BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible is a reliable and accurate text.

Welcome to the Debate! As we know my stance is that the bible is inaccurate and not reliable. The text itself will often attempt to give itself validation. When we look at the scriptures Jesus says in John 3:12 "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?". I agree if I do not believe what your Bible tells me than how am I to trust your afterlife myth. In Genesis God starts of with creating light on the first day and yet no sun until the forth day. Also in Genesis 1 God creates trees and than man. Genesis Chapter 2 states man was created before the trees, this is also true with the birds, other animals and even the woman narrative. Leaving the creation we can analyze the very ark Noah and his family supposedly created. Thanks to the very detailed instructions we could accurately measure the validity of its statements. This Ark would have no way of surviving the 360 years at sea that the bible describes. Not to mention any plant life on earth being submerged for a full year. These are truths we can use to disprove the claims associated in the Bible and so far it has not been able to withstand reason and science. Leaving the Old Testament as I am sure many Christians will shy from its atrocities, we find the Gospels are completely different. The lineage of Christ is completely contradictory and on top of the discrepancies they use Joseph as evidence that Jesus was a descendant of King David. Even if the discrepancies were not present if we are to believe that Mary was a virgin how are we to take into account Joseph's lineage in reference to Jesus?Not only is the lineage wrong but the virgin birth, ressurection and much more. So I will respond to the versus I used earlier from Joh 3:12. How could I trust this book with such faulty truths it has provided? http://www.compellingtruth.org... Here are a few more from the website http://infidels.org... NU 11:33 God inflicts sickness. JB 2:7 Satan inflicts sickness. NU 15:24-28 Sacrifices can, in at least some case, take away sin. HE 10:11 They never take away sin. NU 25:9 24,000 died in the plague. 1CO 10:8 23,000 died in the plague 1KI 4:26 Solomon had 40,000 horses (or stalls for horses). 2CH 9:25 He had 4,000 horses (or stalls for horses) The bible is loaded with discrepancies, miracles and myths. In order to believe the Bible is accurate and factual you must have more than faith you must lack common knowledge and understanding. Forsake knowledge and reason and like a child you will fall for anything. Thank you and may the best arguments win.
The Bible is a reliable and accurate text.

The Bible is not a reliable or accurate text and is not valid evidence for its own claims. Round 1: Acceptance/Opening Statement Round 2: Argument and Evidence/Source Material Round 3: Closing Arguments Define: "Reliable: adjective 1.that may be relied on or trusted; dependable in achievement, accuracy, honesty, etc.:" "Accurate: adjective 1.free from error or defect; consistent with a standard, rule, or model; precise; exact." -Dictionary.com Thank you and may the best arguments win.
Atheists are not evil

is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God 1) Morality does not come from god it comes from man. We have stopped the death penalty here in canada but according to the bible it is ok to kill someone they have killed anyone. And again if we want you still suggest it comes fom god lemme ask you this god supposedly sent a flood to wipe out the population of earth that he deemed evil.Doesnt this show wrath which if im correct is a sin? The sixth commandment is "Thou shalt not kill."1t God violated His own commandment in ordering the destruction of entire cities, just to allow the Jews to have a homeland in the Middle East. The Bible confirms that God ordered the killing of thousands of people. where are the morals here? again morals do not come from god as if he does exist he is evil. and again the bible woman are not equal to men and yet todays society in most places women are equal to men care to explain that one?
Atheists are not evil

I have proven that almost everyone is evil because basically no-one believes in all forms of god (and if they do they are not atheist).Thus, if we draw morality from God, atheists have no true source of it other than their feelings and if they feel the need to rape their one year old daughter, they might just do it (which most religious would say is evil). Thus, atheists are evil because of their tendency to lose all morality depending on how they feel (since emotions are their only true source of morality although perhaps law helps to reign them in a bit but even then only those who FEAR it, emotionally, will be able to have morality).
Atheists are not evil

e"vil /ˈēvəl/ Adjective Profoundly immoral and malevolent. Noun Profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, Above is the definition of evil you do not create your own. 1) by your definition hitler is not evil sure he killed millions but he believed in god so hes not evil????? by your defnition any religous man could walk down the stree and kill at will and not be consdered evil because he bleives. The ac of killling without a valid reason is evil 2) you cannot use god to prove somthing evil or not as you cannot prove the existance of god so to use him in an argument makes no sense at all. 3) Newborn babies have no beliefs does ths also make babies evil? 4) a theist does good because that is what he is told to do an athiest does good because he wants to. a theist is motivated to do good because he does not want to go to hell and wants to enter heaven when he dies which is greedy. an athiest doesnt do good expecting a reward. If an athiest is good its because he wants to be if a theist is good it is because hes afraid not to be
Pageants are STUPID.

At this point, I don't think any further argument is needed. My opponent is obviously quite stubborn and immature, and has gone so far as to delete her account. If you wish, see the comment section, for her final "debate" comment, which is far from anything relevant to the debate. Keep in mind, though, that she is only a 14 year old child, and is obviously quite misguided. I excuse and forgive my opponent's juvenile and pathetic behavior, and I hope some day her brain does fully develop.
Pageants are STUPID.

I don't understand how any of this is relevant in the least, but I'll address your argument. "I apologize for intruding on your own life but I am only me": what does that even mean? First of all, you weren't intruding on my life, and I never said that. You were, however, asking irrelevant questions, that I see no need to answer. "Please do not correct me on how I speak because I take great offense from that whether you mean it or not": I never corrected you on how you speak. I corrected your faulty comparison of pageantry to human trafficking, which I believe I had every right to, because the comparison was entirely false, and needed to be corrected. I've also corrected you on your irrelevant questions. I have not corrected you on how you speak, but I have corrected you on WHAT you've said. "If the title of this debate bothers yo some then why did you choose to debate?": I chose to debate because that's what a debate is. You argue your point, BECAUSE of the fact you disagree. If you want somebody to suck up to you and cater to your opinion, get off of debate.org. "I like the fact that you dislike the idea of judging other people b you don't like it then why are you judging me?": I'm not, HOWEVER, you ARE judging me. You really have no right to accuse me of judging you, without sounding like a hypocrite. Let me point out quotes from a little earlier in your argument" "You strike me as the type of person who wants to seem smart to intimidate their "opponent"", "Are you a male?". "There is no definition to being a human being": Actually, there is. "1. any individual of the genus Homo, "especially a member of the species Homo sapiens. 2. a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species: living conditions not fit for human beings; a very generous human being" (Dictionary.com). I know what you're getting at, though. It's hard to put a label on our entire species. I still don't know how this relates to the topic, though.
Pageants are STUPID.

I apologize for intruding on your own life but I am only me. Please do not correct me on how I speak because I take great offense from that whether you mean it or not. If the title of this debate bothers yo some then why did you choose to debate? I like the fact that you dislike the idea of judging other people b you don't like it then why are you judging me? There is no definition to being a human being.
Pageants are STUPID.

No, I am not talking about Christmas Pageants. I meant Beauty Pageants. Yes, I agree with you that pageants are Art but there are different forms of Art also. There is Pottery, Expressive drawing, Painting any many more and I guess...Pageantry. You strike me as the type of person who wants to seem smart to intimidate their "opponent" as you say. Please do not call me "opponent", you should instead call me acquaintance. I am not intimidated. Even though I am from Oahu that does not mean all of us talk Moke. When I think of Pageants, the next thing I think about is Human Trafficking and that is just what it seems to be. In Human Sales, you look pretty, get priced and win your freedom or at the very least, money. In Pageantry, you look pretty, get judged on and win a trophy or at the very least, money. I am a feminist and I do not like it when women are being judged on. Are you a male?
The great superhero debate: Part 2 (Villains edition)

OK let's do this! Before I begin I would like to state that either me or my opponent might have to forfeit later, because we are both gone Monday-Wednesday. DO NOT MAKE THIS PART OF YOUR VOTING DECISION, as the forfeiture will be accounted for later in the debate. "Bane is an escaped convict from an island prison in South America and a super-villain/assassin. Bane has abnormal physical strength as a result of having had undergone experiments involving a derivative of the drug Venom. He became known as "The Man Who Broke the Bat" when he broke Batman's back, forcing Bruce Wayne to give up the Batman persona while he recuperated. " My opponent keeps stating that bane is not as strong. This is true, yet strength alone will NOT win a fight. Here is why Bane would win in a fight, not a arm-wrestling match: Crazy intellect: "Bane is highly intelligent; in Bane of the Demon, Ra's al Ghul says that Bane 'has a mind equal to the greatest he has known.'" Bane knows six languages that are active, 2 more arcane languages, and at least 1 dead language. "he taught himself various scientific disciplines equal to the level of understanding of leading experts in those fields." Bane can remember almost anything- this can come in handy, because bane can memorize weak points in a battle with any opponent, and replay how he got his opponent in trouble, even if just for a moment, and then do that and get his opponent hurt or killed. Escapist: Surpassed by few, awed by many, and humbled everyone, Bane can escape from almost anything. He is extremely aware of his surroundings and has the mental capability to think of ways to escape from anywhere. Combat: Ok, so maybe Rhino has brute strength, but Bane has the hand to hand combat strategy to simply sidestep Rhino and kill him with one swipe at an expertly placed spot, found using his amazing memory. Weaknesses of Rhino "Once charging,he cannot change direction or easily halt his advance. The Rhino also possesses below average intelligence." Bane could easily outsmart him and just as simply out play him by dodging a hit. Thanks, Jacobie1121 http://marvel.wikia.com...
The great superhero debate: Part 2 (Villains edition)

Here we go again. This is the second part of the great superhero debate, but this time it's the villains that take the spotlight! MATCH UPS: 1) Rhino VS Bane 2) Galactus VS Anti-Monitor 3) Lizard VS Killer-Croc 4) Thanos VS Darkseid Rules are as follows: -First round is for acceptance. -No rebuttals as we only have one round to debate each match-up. -Please stay within one universe! The Marvel universe used for this debate is Earth-616 and the Universe for DC is New Earth. The only exception is Anti-Monitor. He lives in his own universe but PLEASE DO NOT GO OUT OF HIS UNIVERSE! To clarify I am Pro or in this case, Marvel! Good luck! DarthKirones.
The problem of evil is a false argument

The following problems exists in this argument: 1. The argument assumes that God's existence is dependent on his actions which is false. God made everything, therefore everything is subject to his rules and order. Job knew God is just and wrestled with his character, but not once was his existence questioned. 2. It does not follow that god's existence shows he is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfect. We as Christians get that from his Word. 3. Definitions - God's concept of good and evil are based on the Torah and some of these definitions simply do not work in the way we think of them, so we should proceed with caution. 4. God's will - Just because God has the desire to eliminate all evil, doesn't imply that he should eliminate it in the way that we humans want him to. After all, it is God's will and plan to 1 day rid the world of evil. 5. Evil exists but according to the book of Job, he overcame the power of evil through faith in God, proving the ineffectiveness of evil, thus God essentially did "eliminate" evil and brought back Job's blessings tenfold. In conclusion, God is still omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect
The problem of evil is a false argument

The problem of evil argument states that God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, and perfect at once and rests on the following: If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil. Evil exists. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil. Therefore, God doesn't exist.
The problem of evil is a false argument

Might I note that round two is a bit late to specify a new parameter especially after I stated the full scale of what the title of this debate encompasses. We are not arguing if the problem of evil is a false argument in Christianity we are arguing the problem of evil is a false argument in general. My opponent has failed to follow the parameters of the argument and only offers his own views as evidence. Even within the parameters of the argument he was trying to argue he offered no proof besides his own opinions I have provided sufficient evidence that both god and the concept of evil are in question and are not generally accepted and the argument of "The problem of evil is a false argument" is infact a false argument itself in most any context you apply it. Since my opponent failed to uphold the bop and the his absence of non biased evidence I urge you to vote against the motion.
The problem of evil is a false argument

In Round 2, i specified that it is Christianity which we are discussing. Christianity is a belief-system which has facts to back them up, but not for this discussion. I will now list some closing points: Free will exists, meaning that God allows people to choose what to do. Notice how Satan caused Job's suffering, not God. Adam and Eve caused their own suffering by eating of the tree of knowledge. Good and evil exist because of free will. If God made all humans good, he would also be committing evil as it would be the same as forcing you against your will to do evil as people do at times. Evil exists because people incline towards it. We are also responsible for the evil that happens in the world. The argument only focuses on 2 options "either he stops evil or he doesn't and isn't all powerful." What if he doesn't want to stop evil yet? Evil can bring benefits in circumstances such as building better character. I reach my conclusion.
The problem of evil is a false argument

No where does it imply that the original statement is false as we agreed to it since the beginning. Even you agreed to it during Round 2. Christianity is being examined and i refuted the argument of evil being valid. 1 and 2. Con tries to make the argument hard to define by refusing to pick one definition of God, arguing there are many concepts of God which implies that the argument can't really follow from a certain set of axioms. 3. Con seems to agree with me, but doesn't provide solid reasoning to back up his claims. 4. "- If you do not understand something that is called blind faith. Blind faith is not based in logic. Just because you blindly believe in something doesn't mean there isn't an argument against it. It means you choose to ignore logic and [unquestioningly] accept whatever someone or something else tells you." It's based on logic, God's logic in the world around you. It's not "blind faith" if God simply explains that our knowledge of why things happen is limited compare to his. Since we're debating the nature of God, we are to logically base our conclusions that we glean from him and not from our own. 5. By implications, you agree that God allowing evil (namely diseases, wars, natural disasters, rape, murder, etc.) has some connection to moral values or otherwise, you wouldn't be having this debate.
The problem of evil is a false argument

By asking "which God do we pick?" You've already proved the ineffectiveness of the argument for evil. not everyone believes there is one God or that he is omnipotent, omniscient, or that a God exists. The problem of evil argument would not work on Buddhism or Hinduism, it wouldn't even work theism (a belief which states God doesn't act on the world) only on a religion with a monotheistic concept (namely Christianity). Rebuttals: 1. My opponent drifts away to the discussion of God's existence, not on my argument, but i will explain why it doesn't work later. 2. For the sake of the discussion, we will use my belief. 3. I never said there was no argument of evil, but that it isn't a valid argument. 4. "The statement shows that humans don't have the same view of evil as god and therefore proves there is an argument for evil and what it really is. If they knew exactly what it was then the statement "Just because God has the desire to eliminate all evil, doesn't imply that he should eliminate it in the way that we humans want him to". Would be UN-applicable, due to the fact that we would have the exact same understanding of evil and would want god to rid of it the same way god wants to." This assumes that humans and God's will is the same, it isn't. Job never sought to argue with God on his rights to life and a world full of evil. Job is a great man of faithfulness whom after God questioned said this Job 42:1-3 "I know that You can do everything, And that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You. 3 You asked, "Who is this who hides counsel without knowledge?" Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know." Poetically, God was attempting to compare his infinite knowledge of the creation to his causing of evil, but notice that Job did not demand his own human will to be fulfilled, rather he said "Therefore I abhor myself, And repent in dust and ashes." This refutes your claim and demonstrates that humans should submit to the will of God, even though it's not always easy to understand. 5. We already established we're using the Christian concept of faith, whatever concept of evil you introduce (disease, pestilences, robberies, etc.) Job overcame them. 6. In conclusion, there is no contradiction within the character of God.
Social Darwinism is a just theory

Hi Sketchy and thanks for the opportunity to debate. I'm cool with all your rules and definitions and promise to keep Adolf wotsit out of the debate. I would just like to point out that to discuss morality, some sort of moral framework should probably be established first. Guessing you're not a nihilist or monotheistic objectivist but would like to know how you intend to guage morality. If you just want to work off a general consensus of moral subjectivity, that's cool, just let me know. I eagerly await your opening arguments. Thanks.
Social Darwinism is a just theory

Rules:1. If Con starts the argument in the first round, he/she must not use the last round. If Con simply uses the first round for acceptance, they can use their last round.2. BoP is shared.3. Invoking Godwin's Law will result in immediate loss of conduct and argument points.4. If someone uses semantic arguments, the opponent also has the right to use semantics without loss of conduct points.5. If you have any questions about the rules, message me or put it in the comment section. Exploiting loopholes will result in an angry letter filled with anthrax.Definitions:Social Darwinism: The economic philosophy that refers to notions of struggle for existence being used to justify social policies which make no distinction between those able to support themselves and those unable to support themselves. Just: Well-grounded, based on what is morally right or fairIf you would like me to change the rules, extrend the rounds, or put a cap on the voting period, just let me know in a private message or in the comment section. Thank you!
Napoleon Bonaparte's Rule Was More Detrimental Than Beneficial to Europe

Napoleon had a huge impact on Europe throughout his rule socially, economically, and politically. Throughout his rule he consistently betrayed the democratic ideals that came from the revolution. These ideals were Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity but through his desire for power he went against these beliefs. As his power grew he used more people for personal benefit and this led to a huge loss in lives.Napoleon inherited the country with over 75 million francs of debt over his head, and while he improved the taxation systems he threw his country into the Napoleonic wars after which France was driven 1.2 billion francs in debt. This affected not only France but other countries as well. I will be focusing mainly on Britain seeing as they were the main opposition. After the war Britain was 679 million pounds in debt which was double their GDP at the time.Napoleon's impact was one of the most negative only to be followed up by Hitler. During his reign millions of people died. In the Napoleonic wars alone 3.5 million people were killed and over 6 million people died total under his rule. This is easily comparable to the numbers of Jews Hitler killed under his dictatorship.I think it is pretty obvious that, while he did have some positive influence, Napoleon brought a lot of harm to all European nations.
Napoleon Bonaparte's Rule Was More Detrimental Than Beneficial to Europe

I will be arguing that Napoleon Bonaparte's rule did a lot more harm than good to not only France but the entirety of Europe. Round 1 will be for acceptance and for any clarifications if needed. The next round will be headed with the requested clarifications (if any) and then followed by arguments. The remaining rounds will consist of rebuttal and additional arguments. The final round is reserved for any remaining rebuttals and closing statements.