 http://www.biblegateway.com...And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel. So a prophet is deceived, the LORD deceived the prophet, and now he's to be punished? For what? He heard it from the LORD and was deceived by him--why should he be punished?Contention 4: Judges 11:29-39http://www.biblegateway.com...Jeptha sacrifices his daughter to the Lord and the Lord approves of it. Note that in Hebrews 11 he is listed in the hall of "faith" or as I call it, the hall of "Biblical heros that did attrocious things and got favour from the Lord anyways.Good luck to my opponent.
Gun Rights

To conclude this debate; Guns saves more lives then it kills. Most of the time, guns are used for self-defense and the police are not always reliable. Guns also stop crime, even mass shooters where the body count could have risen if it weren't for the armed civilians. Invasions can be a pain because of militias. My opponent misunderstood that guns are not the cause of these homicides, people are. Like I said, People kill, not guns. The government should improve things like mental health for the population than focus on gun control. My opponent lacked sources for his claims and rebuts, thus are unreliable. He failed to rebut the argument of being at the advantage over criminals, even if they are lightly armed. He also failed to rebut that armed civilians can help delay an invasion. His genocide rebut also doesn't make sense. Thank you for your time.
Gun Rights

The second amendment is still viable. We need guns to protect ourselves. Your argument only focused on the use of guns against the government. Your argument is lacking in terms of self-defense against foreign invasion. As I mentioned in my previous argument, which you also failed to rebut, Armed civilians can give invaders a harder time in their invasion. Even if the US has the best military in the world, It wouldn"t hurt to let civilians help in the fight in case of an invasion. Guns are necessary for self-defense. Knives and bats are not enough. This isn"t the 14th century where melee weapons are a thing. Even if an intruder is unarmed, it is better to be safe than sorry and be at the advantage. Like I said in my previous argument, police are not always reliable, especially if your 911 call timing is pretty late. Even if a common intruder does not carry a gun, there is still a possibility that a random intruder is carrying a gun. Again, it is better to be at the advantage and playing it safe. Intruders are not always thieves, they could be serial killers or even kidnappers. These people are dangerous, violent and real. The best way to protect yourself from them is with a gun. Using these modern surveillances and police techniques on them is useful after you"re dead or kidnapped. Not everyone with a gun are criminals. As I mentioned last round, guns stop a number of crimes. Also, my opponent lacks any sources to back up his claims while my arguments are well supported by credible sources. Mass shootings will still happen even with gun control because mass shooters want the mass shooting to happen. They don't buy a gun and suddenly get the idea of shooting everyone up. Guns used for self defense do a lot of good.In many cases, mass shooters are stopped by armed civilians. [1] [1] http://controversialtimes.com...
Gun Rights

I will now present my rebuttal: You make a point that, while gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, murder rates decreased. However, you fail to address the point that the population during that time. Demographia. com shows that the US population almost quadrupled in size between 1900 and 1999 (from roughly 76mil to 272mil). When bearing this in mind, the number of guns per capita has actually decreased during the course of the twentieth century, which in turn can be easily correlated to the decrease in murder rates. When viewed properly, the number of guns and the number of murders are directly linked. Gun control laws do stop crime. Fact. The UK, Sweden, Germany. .. These countries all have very strict gun control laws and their murder rates have stayed level at or under 1 death per 100000. The US has never dropped below 3/100000. All of these countries are first world states with top 20 world economies, yet the USA has by far the largest homicide rate out of this sample. This points very sharply towards guns as the culprit. Your argument that more knife murders occurred was again false. In the very same source you got that information from, Infowars. com, it states that over 2200 murders occurred with firearms, with roughly 1570 murders committed with knives. This means that 1/5 murders in the USA in 2014 would not have occurred if guns were not a part of the picture. Yes, assault weapons are dangerous and yes they are uncommon enough to not be as large of a danger as many people would propose them to be. However, a pistol is just as deadly at close range, especially on an unprepared target. A prime example of gun control working is in Australia; in 1996 all freely-owned guns were confiscated and destroyed or securely disposed of. Guns since then have only been allowed under strict permits with rigorous screening and training tests to be passed. Since then, the homicide rate has decreased from 1.9 in 1992 to 1.3 in 2007 and there have been no mass shootings, something that occurs worryingly often in the USA. Your source claims that gun control is responsible for most of the genocides of the last century. Once again, this is false. More often than not those who fall victim to genocides are helpless anyway. To take the Armenian genocide as an example, before committing the majority of the crimes the Young Turks ensured that all intellectuals, leaders or soldiers were already killed or incarcerated. Those left behind simply could not understand or react to what happened and would've died regardless.
Gun Rights

People kill people, not guns. Guns are not the problem. People are the problemEveryone should have the right to defend himself from criminals. Even if a criminal has a no gun, it is still better to be at the advantage. You cannot predict what weapon the criminal will have so it is better to be the better armed. Also, police are not always reliable to come to the rescuse.Gun control laws does not stop crime; gun ownership stops crime. A Nov. 26, 2013 study found that, between 1980 and 2009, Gun control does not affect murder rates at state level and states that have gun control have a higher murder rate. [1] While gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, the murder rate decreased. [2]The state, or whatever country, should focus more on crime control than gun control. Knives kill more than assault guns do [3], but we don't see anyone trying to push for Knives control. Accorind to Kit Daniels from infowars, "Guns are used exponentially more often to stop crime than to kill; each year firearms prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes in the US, usually without a shot being fired, meaning that guns are used over 300 times more often to save innocent lives, given the 8,124 murders committed with firearms in 2014." In that case, guns do more good than harm. [3]If ever there is an invasion, it would be harder for the invaders to push because of armed citizens. Yes, the US has strongest military as of today, but armed civilians would still help and lowers the casulaties greatly. Sources:[1] http://www.tandfonline.com...[2] http://www.theguardian.com...;[3] http://www.infowars.com...;
Men and women should be treated with equality

As a Christian, I believe women and men are equal but there is different responsibility of each gender. I'm not saying women need to cook and clean no way. Men are the strong ones, they are the dominant ones but in contrary they don't have the power to force u and tell u what to do or what to wear. God created women to be helpers to their husband. He didn't say cook for the men, men are humans who can cook for themselves. From my perspective, men would be nothing without women. Without women the world would be dead. Children can't be born, animals will die. The world population will decrease gradually same as if women didn't have men but women would survive a but longer as a lot of men are eager for sex, some can't cook etc. but in conclusion both genders need each other so why mistreat women? If women weren't in this world men would be all gay.
Men and women should be treated with equality

Non Christians can debate as long as you stick with the Bible Rules : 1. No going off topic 2. No insults 3. You must have Scriptures to support your position Opening argument : I take the position that men and women should work together as one and that no one should abuse the other. There are differences between both genders. According to the Hebrew pictograph of the male, the man is supposed to be a strong leader and dominant. The woman is more submissive by nature, however I believe that there are two aspects of relationships or "marriages " which brings equality. 1. Natural marriage - The man and woman are supposed to listen to each other and act as one. 2. Spiritual marriage - The woman must submit to the man only when he is in agreement with the will of God. If he is not then I believe that she has the option of disobeying her husband in favor of God.