BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bible Contradictions

I am quite interested in this debate. I am a student of the Hebrew Scriptures in its original text (or the best we can have of it). So this should be interesting. My translation of choice is ESV or my own translation as we go.I will start off with one contradiction to focus on and move from there.I'd like to get it out in the open that I completely accept the Documentary Hypothesis for the composition of the Torah. Two of my arguments will reflect that. In its simplest form, the Documentary Hypothesis states that there were different sources pieced together to make the Torah over a period of time until the end of the Babylonian Exile. Scholars look for things like "doublets," double narratives in the text, to see the different sources. Stating the same age or date again, the same story over again, random genealogies, etc help identify doublets.My arguments will not be in any kind of order.1) When did Noah and his family go into the ark?Noah's deluge is the ultimate Documentary Hypothesis (JEDP) hodge-podge of sources. I could get into a lot of them, but for the purposes of this it is probably best to stick with one for discussion.When did Noah, his family, and the animals enter the ark/when did the flood begin?Genesis 7:6-10"Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters came upon the earth. 7 And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives with him went into the ark to escape the waters of the flood. 8 Of clean animals, and of animals that are not clean, and of birds, and of everything that creeps on the ground, 9 two and two, male and female, went into the ark with Noah, as God had commanded Noah. 10 And after seven days the waters of the flood came upon the earth.Ok, so Noah and his entourage go into the ark and the flood begins a week later. That's the story I was taught in Sunday School. But wait! JEDP is back to confuse us!Genesis 7:11-16"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights. 13 On the very same day Noah and his sons, Shem and Ham and Japheth, and Noah's wife and the three wives of his sons with them entered the ark,14 they and every beast, according to its kind, and all the livestock according to their kinds, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, according to its kind, and every bird, according to its kind, every winged creature.15 They went into the ark with Noah, two and two of all flesh in which there was the breath of life. 16 And those that entered, male and female of all flesh, went in as God had commanded him. And the Lord shut him in.How can there possibly be Noah entering the ark on the same day the flood starts.... and a week before the flood starts? JEDP! Yes, my friends, the priestly order of Babylonian Exile clasped a couple sources together... and you get this.I look forward to my opponent's response.
Bible Contradictions

Me, being Jewish (and thus having access to countless rabbinic commentaries, midrashim, aggadot; hence a wider outlook), could not resist to have a similar debate. But first, let's set some ground rules. Please do not make arguments from anything other than Masoretic Hebrew Bible (Tanakh). I outright deny the authenticity of the New Testament, Samaritan Torah, and Septuagint. You may make arguments from the Mishnah and Talmud, but there isn't exactly a point in doing so because you are probably not familiar with such texts.
"Assault Rifles" (AR-15's Legality)

I believe you have every right to own an AR-15. If someone thinks you shouldn't have that right that the constitution protects, they are simply unamerican, and uneducated. If you don't think anyone should own that gun, then don't own that gun. Nobody is forcing you to own a weapon. I believe personally that it is my right to own guns that I'd like to own. I believe we need to read the constitution a little closer. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." yes. That does say a well regulated militia, but do you see that tiny little comma in between that and "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." That doesn't say "the right of the people in the militia" and it doesn't say "the right of the people who are police" and it doesn't say "the right of the people in the military" it says "the right of the people" the American people. These assault weapons such as the AR-15 are commonly misrepresented. You are told that an AR-15 cannot be used for hunting, when the standard AR-15 fires .223 and .308 rounds, rounds used mainly for hunting game, such as deer. if you believe in gun control, you are being lied to.
Good and Evil. True facts, or fabricated fiction.

Con spends the round clarifying the debate, but does not respond to my analysis last round. Con never contends that the burden of proof should rest on him due to the ambiguous nature of this topic. I responded to all of Con's claims, so I think it follows that my burden is sufficiently accomplished. Con's, however, is not. Points of contention:1. That we're all supposed to work as oneI countered this with an argument for individuality, which Con does not respond to really. I also questioned the teleological nature of this premise, but Con does not defend it.2. Everyone agreeing on everythingHere Con contradicts himself. He invisions a society where no one disagrees about anything. I counter that this would be simply a herd mentality and that disagreement is necessary for progress. Instead of defending his original point, Con instead critisizes the herd mentality as well and states that this is how society currently is. This directly conflicts with his original statements.3. SocietyThe way Con depicts society is uncalled for. He portrays society as universally wrong about life, blind, and uninterested in the truth. At best this is an overgeneralization.4. Good and evil, or right and and wrongCon equivocates between the factual and normative notions of right and wrong, making his case discontinuous. Moreover, Con continually contradicts himself by assuming values at times and denying them at others. He never explains why his hypothetical should lead us to disregard the notions of right and wrong, nor why its plausible to begin with. The only clear argument he makes is that morals are relativistic, but this does not prove that right and wrong do not exist 1) because right and wrong can still exist in a relativistic framework 2) he only portrays the way society changes its views which is only encompising of some moral views, such as the appropriate age to have sex, and does not itself mean morals do not exist. Moreover, I argued that we can cleary delineate the good life from the bad one, but Con does not respond. If "the advisor" is a hero and dictatorship inherently bad, Con is imposing right and wrong while at the same time trying to rids us of it. Con's question "can evil be used for good?" is itself indicative that good and evils exist.
Good and Evil. True facts, or fabricated fiction.

The lack of faith disturbs me was a Star Wars quote lol What I was asking, and I guess I was just unclear. Is if good and evil, right and wrong, are they true things that play actual roles in the lives of humanity. Or is it just another manipulation tactic in which the whole world is under control. "If consequences dictate my course of action it doesn't matter whats right, its only wrong if you get caught." We all do things that aren't exactly "right", but does that make us evil? Can Evil be used for good? That's what I was asking. I should have worded my argument better.
Good and Evil. True facts, or fabricated fiction.

Suppose the decadence of man is persuaded by an unknown advisory, Some may call him the Devil, others may call him god. But what if that advisory was us ourselves? What if we are all supposed to work as one? One singular unit, one singular wavelength of intelligence. Imagine, a world where no one disagrees. Everyones striving to make the world better for their fellow man. A world where no one is offended by anything. A world where Good and Evil don"t exist. Well that"s the whole big scheme isn"t it? Good and Evil. Democrats, Republicans. You divide something, it can never be whole. So, we have the internal and eternal struggle, that is Good. And Evil. But imagine if there was no good and evil, there was only what is. No morals binding the human race down. Morals and Ideals are what cause all the trouble in the first place! I"m not saying bring on the Anarchy. I believe people are mostly "good" decent human beings. If you don"t mess with me I won"t mess with you. Imagine if every human on the planet was raised that way. That was how they thought. Could the Advisory, the Devil, the bad guys.. Could they be the good guys trying to wake us up from a pre morally programmed dream we"ve all been living in? Or have I just been taking too much acid.
Women are naturally happier in a 1950s style household.

Thankyou very much, here I go 1 - I Believe women enjoy giving up control to someone they trust, by giving up control women are able to free themselves of the burden of choice. I believe this is so important to women because of the history of women, looking back we can see that for as long as there where males and females, that females have had the minority of choice in relationships and did not carry the burden of focusing on basic survival as their male counterparts took care of that for them. due to this long history I believe that the natural instinct of a female is geared towards finding a suitable protector who can take leadership in a relationship and free the from the burden of choice. (You can see this in the way women flocked to the 50 shades of grey book, the fact that women prefer males to choose where they go for dinner, or the way a women loves it when you pick her cloths out for a date) With that point in hand I'll say that a 50s style relationship offers a lot of what a women is looking for, the control, the lightend responsibilities etc are all things that women want and need. By not going to work women don't have to worry about basic survival, by having simple and safe jobs like cleaning and cooking women can feel safe while still feeling productive and proud, by be of "service" per say , to their husband women enjoy more primal and ingrained relationship styles which means they will find more fulfilment in said relationships. My point is backed up by a study which has found women's general level of happiness has been decreasing since the 70s, this could be put down to the feminist movement and all of the extra responsibility for women. 2 - this thirst for control can also be found in the bedroom with women enjoying activity which limit their control. For example the most popular fetish among women, Bondage. Take the floor my friend.
Is debating worth debating about

This belongs on forums or opinions but i'll go with this anyway. I am assuming you are against debate since you asked what is the point. 1. If you don't see a point in debate then why are you debating and why are you on a debate site. Just for that reason alone I won. 2. But if you don't buy that I will express the point of debate. A. debate to come to agreements For example I might debate with someone about a solution for drugs and they might have there own solution and as we debate we see holes in our own arguments and make up for it and fill in solutions for those problems. B. Debate to see things from different perspectives Debate is about learning things from both points of view and embracing them. For example if I like lets say Chris brown as a singer and you like Stevie wonder and you think Chris brown sucks and I think Stevie sucks we debate/argue over it. As we debate I can start seeing why Stevie is actually a good singer and you Chris brown. Debate allows us to accept each other more and embrace ideas. C. Debate topics I think debate topics are worth debating about and allow us to get more familiar with events in the world as well as political things.
Resolved: Large amounts of homework are beneficial to the student.

The majority of my opponents contention contains information about the basis of homework. Yes homework is beneficial, but the contention goes against the resolution which states, "Large amounts of homework," therefore, any argument against the basis of homework should be disregarded. Furthermore, Finland, a country that succeeds in the education without the burden of homework. has a 93% high school graduation rate, against the United States which has less than 75%. 2 in 3 students go to college in Finland and test scores dominate all other competing countries. This is proof that homework is not essential to a student's success. My opponent did not properly respond to my question as test scores base a students future in college (college being the determining factor for jobs). Why else would grades matter? Definitely not just for self gratification.
Resolved: Large amounts of homework are beneficial to the student.

1) Homework helps kids exercise the skills they need to pass, and accelerate in education. According to the "National Education Association"(NEA), Individualized assignments that tap into students' existing skills or interests can be motivating. It states that kids at an elementary school level, can help develop study skills and habits that the child will need later on, as he/she passes onto secondary education. They also state that homework is associated with greater academic achievement, such as kids getting A's on tests and some making it into higher education statues such as the "honor roll". In an article published by Doug Gavel from Harvard University, he states in his report that "The assignment of homework, over time, serves to foster the kinds of qualities that are critical to learning -- persistence, diligence, and the ability to delay gratification," she continued. "These [skills] become increasingly necessary as students graduate to higher levels of scholarship in middle school, high school, and beyond." Sitting in a room and simply listening and participating in class activities, sometimes isn't enough. If you want to master the skills and exceed in certain subjects, it takes personal time, and effort at home. School isn't the only place on the Earth where people learn new things. Just like learning a new instrument, you can't become a professional just by going to lessons. You need to take what you've learned, and improve on them at home, or somewhere else that doesn't have the influence of a teacher or guardian. You must take the wheel into your own hands, and drive your own path of knowledge using your own mind and body. For this reason, I urge a pro ballot. It's not beneficial to a students future, if their test scores are dropping due to homework, but knowledge is more important than test scores. Even though test scores are impotant, especially if you want to be accepted into a college. They do not always show the true amount of knowledge a being can have. They are simply numbers, that people use to judge you with, without even knowing much about you. http://www.news.harvard.edu... http://www.nea.org...
Resolved: Large amounts of homework are beneficial to the student.

For this round of debate, I will state my contentions and provide supporting evidence as to why they are viable. 1) Large amounts of homework are bad for children. "Nancy Kalish's daughter was an enthusiastic middle-schooler -- until homework started to take over, consuming her evenings and weekends. When she started dreading school, the Brooklyn mom began to grow alarmed." This is just one of many cases where children are being overworked to the point where a mother or father might get involved. A group of Australian researchers have stated that, "Piling on the homework doesn't help kids do better in school. In fact, it can lower their test scores." Furthermore, according to Richard Walker, an educational psychologist at Sydney University, countries where students spend excessive time on homework prove to have worse results on standardized tests. These three pieces of evidence prove that homework is overworking children. In some cases, overworking be beneficial, but overwork defined by Oxford dictionary is, "exhaust with too much work." Going back to my first example about the daughter of Kalish, exhaust has proved to alert her mother so much that she wrote, "The Case Against Homework: How Homework Is Hurting Our Children and What We Can Do About It," to further prove her point. For this reason, I urge a con ballot. I have a question for you. If these large amounts of homework are negatively impacting student's test scores, how is this beneficial to a student's future life? Keep in mind that test scores such as the SAT are a huge part of college acceptance. http://www.parenting.com... http://www.livescience.com...
Ruthlessness is a positive thing in politics.

3rd Round RebuttalsAdolf Hitler: My argument is that Hitler was attempting to be ruthless by slaughtering the Jews. Hitler was attempting to create his ideal society that was absent of Jews, and therefore he was ruthless in his approach of reaching this goal. Also, the argument that Hitler would have lost earlier than he did had he not been ruthless is untrue because the reason why the Allies went to war with Hitler was because he had continually lied to them about not invading Czechoslovakia, Poland, Austria, etc. Had Hitler not been ruthless, in other words had he not lied and invaded various nations then he would have not been forced to commit suicide at the age of 56 due to invading British and American forces. Napoleon Bonaparte: Yes it is true that Napoleon created a great empire via his ruthlessness but this does not refute the point that he was imprisoned and sent off to St. Helena to spend out the rest of his days. My argument remains intact that ruthlessness never works out in the end, even if you have some or even a lot of success in the short term. Richard Nixon: Based off of my arguments, ruthlessness and stupidity are one and the same. My claim is that Nixon was ruthless in his approach to have complete knowledge about other people and their intentions. As the Watergate Scandal shows, this ruthlessness was obviously a mistake as it forced him to resign as president. Conclusion: My argument stands that ruthlessness may prove to bring results in the short term however proves to fail in the long term.
Ruthlessness is a positive thing in politics.

1st Round RebuttalsFor the sake of clarity, I will define a few terms: Political: Of or relating to politics or the government. Ruthlessness: Having or showing no pity or compassion towards others. Now for the rebuttals...Genghis Khan: I debated whether or not to include Genghis Khan in my argument as well, because he is a prime example of how ruthlessness will eventually fail. It is true that Genghis managed to establish one of the largest empires in human history in the span o a single persons lifetime. However, as the trend of history has shown, this ruthless behavior led to the eventual demise of his great empire. While the demise of the Mongolian Empire did not occur during Ghengis's life time, the point still stands that it was Genghis's ruthlessness that caused the fall of the Mongols. For example, in China the once prestigious Ming dynasty had suffered greatly due to Genghis and his successors ruthlessness in China. Due to this, they rebelled in 1368 and retook almost the entire of China. Also, the argument that what Genghis did was "good for his country" is completely irrational as Genghis's conquests had nothing to do with the Mongolian people but solely to expand his own power and influence.Charlie Chaplin: This argument confused me, to be honest. Given the definition of political that I stated above, Chaplin has literally nothing to do with this debate. As my opponent also stated that he had no real evidence for Chaplin being ruthless, I have nothing to really rebut. The men who built America: Once again, this argument seems to have very little relation with the debate about how ruthlessness is a good thing in politics. The only man who has any relation to politics would be J.P. Morgan who gave a loan to the US government during the Panic of 1907, however my opponent has no reference to this. I do agree with my opponent that it is sometimes required to be ruthless to reach personal goals, however the debate is about if it is a good thing to be ruthless in politics (which I obviously disagree with).Israel: Israel is an example of how ruthlessness does not work in any regard, contrary to my opponents arguments. Israel's ruthlessness towards the Palestinians originates out of their need for revenge. This is legitimate, however it has prevented Israel from reaching any sort of a peace with any country within the Middle East. I agree that currently they must be ruthless in order to protect their citizens, however if Israel wishes to have any sort of peace, they must be willing to compromise. Conclusion: My opponent has not provided any solid examples of how ruthlessness is a positive thing in politics, for both short and long term. My argument stands that it is generally unwise to be ruthless in politics due to the fact that it rarely works in the long term.
Ruthlessness is a positive thing in politics.

This round will be rebuttals.Adolf HitlerThe reason Hitler failed wasn't becuase he was ruthless, he failed because of salughter of innocent jews. He didn't rule his own people with an iron fist, I mean. If you obeyed you were treated very good of the Nazis. The reason Adolf Hitler failed was becuase the world couldn't just look at how Nazi Germany killed innocent jews. Hitler was ruthless, yes. But if he wouldn't have been ruthless, he would have lost so much earlier than he acctually did. There was people far more ruthless than Hitler himself in the Nazi Party. People like Reinhard Heydrich who led the invasion of Prague. He lost becuase the world started a war against him.Napoleon BonaparteNapoleon was a ambitious, talented and very intelligent person. The is considered by many to be one of the greatest rulers of all time. Under his ruling, France had it's golden period. He came from a normal family on Corsica, and then became the ruler of France. He wasn't accepted by many people of his rank becuase he wasn't of noble birth. He was a very succesful general. Many people said that he was never gonna succed but did it anyway. He was ruthless, yes. But the reason why Europe started a coalition against him was becuase they felt threatened of him. But any great ruler at that time in the world was ruthless or could be very ruthless. Richard NixonNixon might have been ruthless sometimes. But that he wired-tap the Oval office was just stupid. He wasn't ruthless becuase of his paranoia, that he wired up the oval office was just really dumb.ConclusionBeing ruthless is a positive thing in politics and in society, it's a very good thing in the short term. If it's good in the long term depends on the individual being ruthless, it depends if he is generally long term of short term. Of course is it not very good to be extreamly ruthless in politics becuase a person has to be good with people. Everything has it's limits.