BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The bible teaches flat earth

"Isaiah 40:22 refers to "the circle of the earth," or in the Italian translation, globo." Irrelevant. "The Hebrew is Khug = sphericity or roundness. " No, as clearly shown in my source, the Hebrew word for "circle" is "hug", whereas "ball" or "sphere" is "kaddur". You haven't refuted my point, or given sources to back up your claim that "sphere" is actually "khug" and not "kaddur". "Even if the translation "circle" is adhered to, think about Neil Armstrong in space--to him the spherical earth would have appeared circular regardless of which direction he viewed it from." Isaiah was never in space, nor did he ever hint at describing earth as it would be seen 300,000 km away. This is not a very reasonable explanation, considering the historical background of when it was written. "And God said, "Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning"the second day. And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:6-10 The vault is an arched "roof", here is the Google meaning a roof in the form of an arch or a series of arches, typical of churches and other large, formal buildings. Therefore God created it as a sphere and obviously the prophets read the bible many times so they would know." Absolutely not. Firstly, the earth doesn't have a damn roof as Genesis says. Secondly, there is no water above this "roof" on the earth. Third, the curved roof genesis speaks about doesn't imply the ground was curved. In fact, it would also be in accord with ancient belief that the earth was flat with a dome.[1] Third, Gensis 1:16 - 19 says that the sun and moon were WITHIN this "vault" or "roof" or "sky". God made two great lights, the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning, the fourth day. What does this mean? The vault or sky depicted in Genesis 1:6 - 10 could not have been earth's atmosphere because it also included the moon and sun. Therefore, Genesis's depiction of the sky as curved would have included the whole solar system...somehow. Clearly, Genesis is a poor source to gain knowledge of the celestial bodies, including their shape. [1]: https://www.google.com.au...
The bible teaches flat earth

Isaiah 40:22 refers to "the circle of the earth," or in the Italian translation, globo. The Hebrew is Khug = sphericity or roundness. Even if the translation "circle" is adhered to, think about Neil Armstrong in space--to him the spherical earth would have appeared circular regardless of which direction he viewed it from. And God said, "Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning"the second day. And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:6-10 The vault is an arched "roof", here is the Google meaning a roof in the form of an arch or a series of arches, typical of churches and other large, formal buildings. Therefore God created it as a sphere and obviously the prophets read the bible many times so they would know.
The bible teaches flat earth

You fell into my trap. I'm very happy about that. Firstly, a circle is not the same as a sphere, in English OR in a ancient Hebrew. Proof you say? Well, the ancient Hebrew word for "circle" is "hug".[1] On the other hand, the Hebrew word for "ball" or "sphere" (as shown in Isaiah 22:18) is "kaddur".[2] So what can we determine from this? Clearly, Isaiah was NOT referring to a spherical 3D earth when he stated that the earth was a circle. If he was, he should have used a more appropriate Hebrew word (which he already knew of as indicated by Isaiah 22:18). But he didn't. He instead used a word to refer to a 2D flat disc-like earth. We can also look at the historical context of the time, where people understood the earth as being flat (and commonly circular like a disc).[3] Thus, we can logically conclude that the "circular earth" Isaiah was referring to in Isaiah 40:22 was in fact a flat disk, and not a 3D sphere. As for your point about Paul travelling to Spain is just...wrong. We don't even positively know whether Paul ever did get to Spain at all. But regardless, I doubt that Paul would have thought that the edge of the world was near Spain, as people were already dwelling there (which he knew because he wouldn't have gone there if there weren't people there to convert). [1]: http://biblehub.com... [2]: http://biblehub.com... [3]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org... (P.S. I know Wikipedia isn't the best source to site but it gets my point across anyway).
The bible teaches flat earth

Isaiah 40:21-22 Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood since the earth was founded? He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and it's people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. And also hadn't Paul travel to Spain which had "nothing" there because the earth was "flat" but Paul went on his trip was most likely because he knew the earth was round so meaning the bible does imply it was round
The bible teaches flat earth

This debate is impossible to accept. If you want to debate this topic, please apply in chat. Any breakage of above rule will be considered as automatic win for Pro (me). Pro: Claims that the bible teaches that earth is flat Con: Claims that the bible teaches the earth is spherical. Burden of proof is shared. Use NIV (New international version). Available online for free here: http://biblehub.com... And Interlinear Bible here: http://biblehub.com... I don't think any definitions are required, but if anyone finds any definitions necessary, please say so in chat. Do not produce definitions after accepting debate. Rules: No Kritiks (that is, changing the debate topic to something unrelated). No trolls, imbeciles or idiots Debate structure: [Round 1] Turn 1: Rules and negotiations Turn 2: Acceptance [Round 2] Turn 1: First argument Turn 2: Rebuttal [Round 3] Turn 1: Counter rebuttal and more arguments Turn 2: Counter rebuttal That's it I guess. Make any inquiries in chat.
Without religion, there would be less war.

Resolved: If religion did not exist, there would not have been as many wars as there have been. Defined: War; the violent conflict between nations or states Religion; the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods Point 1: War and conflict is the inherent nature of man and has existed before the creation of religion. Point 2: Religion is used as an excuse to wage war, but is not the actual cause. Point 3: The are always differences between nations that can cause war, not exclusively religion.
The Federal Reserve should be abolished

Lannan: "Hey, something came up. Can we end our debate and start again here in a few weeks?" Me: "What do you mean something came up? Things come up all the time and I seem to write a response in time" Lannan: "It's a personal matter that I don't want to go into." Me: "Fine- but when you forfeit the voters will see that." Am I misquoting me and you or no?
The Federal Reserve should be abolished

I will be arguing that the Federal Reserve should be abolished, as a forewarning I will use google docs so don't complain about it, otherwiuse there is a charactar limit and I cannot post pictures. My opponent can just as easily use google dopcuments as I can so I am getting no "advantages." By accepting this debate challenge you agreee to this, and we can continue, I put the criteria high enough so that I will get a good debator rather than some guy who makes zero arguments. In the meantime, I will begin work on my google document so once I post for round 2 you should work immediately, make sure you have enough time for this.
Gay marriage should be legal

Marriage between a Man and A Woman is currently legal, and wreaking certain benefits from the government, for the same reason say… joining the Army is legal and wreaking benefits, incentive. The sole reason the government offers benefits to those men and woman who are in love, is to encourage them to get married and have children. Giving a gay couple the same benefits will be as giving every citizen free collage, a 20,000 dollar enlistment bonus, VA benefits, military discounts, and all the other incentives they now give the military. The government offers these benefits as incentive to those citizens who can offer it back, there service, and possibly there life. The government offers men and woman incentive to get married so that those men and woman can offer the government children. Gay marriage is currently not illegal because of America's ‘extreme prejudice' against gay couples. Everyday America continues to become more tolerant towards homosexuality, now letting gay men and woman openly serve in the military. I ask this simple question to my opponent, what would a gay married couple, now receiving the same benefits from the government as a straight married couple, offer back to the government? As soon as my opponent realizes, that the answer to that question is "nothing that a gay unmarried couple could already give the government. " The sooner my opponent realizes why Gay marriage isn't already legal. Steven Michael Anderson
Gay marriage should be legal

I have been reading some recent debates on here on this very popular issue, and I'm finding that most of them are, well, bad. I have done this debate a few times in the past, but I felt as though I could input my opinion, since I don't like what the others are saying. I myself am not homosexual. I will say though, I would be very happy for my good friend Nicole, who happens to be lesbian, if she gets married. Unfortunately, that is not legal in the state of Oregon. Now, I know that marriage was originally a religious institution and most religions do not condone homosexuality, but there are legal benefits other than religious happiness in getting married, as well as non-religious psychological benefits, as well as a stronger sense of bonding that reduces the instances of sleeping around and spreading STDs. That is why religion is a moot point. I could go on almost endlessly with reasons as to why it should be legal, but I'm not going to. Why? Since Con will argue that gay marriage should be illegal, he or she will be arguing for a restrictive law (i.e. a law that takes away a certain liberty or freedom), the burden of proof is on Con to explain why it is bad for gays to marry, as freedom and liberty are (or should be) given to groups that are not proven to hurt society. Thank you in advance to my opponent for taking this debate!
The USA should establish a Single-Payer Health Care System

Good luck. Single Payer Health Care: Single-payer national health insurance is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health financing, but delivery of care remains largely private. Under a single-payer system, all Americans would be covered for all medically necessary services, including: doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs. Patients would regain free choice of doctor and hospital, and doctors would regain autonomy over patient care. Socialized Medicine: Socialized medicine is a system in which doctors and hospitals work for and draw salaries from the government. . http://www.pnhp.org...
Should porn be allowed in school

yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!111111!!!!11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Death Penalty Should be Ended for ALL Cases

Hello. I will be arguing that the United States of America should end the death penalty for all criminal cases. The rounds will go as follows: 1. Acceptance of challenge. Please do not include evidence to support your case. 2. Your case. This is where you will enter all of your supporting evidence. 3. Rebuttal. This is where you can discuss the opponent's case. 4. Final concluding arguments. Good luck, and may the best debater win.
The Death Penalty Should be Ended for ALL Cases

First of all, I would like to address my opponent's claim that the death penalty helps the economy. How is this even possible? Good economic policies and the industrial jobs in China have helped its economy, not murdering people. He/she also ignores the intention behind my statistic that America carries out a large number of executions, as it was merely to show that the death penalty is an important issue, and nothing more. My opponent also claims that the death penalty is cheaper, and the cost of execution is quite cheap. However, the legal process and the decades criminals are on death row make it the more expensive choice. It is also quite clear that racism influences the death penalty. According http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org..., "Such a study was recently conducted in Philadelphia. The results are dramatic, particularly for a state outside of the deep south, a region where racial disparities in the criminal justice system have a long history. The researchers found that, even after controlling for case differences, blacks in Philadelphia were substantially more likely to get the death penalty than other defendants who committed similar murders. Black defendants faced odds of receiving a death sentence that were 3.9 times higher than other similarly situated defendants. My opponent also is claiming that mistakes happen, and therefore it is okay that a few innocent people are executed. I must ask, how would you feel if you were on death row for a crime you didn't commit? What about a family member? Finally, my opponent ignores the fact that states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates. In conclusion, the death penalty is a racially biased, mistake-filled, ineffective, and an expensive alternative to life imprisonment. I rest my case, and may the best debater win.
The Death Penalty Should be Ended for ALL Cases

First of all, I am a big supporter of life without the possibility of parole, and I disagree with my opponents characterization of that as an "easy" way through prison. I have already established that the death penalty costs less money then this alternative, and criminals spending their life in a maximum security prison are obviously unlikely to escape and harm people. My opponent is also incorrect in stating that race does not affect the likelihood of being sentenced to death. In fact, the very website he/she cited (http://deathpenalty.org...) contained this: "In 1990 a report from the General Accounting Office concluded that "in 82 percent of the studies [reviewed], race of the victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e. those who murdered whites were more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks." I would also like to point out that the death penalty is a very ineffective way of reducing prison population. According to http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org..., only 35 offenders were executed in 2014. As for protecting the other inmates, this can once again be achieved through segregated prisons. Besides, according to http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org..., the average death row inmate waited over a decade for his/her execution. I would also like to point out that reducing options for parole would reduce the defendants who can be released to commit crimes. Besides, I have already established that states without the death penalty have a lower homicide rate.
The Death Penalty Should be Ended for ALL Cases

My case will rest on facts mainly from Amnesty International. First, to put into perspective the severity of the issue in the United States, consider the following: 141 countries (about two-thirds of the world's countries) have abolished the death penalty. Furthermore, the majority of executions take place in China, Iran, North Korea, Yemen, and the United States. As you can see, America is one of the worst offenders in this regard. One of the most serious issues facing the continued use of the death penalty is racial bias. Despite the fact that half of homicide victims are African-American, since 1977, 77% of death row defendants have been executed for killing whites. Why should we continue to let lives be lost because of racism? One of the most well-documented issues is the possibility of making mistakes. Since 1973, 140 death row inmates have been released due to wrongful convictions. In that same time period, over 1200 people were executed, many of whom were likely innocent. Why should we continue to allow innocent people to die? People make mistakes, but there is no sense in letting people die because of that. Many people believe that the death penalty serves as a deterrent to criminals. However, this belief is a myth. Data from the FBI shows that in 2008, the 14 states WITHOUT capital punishment saw homicide rates at or below the national rate. The South, a region of America that has seen 1147 executions since 1976 (the Midwest is second with 176), has also seen the highest murder rate. Why should taxpayers continue to fund an ineffective program? Many will also argue that it is much cheaper to execute prisoners than it is to give them life sentences. However, with the costs prior to and during the trial, even excluding post-conviction proceedings, the death penalty would actually still be more expensive then alternatives. In Kansas, for example, death penalty cases are 70% more expensive than similar, non-death penalty cases. Why shouldn't taxpayers be provided with a cheaper alternative? In conclusion, the death penalty is too plagued with racial bias and wrongful convictions, while remaining too ineffective and expensive to be applied to criminal cases today. I believe that the death penalty should be ended for all criminal cases in the United States. Works Cited: . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... . http://www.amnestyusa.org...
PC Gaming is better than console gaming

1. "Most tasks you perform in a game can be done faster, And more accurately" You take a look at ports of console games to PC, You will see that no, The tasks are not done better or faster. They are games on both platforms which has great skill gaps. There should be a perfect balance of skill gaps which the developer must get right otherwise new players won't come in and the game will die out. Both platforms can deliver this. This was my point that you missed. 2. There comes a point where variety doesn't matter. There is enough variety for console gamers to enjoy. To get your game on steam: It must work Pay 50$ THAT'S IT! Majority of indie games stink. Good indie games get good ports like Undertale. $5 a month for online play. "And you don't have to pay the price of an entirely new console as harder-to-run games come out. You can just replace parts from your PC and sell the old part" There are so many problems you will encounter with a PC. A PC is more expensive. You replace parts every 2 years and is a worse investment compared to a new console every 9 years. MMOs and MOBAS could work with a controller. No racing games are extremely tough with a PC, Every single rocket league pro plays with a controller. You can play KAM on a console.
PC Gaming is better than console gaming

"That is on the developer to determine a skill gap or not. " Sure, It's up to the developer to have certain skill gaps, However, By being able to use mouse and keyboards, Most tasks you perform in a game can be done faster, And more accurately, Giving you much more room to improve. And improving is a key factor in enjoying games. "Name examples" The hundreds of millions of games on Steam. https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/List_of_Xbox_One_games Console games have so few games that you're able to list all the games on a list. Sure, Consoles also have indie games, But it doesn't compare to the number of games you can have on PC. "Pay more-Get more/pay less-get less" You do get what you pay for, And that's part of my argument. You can build your own PC for close to the price of a console, And you won't have to pay for playing online, And you don't have to pay the price of an entirely new console as harder-to-run games come out. You can just replace parts from your PC and sell the old part. Also, A part of my argument you seemed to miss is that PC gives you the OPTION to customize how you game looks. Ex: motion blur, Anti-aliasing, Ambient occlusion. And you can choose to have more frames than better visuals if you want too. This also ties into your "graphics don't matter" claim, Which I disagree with. "Every game works with a controller, Not with a keyboard or mouse. " No, Every game does not "work" with a controller. There are countless PC games like League of Legends, With you need to point to something and click it. Sure, It's "possible" to do that with a controller, But very frustrating. First-person shooter games on controllers only allows you to look around at a certain speed, Unless you increase your sensitivity, In which case you lose control of finer movements because the joystick thing is too small to give the same preciseness as a mouse, So moves like flicking are practically impossible on controllers. On the other hand, You can play racing games and RPG games on the keyboard and mouse just fine, But it is just more enjoyable on a controller, Which PC give you the OPTION to use.
PC Gaming is better than console gaming

You can name 0 on pc because very pc is different, The skill gap is not in controls. It is in functions and balancing. It is on the developers. Steam Greenlight the king of indie games that are very bad. The quality control is what matters. Many good games go to console. Good games are also very subjective. The Console exclusives are a lot better than a couple good indie games. Blue screen of death, Viruses and virus control, Slow computer, Etc, Etc. Also, There are about a million different accounts on a PC and you have to buy a mic. No, The X and S should not count since the games on those must work on the original. The average is expanding and is not 4. 75. So, The GPU is the only part of a computer. GTA IV is graphically worse than GTA 5. The parts to upgrade a PC and its OS is more than consoles. Yes, They do work. No serious attempts have been made because of the cost and companies are afraid of experimenting. KAM is a keyboard and Mouse. Consoles are more relaible, Cheaper, And laid back