BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
John 6 is more consistent with Catholic interpretation

con argues it's all about context, but my only real point is that the same context could lead a person to believe he was being literal. con doesnt really address the fact that Jesus changed the usage of the word eat to a more graphic word. he just rants in response about some issues of taking things in context. but he doesn't address the issue. why would Jesus change the words to make himself look like he's being more forceful, being literal etc... unless he was being literal? we can look before and after the passages in question etc and look for context, but i dont see how any of that really answers why he would get more intense like that. con makes a huge leap in arguing that the apostles show they understood him figurateively just by the fact Peter says they wont leave cause they beleive he has the words of eternal life. it's possible they understood him literally. the best con argument would be that they didn't undertand... but were convinced to stay no matter what. (and from a con perspective, would later understand he was being figurative). these arguemnts aside from what con argues makes more sense because the CONTEXT was clear that Jesus merely asked 'will you go too?'. the underlying message being 'these guys dont like any of this, what about you?'. it's more a focus on staying firm in the way things are even if people leave, and the way things are seemed to be issues regarding literal eating etc.
John 6 is more consistent with Catholic interpretation

the best con argued was that con argued that, perhaps, Jesus was setting up the the situation towards a metaphor, by referring to eating bread, being bread, being meat etc. we can't know based just on the language leading up to it. we have to read the language itself, and consider the after events. for all we know, jesus was just setting the stage for teaching that we must actually eat his flesh. con says we don't need to really care that Jesus changed into a more graphic use of the word "eat" the more he talked about it. why wouldn't we care about it? it certainty makes the catholic position sound better. otherwise, he had no reason to change tenses like that. and con sites another passage that says that Jesus spoke in parables to allow people to be talked right over their head, if that is what the Spirit wills. but that only explains a possibility. we have in actuality the people leaving Jesus cause they understood him literally. given he said "will ye go away also" to the disciples, it makes it look like the subtext is "this is the teaching. do you want to go too?" it would be more to read into it that the apostles understood him figuratively so they decided to stay. the best argument from con, would be to say they didn't understand him, but might in the future, and all they know is they know he is the messiah. but this argument is weak, cause it ignores that their impression was that he was talking literally. so how do we take something other than what they thought?
John 6 is more consistent with Catholic interpretation

John 6:53 "Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever."" The catholics teach that Jesus was indicating the beginning of the Lord's supper, where the catholics partake of Jesus's literal flesh and blood, even though it looks like bread and wine. Transubstantiation. support: "when we consider the language used by John, a literal interpretation"however disturbing"becomes even more obvious. In John 6:50-53 we encounter various forms of the Greek verb phago, "eating." However, after the Jews begin to express incredulity at the idea of eating Christ"s flesh, the language begins to intensify. In verse 54, John begins to use trogo instead of phago. Trogo is a decidedly more graphic term, meaning "to chew on" or to "gnaw on""as when an animal is ripping apart its prey. Then, in verse 61, it is no longer the Jewish multitudes, but the disciples themselves who are having difficulty with these radical statements of our Lord. Surely, if he were speaking symbolically, he would clear up the difficulty now among his disciples. Instead, what does Jesus do?" "...our Lord turns to the twelve. What he does not say to them is perhaps more important than what he does say. He doesn"t say, "Hey guys, I was misleading the Jewish multitudes, the disciples, and everyone else, but now I am going to tell you alone the simple truth: I was speaking symbolically." Rather, he says to them, "Will you also go away?" (v. 67). This most profound question from our Lord echoes down through the centuries, calling all followers of Christ in a similar fashion. With St. Peter, those who hear the voice of the Shepherd respond: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life" (v. 68)." Jesus was known to clear up difficult teachings with the apostles when he was alone with them. here, though, after the jews clearly understood him literally, and left, he just asked the apostles if they wanted to leave too. so how do you respond to that, and to the Greek uses of the word "eat"? and overall, how do you respond?
The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1E

I would like to apologize for my tardiness in posting on this issue. For my final speech I would like to say that I affirm the entities that make up the Judeo-Christian faiths. One of my fundamental beliefs is that Christianity is dynamic. There are innumerable divisions within the umbrella term Christian and under my right as a beqliever I can interpret the Bible however I choose. There is no set "Christian Doctrine" With that said I will again say that yes... the possibility hat the Christ did have a son will bother some traditional Christians, we can find no Biblical scripture than attests to this, so the only point I was trying to make is that Jesus Christ, the man, actually existed. Which gives some degree of validity to New Testament scripture. As far as the preterrestrial earth, as I said earlier as it says in Genesis 1:2 2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. The earth was in a void state of being. My apologies for the Creation aligns with the bible thing, it should have been the Creation story aligns with science. If you remember, my contention in that regard was that God had always existent within time, in that he has no beginning and he has no end. As for my opponent's contention that in Science if X is a theory after Y is a theory and they are related then X must use Y in its foundation. If scientist A wants to prove scientist B wrong about a theory all scientist A has to do is show that scientist B cannot be concretely right in one situation. He does not have to abide by scientist B's findings. I did not ignore your claims about humans at the center. I believe God put life at the center and therefore placed earth in the center of the universe. You are right the universe does not need life to exist. Science however, relies on mathematical and scientific formulas based on chance neither one is less likely than the other. that is my point, this is an issue that is best left up to faith. My opponent has faith in the fallible minds of scientists and their equations, whereas I have faith in a supreme being who cares for its creation. My opponent can charge me of being scientifically incorrect all he wants, but if, in the end of the round, and this debate he can take away one thing it is that I will always believe. I thank him for this debate. I only ask the voters to vote for what they believe to be the case, because it will lways be scientist says A creationist says B. Vote for what you believe. Thank you very much.
The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1E

Note: the "1E" notation in the Topic title is simply for searching purposes. [Definition - Existence] http://dictionary.reference.com............... 1. the state or fact of existing; being. *NOTE* I am not debating whether or not a God exists in one's MIND, but rather in REALITY. [Definition - Valid] http://dictionary.reference.com............... 1. sound; just; well-founded 2. Logic. (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction. *NOTE* Stemming from the second definition, I don't intend for my opponent to create a syllogism. Simply put, my opponent needs to construct an argument of which I can't successfully defeat (of course, this is to the opinion of the voters). Additionally, I require that my opponent argue for whatever deity they are proving with the intent of showing that it is PROBABLE/DEFINITE the deity exists (through their argument). Saying that something is possible does not mean it exists. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This is how the debate will play out: Round 1: This is my Round 1 for clarifications and guidelines. For PRO, he/she will either state that his following arguments will affirm a specific god (i.e. Christian God, Muslim God, etc.) or a metaphysical supreme being. My opponent can list the attributes of the metaphysical supreme being in his Round 1 is he/she wishes. THEN, my opponent will LIST his/her ARGUMENTS with at least a brief EXPLANATION for both (I don't want just a line of titles). Round 2 - 4: I will refute his/her arguments and it will go back and forth as such. I hope we have a good debate!
Morality is objective

1) We know that out of two actions, we know one action "feels" correct and one action "feels" incorrect. 2) To feel actions to be correct or incorrect can only be a result of moral objectivity as no other means (such as evolution) can ensure a universal feeling that makes an action to be perceived as correct or incorrect. 3) Therefore, a moral objectivity must exist, and be grounded in religion, where religion is considered to be the only organized system that efficiently divides actions into "correct" or "incorrect" as no other system of that sort exists.
I Propose A More Logical Theoretical Cosmological Model Of The Macro Universe

2. Black holes have a finite mass limit. Black holes do not have a mass limit if this was the case then they would just disappear from this plane of reality and that may just be what happened with the big bang but I doubt it because that would be matter out of nowhere! Black Holes don't have a mass limit (ie they have a singularity with general relativity), however implying they have a mass limit means that they wouldn't dissipate if we gave it enough fuel to power it through all the hawking radiation but as I said it would just leave out reality. Regular space as I like to put it is just information traveling at the speed of light. If it really was a spin then where is the area that the information of the spin has not yet reached yet. You should be able to tell me exactly where the point is where the information of the universe is chopped off and is left with nothing. Either way you still get empty packets of nothing. Also with a spin, where is the center the place where we started off at. The milky way has a central area where we are spinning around and light has traveled from there to here. So if it was a spin then where is the light. If your theory is correct that means that we are redshifting quicker than light can travel which is breaking physics. Also where is the residual energy from that, the Big Bang has left http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov.... NASA sent a probe to map the tempature of our infant universe and gave us that nice picture. I do not see signs of an accretion disk, which if what I am reading correctly your theory relies on us orbiting a gigamassive black hole. So where is the accretion disk and the ultra massive quasar that we should be able to see?
Nico di Angelo vs Jason Grace

I am very glad you excepted. Jason may be a son of Jupiter but that doesn't mean that he would be able to beat Nico. He said it himself in the House of Hades that Nico seemed like more than he could handle and in the Son Of Neptune Hazel states that Nico is the most powerful demigod she has ever seen, including Jason. Nico may not have as much training as Jason but still has excellent fighting skills, having emerged unscathed from the battle of Manhattan, being able to keep up with Percy and Thalia while fighting Iapetus and impressing Hazel the first time fought. Also Jason is Roman and trained to fight in a group, while Nico is trained to fight individually. Fighting skills aside, Nico has more control over his powers than any other child of the big three. Nico has control of the Earth which means can create earthquakes and tremors, levitate rocks and make them deadly, black, and extremely sharp, open fissures in the earth that can swallow up creatures and trap them in the Underworld. He can also radiate intense fear and death, summon and army of the undead, bend the shadows to his will, hide in them, or uses them for transportation, all of which would be helpful in battle.
If free will existed it would be provable .. (Does free will exist)

"If you did meet George Lucas you WOULD factually be able to prove it, eg. what he was wearing, what he said, where you were .. " - I can make all this up. I can say he was wearing blue jeans and a brown jacket. I can say he said he wants to have tacos for lunch. I can say I saw him at the grocery store. How would you know if any of the claims I make are true or not? In order to know if I'm telling the truth or not, you would have to know exactly where George Lucas was at the time that I supposedly met him. But without that information, how would you be able to know whether my claim is true? How will I be able to prove my claim? "And indeed I may not believe you whilst you try to prove that you met him, though there would exist a number of statements that would support your claim" - I can make various claims about my encounter with George Lucas, but without any supporting evidence, my claims would just be claims. They would not be proof. Some things are simply impossible to prove, even if they were true. Or do you consider my claims as proof that I met George Lucas? "To answer your question then, assuming a rational jury, un-biased and neither lenient nor skeptic is the audience, then yes anything that is true, would also be provable." - Neither lenient nor skeptic? Aren't you skeptical about the existence of free will? Clearly you are. If I were to address a non-skeptic and tell him that free will exists, the non-skeptic would believe me (since he is not skeptical). Your argument is self-defeating. - I had a hotdog for breakfast this morning. How would I go about proving this to you? Would my claim be sufficient proof? If a mere claim is enough to prove that I had a hotdog for breakfast, would the claim that free will exists also be sufficient proof that it exists? If not, why? Why the double standard? Why is a claim enough proof in once instance but not another?
If free will existed it would be provable .. (Does free will exist)

I shall begin by dealing with your argument from the last round: If you did meet George Lucas you WOULD factually be able to prove it, eg. what he was wearing, what he said, where you were .. you would be able to break the event into rational observations, regardless of if the person you were telling you believed you or not. And indeed I may not believe you whilst you try to prove that you met him, though there would exist a number of statements that would support your claim, however there are no factual statements that can support free will's existence. To answer your question then, assuming a rational jury, un-biased and neither lenient nor skeptic is the audience, then yes anything that is true, would also be provable. Conversely it is impossible for something that is false to be provable, thus you won't be able to prove free will's existence. And I find it unfortunate that you bring the legitimacy of proofs into question, obviously it would only be in the case of CONVINCING a skeptic of a truth that may remain un-provable, in normal circumstances truth is always provable. Finally I will re-assert my side of this debate: Free will does NOT exist. The existence of priori knowledge and a cyclical expansion and contraction of space-time from big bang, to dark matter shattering point to the the universe being a self-contained entity and does not receive any outside influence that may corrupt it's infinite cycle. Free will cannot exist within a closed cycle of events, such as the laws of thermodynamics. Free will has never existed as similar to the mobius strip the experience of life may continuously appear to be shifting, though it is the passage of space-time which is the illusion .. take a step back, and instead of imagining yourself the vessel moving around the inside, and then the outside of a mobius strip .. Imagine yourself to be the entire system, simultaneously feeling the vessel or the body experiencing you (as you ARE life) just as you feel life, as the vessel. I am light, knowledge and action; but I have no choice other than to continue my experience of enlightenment .. just as a water droplet has no choice other than to experience the illusion of choice repetitively at each step of the water cycle, though can never leave nor has any truer influence over the course of events that carve an entire planets ecosystem. Though I hope for my sanity that you can prove free wills existence ... having the proof presented to them
Creationism In Biology Curriculum

I seem to have some slight misconceptions regarding the theory of evolution according to MagicAintReal. Consequently, I feel that I owe the readers an explanation on why I said that evolution has something to do with the origins of our universe. My high school teachers didn"t believe in the Big Bang Theory. They believed in the gradual evolution of matter and life forms. Therefore, I view evolution as a theory that addresses the foundations of the universe and the origins of life on earth. I never stated that biology was the study of the foundation of our universe as MagicAintReal said. The discussion of the foundation of the universe is extremely important to a biology curriculum because it provides an explanation for how diverse life forms are on our planet. The primary point of comparison can be found in the fossil record, which is essential to the study of biology. According to evolutionary theories, the diverse life forms evolved over an extremely long period of time, gradually altering through the process of natural selection. The problem with this theory is that there are gaps in the fossil record where these evolutionary developments should be clearly evident. Furthermore, the scientific community has been able to produce very few fossils from the period before the creation of the Universe (using young-earth Creationism estimates: 8000 to 12000 years). The principal means of dating the fossils that the scientific community has discovered is carbon dating, which is unreliable at best. Creationism provides a reasonable explanation for these gaps and the diverse forms of life on earth. Another issue that Creationism does provide a reasonable explanation for is DNA. I am not sure to what degree DNA is discussed in biology today as it is primarily a chemistry subject, but it does have one important bearing on biology. DNA is the basic building block for life. Assuming that the universe formed according to the position of the Big Bang Theory, life would have to begin to evolve. One of the first things that would have to evolve for life to exist is DNA. The DNA of a bacterium contains at least 3 million units arranged in a precise sequence. If just one of these units was out of order, the entire DNA structure wouldn"t work. According to several studies, DNA had less than 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000 power to evolve via natural process (http://www.scienceforums.net...). That means that the evolution of DNA had 1 in 1 with 40,000 zeros after it chance. Scientists maintain that only DNA can reproduce DNA now. If the Big Bang created matter, what or who created DNA? Its evolution is highly unlikely, yet life would be impossible without it. I apologize for the brevity of this post for this round. My area had the remnants of a tropical storm hit today and we lost power for most of the day. I managed to squeeze this post in between making up study in my college courses so that I wouldn"t forfeit the round. I will do my best to formulate a more complete reply to MagicAintReal"s Round 2 submission in my next post.
Creationism In Biology Curriculum

*You are Pro**I am Con*ResolutionCreationism should be a major part of the biology curriculum in US public schools. ProHas the Burden of Proof and 4 sets of 10,000 characters to demonstrate that creationism should be a major part of the biology curriculum in US public schools.Pro may refute Con as they choose. Con Has only 3 sets of 10,000 characters to refute Pro.*No round rules and NO ACCEPTANCE ROUND; just start debating and use your characters as you wish. *Definitions can be changed in the comments section, before posting your first argument, as long as both Pro and Con agree. *The definitions below are agreed on by posting your first argument without changing them in comments.Definitions (from Google definitions)creationism - the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.major - significant, importantpart - segment of somethingbiology - the study of living organisms, divided into many specialized fields that cover their morphology, physiology, anatomy, behavior, origin, and distributioncurriculum - the subjects comprising a course of study in a school or collegeUS Public Schools - schools that are maintained at public expense for the education of the children of a community or district and that constitute a part of a system of free public education commonly including primary and secondary schools in the United States of America.May the better argument win.