BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible is 100% Accurate

There is sufficient evidence to call into question the accuracy of the bible. The bible is rife with contradictions and inaccuracies. This is a list of four errors in the bible, taken from a list of ten on this site www.examiner.com/article/ten-errors-the-bible - The genealogy of Christ. Matthew 1 and Luke 3 give two very different genealogies for Joseph, Mary's husband. In fact, even Luke admits that he isn't sure that Joseph was actually Jesus' father (Luke 3:23, NIV). You would think that someone who was directly inspired by god would know what he's writing. - Scientific errors. I find it suspect that those who take the Bible literally as a scientific text for the larger, cosmological arguments can simply ignore the number of small scientific mistakes the Bible makes. For example, rabbits don't chew their cud and the bat is not a bird. - The story of Jesus' death and resurrection. Were Jesus' last words "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit," ""It is finished," or "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" followed by a loud cry? Did the rooster crow once or twice? How did Judas die"by suicide or fall? - God or Gods? In Hebrew, Genesis 1 mentions "Elohim" created the heavens and the earth. Elohim is plural (the rationalization of this is really extraordinary), and Genesis states that God said "Let us make men in our image." Also, in Jewish literature, Asherah is the female counterpart to Yahweh, though the Bible condemns worshiping her. Nevertheless, she appears in the same Jewish literature the Old Testament is drawn from, but is completely ignored in Christianity. How can the bible be considered accurate, when it contains so many internal and external inconsistencies?
The Bible is 100% Accurate

"I haven't read the original texts, no, but then I'm not the one making assumptions about their accuracy"Yes you are; you instigated this debate, regardless of whether or not you hide under the label of Con."I assume you have read them, otherwise you aren't really in a position to be making a judgement as to their accuracy."I won't contest your assumption. "you are making the assumption that these stories didn't exist as an oral tradition for centuries before being written down."No, I realize some of the Bible was oral tradition before it was written. But the fact remains that it's consistency, in spite of this, is a testament to it's truthfulness. You have tried to argue that it contradicts itself on several controversial points, but have failed. I now leave this debate to the voters. Thanks for the debate!
The Bible is 100% Accurate

I haven't read the original texts, no, but then I'm not the one making assumptions about their accuracy. You are, so I assume you have read them, otherwise you aren't really in a position to be making a judgement as to their accuracy. If you haven't read them (which I suspect you haven't, or you wouldn't have evaded my question) then you are just making the ridiculous assumption that what you have been taught about the original text is accurate, after all, people can get things wrong... Unless they're writing/translating/interpreting a holy text of course (if one follows your logic). Even if you HAVE read them (which is highly unlikely, as original manuscripts are not believed to exist) you are making the assumption that these stories didn't exist as an oral tradition for centuries before being written down.
The Bible is 100% Accurate

"Then Jesus wasn't born from the line of David"He was biologically of the line of David through Mary."[hares] don't chew their cud" The word translated into 'cud' refers to partially digested material. Hares mix their poop (digested material) with grass (undigested material) and chew on this mass of partially digested material."the bat is not a bird"The original word used for bird in this passage was also used for bats and winged insects."The question about Jesus' last words [...]"Christ spoke all 3 passages. The Bible doesn't specify the chronological order in which he spoke them, but this is not an example of inaccuracy."How is the manner of Judas' death a false dichotomy? There are two different accounts. Don't evade the question"I'm not evading the question. You asked if Judas died by suicide or hanging, and I called it out for the false dichotomy it is; a man can commit suicide by hanging. Again, you need to cite your Bible verses if you want to claim that there are two different accounts. I'm not doing your work for you. This is a debate, not a Bible study."If there are three person in god then he is actually gods [...] and thus the bible is inaccurate"Elohim is uniplural. It describes the 3 persons of the 1 Triune God, just as U.S.A. describes the 50 states of 1 nation. How is this inconsistent with Hebrew mythology?
The Bible is 100% Accurate

"Jesus' didn't actually have a biological father. " Then Jesus wasn't born from the line of David. I was under the impression that the Messiah, to fit the prophecy, had to be born from the line of David. http://www.biblegateway.com... --- The part about the rabbit and the bat both occur in Leviticus 11 http://www.biblegateway.com... --- The question about Jesus' last words, how would you account for the differences in accounts? That in itself is a conclusive example of an inaccuracy (Either one is right, and the rest are INACCURATE, or all of them are INACCURATE). The fact that you admit to not knowing leads me to believe you have no way of accounting for them. --- How is the manner of Judas' death a false dichotomy? There are two different accounts. Don't evade the question. --- If there are three person in god then he is actually gods (plurals exist in language to denote more than one of something) and thus the bible is inaccurate, as it frequently refers to the Jewish gods as a single god, which is internally inconsistent with Hebrew mythology.
The Bible is 100% Accurate

1. The Genealogy Of Christ1a. "Matthew 1 and Luke 3 give two very different genealogies for Joseph"Matthew and Luke provide different genealogies because they used different methods for formulating them. Genealogies could be formulated based on biology, law, or custom.1b. "Luke admits that he isn't sure that Joseph was actually Jesus' father"No, he doesn't. He says Joseph was supposedly Jesus' father because that's what people thought; Jesus' didn't actually have a biological father. 2. Scientific Errors2a. "rabbits don't chew their cud"Where does the Bible say otherwise? Cite your source.2b. "the bat is not a bird"Where does the Bible say otherwise? Cite your source.3. The Story Of Jesus' Death And Resurrection3a. "Were Jesus' last words "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit," ""It is finished," or "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" followed by a loud cry?"I don't know. 3b. "Did the rooster crow once or twice?"Twice.3c. "How did Judas die"by suicide or fall?"That's a false dichotomy.4. God or Gods?4a. "Elohim is plural"Because there are 3 persons in God. I will no longer respond to anything other than arguments. Your plagiarism is lazy and careless. Also, you need to cite Bible verses. Thank you.
Capitalism Is The Most Successful Political model in the Word

Capitalism is not a political model or system. It is an economic system. I thought this was going to be about something like anarcho-capitalism where it's just laissez-faire without any government, but it looks like my opponent simply made a mistake by miscategorizing capitalism. I'm supposed to pick a political system. I'll pick democracy, specifically in the form of a federal constitutional republic. My opponent's facts are self-contradicting. My opponent asserts that capitalism didn't exist before the automobile, but also asserts that capitalism existed during the formative period of human evolution -"Cars- Back in times before capitalism, people used to ride horses to get where they needed to go.""... during the ages when humans were evolving. Competition was a necessity in aiding mankind's evolution. Capitalism made this possible..."My opponent then lists many products, but this debate isn't supposed to be about products. It's supposed to be about politics. These products aren't all that relevant.
Should the felony-murder rule be banned

I'll be playing Devil's Advocate here. Boy, This'll be tough. I'm going to assume that Con means he is Pro, Since he is arguing against the felony murder rule in his original argument. Anyways, My response is this: "put's people who either didn't kill or intend to kill in prison for the rest of that person(s) life(s). " When you participate in a dangerous, Illegal activity that endangers the lives of others, You are accepting the possibility that due to your actions or someone else's, Someone may be killed. As a moral principle, I ask Con (Pro) this: If someone pulls a lever that has a certain % chance of killing someone (they could choose not to) and that person dies, Are they responsible for first-degree murder? Because that seems to be what is happening in this case.
Jesus Christ is the Savior of Man and Son of God

Welcome!I would like to debate an individual who disagrees with the debate topic (obviously). Here are my Clauses:1- The Trinitarian Nature of God was referenced in the O.T. because in multiple occasions, the Christian God referred to himself as "our", yet the Jewish peoples described him as being a single God.2- Jesus Christ's coming was foretold in the old testament, and his teachings are infallable3- Religions that do not accept Jesus Christ such as Islam are inherently False. Judaism worships the right God, but does not have a persoanl relationship wit hGod anymore, as a Relationship with God is only possible through Jesus Christ.
Zombies are possible

Definition of reanimate- To restore to life. If you look at your source, it says that zombies are, "They are, or were, people who were infected by the Solanum virus. The virus creates a zombie by eating away the frontal lobe of the brain for replication, thus destroying it. The virus mutates the brain and allows the brain to remain alive but dormant and without the need for oxygen. Once the mutation is complete, approximately 23 hours from infection to fully functioning zombie, the ghoul will be on the unending search for living human flesh, thus spreading the infection" See, the thing with this is that they were never dead, therefore there were nothing to reanimate, therefore they are not a zombie by the definition. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Chess should be an Olympic event.

This is a very interesting topic and I look forward to debating it. Before we truly begin, I would like to clarify a few things. Chess as an Olympic event would be a lone entity. It would have no other events attached to it. It would be a match between two people. The winner of that match plays the winner of another match, and this process continues until one out of a dozen or so people emerges as the victor. Gold, silver, and bronze medals will be awarded and it will be treated like any other Olympic event. And now, without further ado, let's begin. Main Argument Chess is an acclaimed game throughout the world. I believe that adding chess into the Olympics would add a whole new aspect to it. Chess is not athletic whatsoever and it is rather the brain involved than the body. It would make the Olympics more than just a huge sports event. It would make it unique and distinct. Chess is very beneficial for the brain. According to a 1974-86 study in Belgium, fifth grade students "experienced a statistically significant gain in cognitive development over a control group. " Now, people of such a young age will not particpate in the Olympics - of course - but this fact gives you an example of how chess positively influences the brain. When you are younger, things such as chess can accelerate development much easier than when you are older, but the reality is that chess is truly beneficial for the brain. Implementing chess into the Olympics would not only benefit the actual players, but it would revolutionize global sports in general. Chess would become more acclaimed and more people would benefit from it. It is simple cause and effect. When people see people playing chess on television and hear of its positive effects, they will most likely play the game as well. I have not listed sufficient evidence for how chess positively influences the brain. For that reason, above all, I am going to post another image below. This you cannot deny. However, this is not a debate arguing that ordinary people should play more chess. The debate is exclusively about how chess should be an Olympic event. I am going to make an additional point. I believe that chess builds friendships more than sport does. Chess is engaging, exhilarating, and distinct in a way sports cannot aspire to. According to squidoo. com, "Chess prevents anxiety and depression by encouraging self improvement, improving self esteem and self confidence. " Athletes need self-esteem and self-confidence, don't they? Chess, when implemented into the Olympics, will have benefits only. There are no negative effects of this action that I can imagine. It is your duty to prove me wrong. MLA Citations "Benefits of Chess. " Benefits of Chess. Web. 23 Mar. 2014. <. http://www.quadcitychess.com...>. "10 Benefits of Chess regarding Health. " Squidoo. Web. 23 Mar. 2014. <. http://www.squidoo.com...>.
Chess should be an Olympic event.

In this debate, I will argue that the game of Chess should be implemented into the Olypmics. My opponent will argue the opposite stance. This debate will follow a specific structure and will have specific rules. In this debate, there will be no forfeitting. Sources, if any, will be cited using the MLA format. Proper conduct will be observed. In round one, my opponent will only accept the debate and state his stance. Round two will be for main arguments. The debaters will offer rebuttals and more arguments in the third round. The fourth round will be for further rebuttals and any last arguments. The fifth round will be for any last rebuttals and conclusion paragraphs. I look forward to this debate.
Chess should be an Olympic event.

Because my opponent did not expand on any of his arguments due to time restraints, I will only focus on refuting his arguments in this round.In his main arguments, my opponent makes a few arguments. His first is that chess should be an Olympic event because it would broaden the Olympic scope, that it would be beneficial for the brain (as it would encourage young people to play chess) and that it would revolutionize sports. I have to disagree here; I have already established in my opening arguments that the Olympics exist to promote Olympism, a philosophy that seeks a balance of body, mind and will. Chess, having no more athletic benefit than a 6-hour Call of Duty session, is not balanced - it only focuses on one aspect. For this reason, it is a poor fit for the Olympics. Why should the Olympics sell out their beliefs to incorporate a board game? I hold they should not, no more than they should make a competitive Super Smash Bros. Brawl tournament or competitive eating events Olympic sports.I find his other arguments (brain stimulation, promotion and sports revolution) much more interesting. After all, shouldn't we be promoting mentally-stimulating games to kids, and who doesn't like a good old revolution? Wouldn't the Olympics be a great spot for it? I don't see this, however. I've already established that chess isn't necessarily appealing viewing - moves become less common as the game progresses and facial expressions are stagnant. I doubt kids are going to find such an event appealing, and that's before I even note this can go on for six hours. It is certainly fun to play chess, but to watch it for six hours? Again, I don't really see how this would catch on with kids or revolutionize sports.In my opponent's rebuttals, my opponent acknowledges the length of chess games and their limited viewer appeal as problems, but reiterates that it is beneficial for brain and character. I can't argue here - but this isn't a debate on whether or not chess is a great game. Just because something is good doesn't mean that placing it in the Olympics is justified. For example, I think we can all agree that reading is good. Does that mean reading should be an Olympic event? Of course not. His other arguments don't really refute my arguments so much as reiterate his points, but I can understand this due to RL restrictions.I await my opponent's next round.
Chess should be an Olympic event.

Rebuttals I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for his complex, reasonable argument. He makes valid points, but I would like to express certain aspects we disagree on. My opponent writes, "[t]he BBC notes that, in comparison to poker, a similar type of game, there isn't really that much that is good television. Moves become increasingly uncommon as the game goes on, and the expressions of the players rarely change. Beyond this, games often end in draws - sometimes after just a short amount of time." He goes on to illustrate how long a game of chess can last in a championship match. Granted, chess can be a very long and boring game when spectating, but the reality is that chess is a beneficial game for the brain and character. Given the evidence I have provided, I do not believe my opponent can refute the notion that chess as an Olympic event would have more benefits than flaws. My opponent illustrates that chess is not a sport. That is completely true, but I will say that I must disagree with his view of the matter. The Olympics can be slightly reformed and the community can be taught to accept chess into the program. The committee can and will accept the program in time. Chess has some flaws when implemented into the Olympics, but the game has much more benefits than flaws. I will expand on my arguments later, but I have very limited time for debates and therefore have to make them a little shorter than I wished them to be. Thank you.
No put the knife in the neck no dead no sad

I'm going to assume this is about suicide based on what the title and your first argument. To begin, you believe that a man ending his own life is a bad thing. I disagree. Everyone was brought into the world against their will. It should be their choice when to leave it. One person should not have such control over another person's life and be able to decide whether they live or die. If I am suffering, you would rather I suffer for the rest of my life instead of peaceful death? Humans are intelligent creatures. We should be allowed to choose when we leave this earth.
Abortion

Thank you, Brettwill09 for challenging me to this debate in which I'll be playing Devil's Advocacy yet again. I wish the best of luck to both of us! :) Unfortunately, in this first round my opponent failed to elaborate on his stance so I'll be basing my arguments off the assumption that he is against abortion in ALL circumstances, including rape. A woman has a right to have an abortion for a few reasons. First off, it's her body. Outlawing this could lead to a slippery slope, outlawing any and all choices regarding our bodies. The government could tell us what to eat, what to wear, etc. Secondly, allowing abortions saves lives. While abortion is illegal, many women will often go to extreme limits in order to have an abortion performed. These often include unsanitary and dangerous conditions which can kill thousands of women every year. http://www.religioustolerance.org... Another important point to bring up is that accidents happen. Many young girls are curious and get urges to experience sex. Being young, they can often make bad decisions and engage in these activities without using protection. Sarah Palin's daughter Bristol is a good example. She got pregnant and her mother refused to allow her to get an abortion. Many other young girls can get caught up in similar situations, being forced to look after a child they can't afford. The annual costs of raising a child can range from over $6000 to over $7000. http://moneycentral.msn.com... This is a huge burden to place on a single mother, especially a young one. Intoxication can play a factor too as it can impair a person's judgement. There's also rape. Should a woman get punished with a child because somebody decided to rape her? It wasn't her decision to get pregnant with that child in the first place so she should have to have that burden placed on her. However, if a woman decides she wants to keep a rape child that option should be open too. I'll present more points in round two. Thanks again to my opponent and I look forward to an interesting debate. Good luck!
MARS creates Better Chocolate Than Hershey.

Alright, let's clear some things up.MARS owns all of these chocolate brands http://www.mars.com...Hershey only makes their own chocolate, and has these products http://www.hersheys.com...So right away, you can see Hershey stays true to themselves and only sells chocolates that they where the original creator of. MARS has basically bought all of it's products by buying up smaller brands. While that doesn't immediately mean that MARS chocolate is bad, it is just something to think about. "MARS created most of the candy/gum that we see today." http://www.mars.com...;That is quite true, but we are talking about chocolate, this http://www.mars.com...."Aren't we talking about the companies?" Oh yes we are. The same website (thetopten.com) that you where referring to before has a list of the best chocolate brands http://www.thetoptens.com... and guess what: Hershey is in 4th place, then comes Galaxy in 5th, which is one of the companies MARS bought. MARS obviously isn't even listed in the top ten."So I am pretty much saying that MARS DID create better chocolate than, Hershey." Oh really? In the past they where better? Past tense right there. And your title said "MARS creates Better Chocolate Than Hershey." Creates, you see, is actually present tense. Are you swaying away from your own resolution?
MARS creates Better Chocolate Than Hershey.

I should have specified that MARS manufactured better chocolate than Hershey. Wait just a minute, the products that MARS manufactures out numbers the products in which Hershey manufactures. MARS is a global company and Hershey is primarily in the U.S. When people voted on the polls, I'd bet that 62% percent of people mostly lived in the United States or Canada. In you poll, you placed a Mars bar as the picture. Had you placed a snickers or any other candy/gum product, your poll would change. I am correct? There was a comment that someone never had a Mars Bar. Well maybe you should have stated that MARS doesn't make Mars bars alone. You only put a single picture up of one candy bar. Aren't we talking about the companies? ( Off track again) http://www.thetoptens.com... In this website Twix was the number one candy bar. In 2nd, came snickers. In 3rd, came Kit-Kat ( which wasn't produced in the MARS factory). In 4th, was Butterfingers( Also wasn't produced in MARS company) and In came 5th, A Hershey bar.( Back on track) I know Mars Bar came and 10th but, that's because MARS made new and improved chocolate. So I am pretty much saying that MARS DID create better chocolate than, Hershey.
MARS creates Better Chocolate Than Hershey.

Hold on a second, this debate is about how MARS creates BETTER chocolate then Hershey, and not what other products MARS has created. Let's get back on track.I created a poll to see which chocolate people like more (http://www.debate.org...) and overwhelmingly 62% of people preferred Hershey Chocolate. So the majorty of peple prefer Hershey chocolate.I rest my case.
MARS creates Better Chocolate Than Hershey.

Did you know that MARS makes all different type's of things that you see everyone eating. Dogs, Cats, especially people. Hershey only targets one of these categories: People. Frank Clarence Mars learned to hand- dip candy when he was smaller. And as he sold candy ( mostly molasses chips at the time) He became as you say now, A little more popular. Soon enough Frank Mars created the Mars-O-Bar company, given that privilege, MARS created most of the candy/gum that we see today. http://www.mars.com...