BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The New Testament is Textually Reliable.

The New Testament text that we have is essentially the same as its original authorship. That is, we can be reasonably confident that the text we have is the same as the text that was written by the original author. Definitions: New Testament = 27 Books recognized by the Christian Church Essentially the Same = The content of the text conveys the same message and content as the original author intended Out of Bounds: The truth of what the documents claim. We are not debating the theology of the documents, rather the actual textual reliability of the documents. Translations. Some translations are good, some are bad. Lets not get stuck on a given translation being inaccurate. The first round shall be for accepting the debate. I will make my opening argument in round 2, as will my opponent.
The New Testament is Textually Reliable.

Thank you everyone for taking time to read this. Again, both Con and I urge you to abstain from voting, or to submit a 0 vote. I will be challenging Con to a debate regarding the inner consistency of the New Testament, and would like to invite all of you to participate in that vote. Pro: The New Testament does not contain any inconsistencies or conflicts that change or have significant impact on the meaning of the text. In order to win the debate, Con will need to fulfill one of the following conditions A) The New Testament contains irreconcilable inconsistencies or conflicts in terms of facts or dates. B) The New Testament contains inconsistencies or conflicts that significantly alter the meaning of a given text C) The New Testament contains inconsistencies that invalidate explicit teachings in other portions of the New Testament. Off Limits: This debate is only concerned with the INNER SELF CONSISTENCY of the New Testament. As such the following Out of Bounds topics will be assessed. Science - Con will not be able to argue that because the New Testament contains accounts that are contrary to modern notions of science or philosophy (specifically Miracles), that it is inconsistent. History - Con will not be able to argue that because the New Testament is (I don't believe it is) inconsistent with outside Historical accounts, that it is inconsistent. Other Religious Texts - Con will not be able to argue that because the New Testament is inconsistent with other religious texts from the time that it is inconsistent. This includes but is not limited to Gnostic Texts, Jewish Texts, Roman Religious Texts, Etc. For the sake of this debate, we shall take the New Testament to mean the 27 recognized books contained in the New Testament. Translation Inconsistencies - Con will not be able to argue that because Translation A says something this way, and Translation B says something another way, that the New Testament is inconsistent. For the sake of this Debate we will use the English Standard Version of the Bible which is available at ESVonline.org Other External Inconsistencies: I may be forgetting other topics of external inconsistency, if Con brings these to the discussion, I will hold the burden of proof to show that they are not pertinent to the debate at hand. If Con agrees to the terms of this debate, I will allow him to create the debate. I propose that the debate last 3 rounds. R1Con=Opening Arguments, R1Pro=Opening Arguments, R2Con=Rebuttal/New Argument, R2Pro=Rebuttal/New Argument, R3Con=Rebuttal/Closing Arguments (No New Arguments), R3Pro=Rebuttal/Closing Argument (No New Argument). If you accept this debate, please create the debate and challenge me. I'll allow you to begin with your opening remarks.
The New Testament is Textually Reliable.

However, before we begin we need to clarify the terms of the debate. The points that Con has stated will negate Pro's argument are outside of the scope of this debate. This debate is concerned simply with debating if the text we have is the same text that was written. 1A) Deals with the content of the document, rather than the text itself. My resolution is regarding the transmission of the document rather than the content. If Paul contradicts James (I don't believe he does. .. but that is a different debate) that does not prove that the document has been altered or come to us in a different form than it was original drafted. B) Deals with the consistency of the Author. Again, the original Author's consistency or reliability. C) Deals with the production or compilation method. Once again, the method that the text was crafted does not impact if it does or does not come to us in the form it was originally crafted in. What I am burdened to prove is that the text that we have is essentially the same in form as it was when it was originally written. What Con is burdened to prove in order to achieve victory is that the document that we have (For this argument, the Greek New Testament) has been changed in such way that the text we read is not the same as the text that was written by the original author. If this is different bounds than what Con originally assumed, he is welcome to withdraw and we will do a no-vote tie. Con: Please let me know your decision (if you will continue with the debate as it is described) in round 2.
The New Testament is Textually Reliable.

I accept, and will begin by defining a phrase my opponent neglected. Textual reliability: To be within the scope of the debate, textual reliability will mean that the general content between the leather bounds of the New Testament is of authorship in which we can confidently believe. That being said, I'll make a few observations. 1) The resolution will be negated if CON can either: A. prove that the content of the New Testament (NT from here on out) is inconsistent, B. prove that the authorship of the NT is unreliable, or C. prove that the NT itself is too questionable in terms of compilation to be trusted. 2) PRO's burden is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the NT is textually reliable (disprove 1A, 1B, and 1C as argued by CON). 3) The NT cannot validate itself through its own consistency. E. g. if the NT says in passage 'a' that 'x', and in passage 'b' that 'x', 'a' and 'b' do not reinforce each other and then substantiate the NT. That's all I have for now. Good luck to PRO, and I thank the readers for their time.
Debate Roulette/Random Debate Challenge

I would like to apologize to Mikal, I seem to have be taking too much time on this site for my currently busy schedule. I hereby forfeit this debate and request all voters give Mikal the victory. I simply do not have enough time to debate this topic properly and give it the attention it deserves. Within the next few hours I'll be deactivating my account and will most likely be back in the summer for a short time.I did like this roulette debate idea and I hope he gets a chance to debate someone truly skilled. Best of luck to you in the future.-WhoWouldn't
Debate Roulette/Random Debate Challenge

So this is how this will go. I am going to go to this sitehttp://idebate.org...I will scroll through this list as fast as I possibly can. So fast that there will be no way for me to judge what this lands on. Whatever topic it lands on I am pro, the person whom agrees to take this will be conThere is no way to know what this debate will be about. I will also screenshot me doing this so there is no questions about me doing it fairlyRounds are as followsMeRound 1 : RulesRound 2 : Picking the debate, and posting the resolutionRound 3 : ContentionsRound 4 : Rebuttals, Rebuilding Contentions, Closing statementsAdversary Round 1 : AcknowledgementRound 2 : Acceptance of resolution and first first initial contentions and building pointsRound 3 : Rebuttals , Rebuilding Contentions , Closing statementsRound 4 : Shall type no round as agreed uponRules[1] Failure from my adversary to type "no round as agreed upon" in the last round will result in a full 7 point drop due to him/her having an extra round [2] FFS shall result in the loss of a conduct point, while multiple FFS shall possibly result in a full 7 point drop at the discretion of the judges[3] No trolling or semantics. Serious debate
Rap Battle: Star Wars (Pro) Vs Star Trek (Con)

Well I'm sorry but I'm vomitin' Your rap is flawed and your side is questionable But let's start the show I don't got all day so here we go Star Trek it is so boring And so is the plot Who he hell is this Scotty And beaming him up Don't even get me started on your spaceships I mean it looks so weird what is that shizz Woulden't you prefer the death star or an x-wing Oh and what you sayin' about my plot Rogue one was great Star Wars is still hot And Star Trek yeah it's so old It lived through the ice age must've been cold So good bye Star Trek hello Solo
Rap Battle: Star Wars (Pro) Vs Star Trek (Con)

Excuse me now while I show you a rhyme, I'm taking your Solo a** back in time. 'Cause it's really overdue we get down to business, Stark Trek versus Star Wars? Sit down and take this! What is your plot, some kind of cliche? Haven't seen something so pointless since Y2K. A young boy orphaned -- no mother or father? I saw that done already with the Batman series -- don't even bother! Then Spaceballs came along and ushered your show, It took a while for the rebels to get that Death Star to blow. Then the Empire built it again and again, Leia kissed her brother and turned off all the men. What's up with the timeline? It's pretty bogus, It's really freakin' cryptic and even Mickey Mouse couldn't tell us! Because the only thing good about Star Wars Is it profitable for all those corporate Disney whores! But now I'm done with this turn, I'll hand the mic back, Beam me up Scotty, I dropped a fresh track!
Rap Battle: Star Wars (Pro) Vs Star Trek (Con)

I am Luke Skywalker Sean Hawk is gay Star Trek is underfunded Thats what I'm here to say When you complain about death star or tatooine Your Star Trek guys are just being mean I mean bro let's listen here real closely Your characters suck and your plot is boasted But we all know it's not that way at all so let's drop the act and cut the stall Star Wars is better so goodbye you fool Have a nice day in your Star Trek drool
Should children be able to withdraw themselves from Religious Education.

Children should be allowed to make their own choices when regarding religion. They should not be forced to worship and study a god and have beliefs pushed down their throat by schools. Religion is a choice and as humans we have the choice to believe what we want. So if that statement is true, why do MATURE children not have the choice to pick religion. Religion is completely based on faith so why can't children choose not to study religion completely based on no basis at all (like religion is). I personally think if the child can prove he is mature and write a letter explaining his/her beliefs with evidence to support why they don't want to worship a god and study religion, they shouldn't be forced to. Religion is completely based on nothing so if a child can prove with EVIDENCE that they don't need to study RE then they shouldn't have to. P.S. Super, ultra, mega religious parents don't say to me that "Oh I gave the kid life so I should be able to force him into religion." No you shouldn't. If your parents told you to go kill 420,069 people, would you? Of course you would because they gave you life so they basically own you. OBVIOUSLY NOT! - Stephen
The machine can think.

I agree with your ideas except 'but that is not the ability to think,' 'It cannot move, talk, or do whatever you wanted it to do because' and 'no thinking involved.' Grounding on your opinion, 'robots(machines),' and 'programming' can be replaced by 'human,' 'activity of neuron' like followings. Because human is physical being like robot.(programming is a set of physical actions that is implemented by electrical operations) In the human mind, we can only find the activity of neurons itself. More accurately, a set of physical actions. We can make our choices. [But that does not mean we have the ability to think.] It is the activity of neurons that determine options. The human is nothing without a set of physical actions. [Human cannot move, talk, or do whatever 'others' wanted it to do because] physical forces surrounding and in us tell us what to do with [no thinking involved.] Do you agree with this argument? I agree if I delete phrases in []. Because we know we can think even though we are the physical being. Likewise, we can say some robots will think, although they are the physical being. Of course, that robots must have physical condition of thought like us.
The machine can think.

Alright so some machines are programmed to do what you tell them to. But others (like what your talking about) have the ability of what some people is, the ability to think. What really is going on is still the programming itself. With enough intense programming you can literally make almost anything possible with the robots, but it is still you telling them what to do. Guaranteed some robots have the ability to make choices, but that is not the ability to think, it is just them looking into there programming and pulling out what the programming says would be in there best interest. The robot is nothing without the programming. It cannot move, talk, or do whatever you wanted it to do because the programming tells it what to do with no thinking envolved. Thank You.
age to get a job lowered

"simply because studies show that the average person has more experience" Based of the imaginary study the average person has more experience? Ignoring the basic logic saying that if someone does something they gain experience since, that does not validate giving a job earlier than 16, as I said prior, people who actually need to support their families need the jobs over an age which, while there may be a few cases of people actually working to fully support a family, the main people applying would be kids who simply need some money for the next video game, not the next plate of food. If we allowed for this mentality to begin it could start a downfall, and cause pay to be taken advantage, since you would not be fully experienced to take on a work place. My opponent forfeited, and then created a false statement, need I say more about why the argument itself is flawed in the side to lower?
age to get a job lowered

Well since my opponent forfeited, there truly is no reason to press on. All I will say is people under our current working age can be taken advantage of more than they are already if made legal, and in an area where fathers of families have issues finding jobs sometimes, adding even more kids/teens who most of them would apply to jobs to buy games etc, not the purpose you propose would cause a massive downturn in some families economic statues and influx the current job market Vote me
We should do more to preserve endangered species on the brink of extinction.

Since you are the one making the positive claim here I really have to do no more than refute what you say. In this case, this is simple.Ecosystems and AdaptationsWhile your anecdote on Yellowstone may or may not be true as you did not cite it and as I have looked everywhere for the truth in this and have found none, there are still glaring problems with your arguement. The statement that "the carefully-balanced ecosystem will be mutilated beyond repair should several species of animals become extinct" is just misled. Ecosystems adapt and change to fit new pressures that they come accross, on a special level this is what we call natural selection. Let's say that Panda's were to become extinct. Well since they really have no predators none of the upper levels of the food chain would really be effected. However since Panda's eat huge amounts of bamboo if they were to disappear the amount of bamboo would rise however with humans knowing that there would really be no need to cut back on the harvesting of bamboo now that it's primary consumer was gone human consumption would most likely balance that out. But that of course is only one example. No ecosystem would ever be mutilated beyond repair if one or two species goes extinct, the species within the ecosystem would simply have to adapt to this change in the food chain. YellowstoneI'd like to actually adress the statements in your anecdote directly however. Now while the Beaver population may have decreased in result to the lack of predators for the Elk (Which we still haven't established has actually ever happened.) this actually is not THAT bad of a thing. See the beavers couldn't make dams because of the lack of a certain type of tree, or so you state, but over the next many generations the beavers would have adapted and learned to build dams using over types of wood and other materials. Again this just goes back to my point about ecosystems adapting and changing.Essentially your argument lies on a false premise and some uncited anecdotes. Not too great material for a debate but I digress. Species are meant to die out. That's just the circle of life. Trying to preserve a species past it's prime is just a fools errand as eventually, every beings time comes to an end.http://www.yellowstonenationalpark.com...https://www.worldwildlife.org...https://www.worldwildlife.org... http://www.unccd.int...
We should do more to preserve endangered species on the brink of extinction.

Hello Toxifrost, I look forward to a rewarding debate with you. As the first speaker in this debate, I would like to define the topic as: we should take more measures to preserve endangered species, e.g. the giant panda and the black rhino from being extinct. Moving on, my first argument will be that the carefully-balanced ecosystem will be mutilated beyond repair should several species of animals become extinct. The ecosystem, developed slowly over ons of years, is almost like a china tea set in its fragileness. And even more incredibly, the ecosystem depends on every single species of animals to function smoothly, no matter how trivial a certain species of animals may seem. For example, the grey wolf was the tertiary consumer at Yellow Stone National Park. When it disappeared, the elk population all but exploded and so did their demand for food. They ate over 35% of the willows in Yellow Stone National Park and without willow branches, beavers couldn't make dams and the beaber population decimated. Hunters were hired to shoot the elks but some of them also shot sea otters for their skin, therefore causing a decrease in the number of sea otters. And that was just in Yellow Stone National Park. Imagine if certain species of animals disappeared from the world altogether. Imagine what would happen then. We should do more to preserve animals from extinction.
Resolved: The Reproductive Health Bills should be passed into law in the Philippines.

Debating Info:Standard debating rules/ethics will apply. 72 hours of argumentation, 8K character limit, RFD voting style lasting indefinitely. R1- Acceptance/Opening (No evidence should be introduced yet). R2/R3- Arguments/Rebuttals (The climax of this debate). R4- Closings/Summaries (No new arguments are to be made). Defnitions:Reproductive Health Bill: (Abb. RH Bill)- Are Philippine bills aiming to guarantee universal access to methods and information on birth control and maternal care. [1]Reproductive Health: Similar to sexual health/hygiene. Please refer to [2]Opening: In this debate, I will prove that this bill is important to the Filipino community, as it helps ensure and protect the health and lives of women, especially mothers. It promotes freedom of choice, like families who want to have a small family. It can save babies by preventing abortion, induced ones from unintended and unwanted pregnancies. It prevents sickness, like cancer, AIDS and other diseases, sexual or otherwise. It also gives sexual education to children, positive ones, to ensure and guide them about sexual intercourse and their bad effects. These are some of the arguments I am introducing in this debate, I look forward for your acceptance and reply. Thanks. Sidenote (Readers/Voters >READ<): The sources mention aboved are: [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...Now, since most viewers have no idea on what this is, I recommend they read the article and other sources of information about the RH Bill. I urge them to take their time reading and speculating this debate as it is a contentious debate in our country and we need some feedback from other debaters worldwide.
Free Trade Benefits the United States

Free Trade Increases Innovation and Efficiency The first reason one should support free trade is because open trade with other countries leads to maximized innovation and efficiency in the economy. The reason why there is more innovation in a free market is because businesses are forced to compete against each other on an equal playing field, which means they have to come up with ways to outcompete their competition. This results in businesses and individuals creating and employing new ideas to decrease their expenses (such as replacing a component of a machine with a cheaper material), increase the quality of their goods/services (such as making a food product taste better), and create more efficient methods to create and employ the goods/services (such as making an efficient website to ease purchases of a product). Free Trade Lowers the Cost of Goods and Services One of the best reasons to support free trade is the fact that it lowers the cost of living for everyone. This happens because of the competition that I mentioned above. When companies compete without the distortion of tariffs, they are forced to provide the cheapest price possible in order to remain competitive and generate revenue. For proof, we can look at multiple studies that prove this to be true. One study found that "the results of a panel covering 325 manufacturing industries from 1997 to 2006 show that imports from nine low-wage countries are associated with strong downward pressure on prices. When these nations capture a 1% share of the U.S. sector, the sector's producer prices decrease by 2.35%" (1) The graph below shows how imports effect the US methanol market. (2) Free Trade Leads to Economic Growth The term used to describe the efficiency increases as a result of free trade is called the gains of trade. Below is a graph to help visualize how the gains of trade works.(3) Or another way to look at it, one can analyze how tariffs effect the supply of a product in the graph below.(4) Other Benefits Other benefits of Free trade include: (5) Enhances the domestic competitiveness Takes advantage of international trade technology Increase sales and profits Extend sales potential of the existing products Maintain cost competitiveness in your domestic market Enhance potential for expansion of your business Gains a global market share Reduce dependence on existing markets Stabilize seasonal market fluctuations Sources:1. http://www.sciencedirect.com...;2. http://econweb.tamu.edu...3. http://welkerswikinomics.com...4. https://mrski-apecon-2008.wikispaces.com...5. http://www.economywatch.com...