BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christians who accept evolution are in error! According to the bible alone!

No I refute your rules pertaining to Genesis as a metaphor! Because it is a parable or a figure of speech. God Himself speaks in parables. Not hermaneutics and exegisis terms. I stand on the fact that according to the bible Christians are in error. Notice what the bible itself says not hermaneutics! Eze_20:49, Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! they say of me, Doth he not speak parables? Mat_13:3, And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow; Mat_13:10, And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? Mat_13:13, Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. Mat_13:34, All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: Mat_13:35, That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world. Mat_13:53, And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence. Mat_21:45, And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. Mat_22:1, And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said, Mar_3:23, And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? Mar_4:2, And he taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine, Mar_4:11, And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: Mar_4:13, And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables? Mar_4:33, And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it. Mar_12:1, And he began to speak unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about it, and digged a place for the winefat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country. Luk_8:10, And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand. I guess, that the truth can not win against rules created to hide the truth of the bible because that is all Christians do. Because Jesus Christ was is a Jew and so was His disciples who kept Jewish customs not Christian lies. But I choose to debate anyway!
Only women can be rape victims

No, this is very much wrong. A woman can rape a man, as can a man rape a woman. This is often overlooked by many, as 'men are tough'. Which is not always the case, if a man says no, it means as much as if I woman were to say no. Plus, society makes it seem like men aren't supposed to speak up and just deal with it, this is NOT true. If anyone says no, it means NO.
Cognitive meta ethical theory is valid

My contentions are as follows: 1. There must be intrinsic values in order for moral statements to be propositions. If all of value is extrinsic, then value is not really a concept, as there is no hypothetical value. Acommon example of good is happiness, but the reason that we supposedly value happiness is because it allows us to live. When we are asked why we want to live, we revert back to the desire for happiness. There is no proof of intrinsic values, ergo values cannot be seen in propositions. 2. There are no satisfactory definitions of good or bad. They both either lead to a circular definition, or are false, as I hope to demonstrate here. Good is positive value which is morally righteous which is good. That's circular, and cycles like that are what make up all related definitions. The only exception to this, is the definitions that deal with desires. Example, "good" may mean desirable, but when we look closely at this in practice, a sociopath's desires would generally not be considered good, despite such a classification. Unto you, pro.
Cognitive meta ethical theory is valid

I will define "metaethical cognitivism" since Con did not do so: "Cognitivism is the meta-ethical view that ethical sentences express propositions and can therefore be true or false" . http://en.wikipedia.org...(ethics) This definition is almost identical to the one given by SEP: "Cognitivism is the denial of non-cognitivism. Thus it holds that moral statements do express beliefs and that they are apt for truth and falsity. " . http://plato.stanford.edu... I take the BOP to be shared. Whichever side provides the better case, on-balance, has won the debate.
Jesus is a mythological figure. Christianity is not for thinking people.

About the walking on water event... Is that not why Jesus is the son of God? Because he performed such amazing feats like that? There is not a shred of evidence around that can possibly prove Jesus was not the son of God on the reasoning of nobody can prove he couldn't do certain things with science because he didn't use science, he used the power of God. You keep saying that it's impossible to do this or that. It isn't impossible for the son of God. Questions for You 1)Do you beleive in God? 2)Why do you refer to me as "my opponent"?
Jesus is a mythological figure. Christianity is not for thinking people.

I believe that it is fair enough to say that I can't prove he exists. I don't think that you can prove he can't though, because you wouldn't find out until you kick the bucket. Here are my return questions to you- 1)Do you have any proof he doesn't exist? 2)Do you have any proof not older than 2500 years that he doesn't exist? 3)Any proof written after you were born?
marijuana legalization

He states that marijuana should be legalized because it's safer than alcohol. In a peer reviewed study of the harm of drugs they found alcohol to be the most harmful. [1] That means following his logic he should support legalization of heroin and crack cocaine too for the same reason that it is less harmful than alcohol. Marijuana should not be legal because of the harmful health effects. Some of the short term effects include distorted perception, loss of coordination, trouble with thinking and problem-solving, and increased heart rate. [2] Some of these effects like distorted perception, and loss of coordination will lead to increased accidents harming more citizens. Also, there would be second hand smoke that would further harm others who don't smoke marijuana. The government classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug, meaning it no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. [3] The government also protects its citizens with immunization mandates, fluoridation of water, iodization of salt, pollution restrictions, and banning of hard drugs. In conclusion, with no accepted medical benefit and many health problems it should continue to be illegal. Marijuana is a gateway drug. According to a study by the Yale University School of Medicine marijuana is linked with an increased likelihood of prescription drug abuse. [4 ] The US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration also have written that "Among lifetime marijuana users reporting their onset after age 20, an estimated 1.1 percent used heroin, 16.4 percent used cocaine, and 20.6 percent used any psychotherapeutics nonmedically in their lifetime. Among persons who had never used marijuana, less than 1 percent had ever used cocaine or heroin, but 5.1 percent had used psychotherapeutics nonmedically. " [5] As shown by well respected sources that marijuana is a gateway drug, it should continue to be illegal. Sources [1] . http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org... [2] . http://alcoholism.about.com... [3] . http://www.justice.gov... [4] . http://www.ctpost.com... [5] . http://www.samhsa.gov...
marijuana legalization

I agree it is impossible to debate someone who is using irrational, non-objective phrases and comments, like a continual use of logical fallacies which you have done twice. When I read the lacking sources comment I did laugh because I am not the one who has made of list of unsourced information. Also, you claimed to find information in sources which it didn't like in round 2 "Also, I want to know where he found that marijuana has "curative/preventative properties for diabetes type II" because not even the word diabetes appears in the article he supposedly got it from." For using "non-objective deductive reasoning" you didn't dispute how it didn't work, so I don't see what is wrong with it. "Using two word responses which have no meaning to specific points" I used one two word response that was "So What?" because you failed to show how that was a problem, so there was a point. As for using "diversionary tactics" see round 2 "How is this not what he considered diversionary. When I follow his logical through on being less harmful than alcohol that is diversionary, but when he follows my logic through that gateway drugs should be banned that is not diversionary. To me this just seems logically inconsistent. I do support smoking and alcohol bans so I am logically consistent." He does the exact same "diversionary tactic" I used. As for living in hypocrisy, you are the one using irrational phrases and comments, and lacking sources. That is the definition of a hypocrite. I would like to point out my opponent never addressed any of my criticism from any round.
marijuana legalization

I do not choose to forfeit the debate, but it is impossible to debate someone who is using irrational, non-objective phrases and comments. My opponent lives an hypocrisy when it comes to posting unrelated to subject statements, lacking sources, using non-objective deductive reasoning, using two word responses which have no meaning to specific points. Obviously my opponent is making yet another attempt at grasping for more diversionary tactics in avoidance to the argument at hand. I will merely wait until we have expended all responses and let others vote for the winner.
Enoch was not raptured but died

Examine the context of this verse. Hebrews 11:5-6 5 "By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: "He could not be found, because God had taken him away." For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. 6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." He was righteous therefore what death did he ultimately escape from? The Second death which is reserved for the unrighteous. Enoch had an intimate relationship with God, but eternal life and the way to heaven can only be found in Jesus Christ.
Enoch was not raptured but died

Hebrews 11:5 "By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death...he pleased God." KJV So your point actually supports my side because here it clearly indicates he never suffered death yet was never found, so that means God took him with Him when he was only 365. Genesis 6:23 "And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:" 24 "And Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him." KJV Genesis makes it even easier to understand. So if you want to abide to scripture this is what scripture says.
Enoch was not raptured but died

"Enoch lived in the pre-flood era. God had heavy communication with Adams lineage. Enoch was bright and his epistle is an amazing read and sheds light on on many questions. Its officialness can be a different debate however. God basically took him to heaven early than most people back then. Also he didn't suffer death and will never return. He is a man that walked with God and was token and no more." You did not support that with Scripture, Hebrews 11 clearly indicates that he died and did not receive the promise, but will receive it when Jesus Christ returns. "What is impossible with men is possible with God." Jesus replied, "The things that are impossible for people are possible for God." Luke 18:27" This is in reference to salvation, not with someone entering heaven before Christ. Luke 18:24-27 "24 And when Jesus saw that he became very sorrowful, He said, "How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God! 25 For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." 26 And those who heard it said, "Who then can be saved?" 27 But He said, "The things which are impossible with men are possible with God."
Enoch was not raptured but died

- John 3:13 "No one has ever gone to heaven and returned. But the Son of Man has come down from heaven." What Bible are we using or at least show the type, it ranges. Enoch has never left He still is with God in Heaven. Worshiping Him. 1. True 2. Irrelevant Enoch lived in the pre-flood era. God had heavy communication with Adams lineage. Enoch was bright and his epistle is an amazing read and sheds light on on many questions. Its officialness can be a different debate however. God basically took him to heaven early than most people back then. Also he didn't suffer death and will never return. He is a man that walked with God and was token and no more. He replied, "What is impossible with men is possible with God." Jesus replied, "The things that are impossible for people are possible for God." Luke 18:27 MKJV Sources: biblehub.com/luke/18-27.htm www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/
The Homesteading principle contradicts Self-ownership

I thank Grape for accepting this and look forward to his view on this. As it is, Grape has already seen version 1.0 of my argument before this debate even began, so it is safe to assume that he has some idea of it's faults. For this reason, I've worked on the argument a bit. Simply put, self-ownership says that each person owns themselves, while homesteading says that a person owns anything that they make/put labor into, assuming that it is unowned prior to their work. Those are simple summaries of them, I put more complete definitions in the OP. So this means that there is a natural contridiction in the case where you make someone. Or more accurately, if you make their body before they become a person. In order for this contridiction to really matter, this contridiction must exist in the real world, not just in hypothetical imagination land. But thankfully (for my side of the argument, at least I hope so, we'll see after Grape's counter) this does happen in the real world. All the time. And to every single living person. During pregnancy, a baby body is created within the mother's womb. Now, based on the definition of human (or as I recently discovered, many libertarians call "personhood," either way, it is the state of qualifying for rights), the body is created long before the baby classifies as human, and so there is no self-ownership at that time for the baby. Since the body is not owned by the baby, that means that whoever does labor on it (ironic choice of words) is the legal owner as far as the homesteading principle is concerned. That means that the mother know owns it, since her body (which is part of her "self-ownership") is working and laboring to create that baby body. Now, at some point, that baby crosses into the "human" or "personhood" club. Where the line difference is doesn't matter, even if it is at some point outside of the womb. When the baby crosses into the personhood club, they achieve self ownership. So their body is owned by themselves, however, the body is already owned by the mother. Ergo, the contridiction. To say that the mother no longer owns the baby's body, is to say that her property was taken from her (it was hers, now it isn't, by no choice of her own) and a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. I will leave this at this, that way my opponent has plenty of room to quote my argument and put his own (I hate it when you use 2/3's of your characters just quoting your opponent and so can't present your own argument). Thank you,
The Homesteading principle contradicts Self-ownership

Thanks to OreEle for offering this debate on libertarian political theory, which has become a much discussed topic on DDO. I am not going to make any arguments in the first round of this debate because he has not yet explained where he believes there is a contradiction and I cannot anticipate his arguments. I will be defending the idea that self-ownership and the homesteading principle can simultaneously be true without contradiction.While I will abide by the rules and not challenge OreEle's definitions, which I find fair and acceptable, I will note that multiple interpretations of the definitions may be possible without seriously distorting their original meanings. Voters should side with whatever interpretation is more reasonable and consistent with a) the libertarian theory from which the definitions are drawn and b) common sense. I could ridiculously play with the meaning of words like "jurisdiction" and "property" and make the debate about semantics, but the purpose of the debate is to discuss political theory.I will also note that abandonment is not the only way someone may relinquish ownership of their property. Property may be given away or contracted to another individual. So if Pro's argument involves the transfer of property, we must keep these distinctions in mind.Throughout this debate, I will primarily look to the following three works for clarification and explanation of what is meant by the libertarian position: The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard, and A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism: Economics, Politics, and Ethics and The Economics and Ethics of Private Property: Studies in Political Economy and Philosophy by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. As the theories of self-ownership and homesteading are laid out in these works, I can conceive of no instance in which a contradiction would occur.Best of luck to my opponent. I look forward to seeing what his objection is.
The Homesteading principle contradicts Self-ownership

Additional definitions may be provided by them in their round, if they wish to define other words and such, but they cannot dispute these definitions. Human [1] - "A rational animal. " This article refers to humans as "man" though it should be clear that it is talking about "mankind" not just the "males" of the human race. This is used to distinguish human rights (and so what qualifies for those rights). We can see more arguments here for human rights [2]. Self-ownership [3] - ". .. absolute jurisdiction over one's own body. " - Rothbard (summarized, he says "his" instead of "one's"). Homestead Principle [4] - "The way that unowned property gets into private ownership is by the principle that this property justly belongs to the person who finds, occupies, and transforms it by his labor. " -Rothband. This often just shortened to the first person the works or labors an un-owned piece of property, since "occupies" does not apply to all forms of property. If I'm a logger, I don't need to "occupy" a tree, merely find it, cut it down, and I am the owner (assuming it was un-owned to begin with). Abandonment - "Abandoned personal property is that to which the owner has voluntarily relinquished all right, title, claim and possession, with the intention of terminating his ownership, but without vesting ownership in any other person, and without the intention of reclaiming any future rights therein. " [5] This is the legal definition in regards to abandonment of property. Since this debate is about owning property, that is the definition which seems most fit, as there is not a solid libertarian definition on this. Contradict: To be contrary to; be inconsistent with. I thank whoever accepts this debate. They are free to start in R1, or pass and let me start in R2. [1] . http://aynrandlexicon.com... [2] . http://mises.org... [3] . http://mises.org... [4] . http://murrayrothbard.com... [5] . http://definitions.uslegal.com...
The Homesteading principle contradicts Self-ownership

I will keep my final round short. C1: A Challenge on Ownership. My opponent states, "When a child is conceived, it is not the product of anyone's will, it is not anyone's idea, and it does not require anyone's skills and knowledge to exist. It is simply the result of a natural process that is ultimately outside anyone's control. One does not decide to start or stop being pregnant and no skills, ideas, or effort is required to move the process along. " Parents often preform actions with the direct intent of having a baby. And the mother often takes direct action to make sure the baby develops healthy, such as taking pre-natal vitamins. This is no different from farming. A farmer is free to planet his seeds, and put effort into helping it grow. He cannot directly make a planet grow, but he can take known steps to improve its success, exactly like a mother can. "Describing sex as a constructive act to create a child clearly cannot work. Is anything being created at all or does anything go on that is remotely connected to the physical construction of a human being? That fact that it is possible to have sex without thinking of the possibility of pregnancy (I hope I don't need a source for this) indicates that no constructive act is really occurring. " It is no different than a farmer planting a seed. Whether the seed is planted intentionally, with the hopes of growing a crop (like parents having sex with the intent of getting pregnant), or whether it is from him tossing an apply core that he finished eating onto the ground (accidental pregnancy). The fact that it is one can accidently have sex does not change that it is the initiating process of pregnancy. C2: Resolving the Issue of Child Ownership. Parents "could" do that. Parents could also simple willingly give the ownership rights back to their children, and avoid the contradiction. But that is merely a possibility, while parents also could simply "not" do that. While different system may not be incompatible with state, they are incompatible with Self-ownership and the NAP. If I own my property, no one is allowed to force me to use it in a particular way, unless my way is violating their rights. We see this argument all the time with "taxes = theft" arguments. "The fetus is the entity that creates itself in this scenario. " This is entirely false. The egg of which started it, was created by the mother. The Placenta, which delivers all the nutrients, is created by the mother. The mother's body gives the baby all it's food for growth. TIME.