BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jesus

The subject of the debate is whether Jesus is indeed the son of god. I will be arguing that he is not. My position is that Jesus is not the son of god, and the bible which says that he is, is either: a)inaccurate, or b)not literal. a) inaccurate: The authors had clear motive for writing the bible, as they were trying to start and spread a religion, and the bible was a way of doing so. It may be based on facts but that doesn't mean all contained therein is true. A sample of some inaccuracies in the bible: Luke 1:33 "And he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever", that doesn't seem to be true; I am a Jew, from the house of Jacob. We did not accept Jesus. Rather his disciples made him popular amongst the pagan nations of the world. The house of Jacob rejected him. Contradictions: Mathew 1:17 "from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations." For a total of 28 generations from David to Jesus. Luke 3:23-31. Lists 43 generations from David to Jesus. The location of his appearance: Mathew 28 and mark 16 place it in Galilee, while Luke 24 and john 20 place it in Jerusalem. b)Not literal The reason to assume it is not meant literally is based on a verse in Deuteronomy 14:1: "Ye are the children of the LORD your God" This was said to the entire Jewish nation obviously figurative, so to in the case of Jesus it is probably meant figurative. Not only that but Jesus was a Jew so when the new testament says Jesus was son of god it is probably referring to that very verse I quoted which says Jews are son of god. Furthermore the bible itself indicates Jesus was son of man: Matthew, Chapter 1:"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." It is also interesting to note that in 1:18 it says the Holy Ghost and not simply "the lord" or "god". In Luke as well 1:35 "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee" ... "thee shall be called the Son of God" It is interesting to note that it says "he shall be called", indicating that he wasn't literally son of god. Luke 3:23 ...being the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli... indicates he had a human father. That chapter ends with, "which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." Adam was not literally the son of god. Lastly in the new testament Jesus is referred to as "son of man". On the basis of all this it would seem to me that when it says son of god it is not literal, but rather as in the verse in Deuteronomy 14:1.
A Bill to Improve the Infrastructure of Large Airports

I was hoping you were going to try a little harder... oh well. Why should we invest in airports? Is it because of safety? If that's the case the decision should be made on a marginal improvement rate basis, that is, compare the number of fatalities due to insufficient airport safety we have now to what we could have after the improvements, then divide the cost of improvements by that difference and get a dollar vs. safety improvement ratio. Than compare this to the same ratio for other transportation systems (highway, train, etc.) Without going too deep, and admitting I don't have a detailed statistic in hand, it seems that aviation would offer a very low safety improvement against a brutally high cost. In plain English, a waste of money. I'm pretty sure highway transportation has a much higher potential for lowering significant fatality figures, so even if the cost is not cheap the improvement ratio should be much better. So if safety is not the main driver, could there be a good reason to increase air traffic? While Americans keep a high geographic mobility (we move anywhere for a better job, a romantic relationship or any other reason), personal travel is on the decline. If our kids move out of state, we might visit with them for Thanksgiving or Christmas, but frequent visits are becoming a thing of the past. Air travel is kept alive by business. And a potential increase of business travel is quite impossible to justify -as teleconferencing becomes more and more common, the need to travel for meetings, conferences and the like is less and less justifiable. Of course there is still need for physical work (you can't fix equipment via GoToMeeting) but the overall trend should be for business travel to diminish. The response to air safety is mostly emotional. Every time there is a big accident it makes headlines, media and people ask for more safety and money is thrown -often for meaningless purposes. But on a rational basis, not only air travel should not receive fresh money, it should be left to decline to a lower level, where it already is for other, more sensible countries where people only fly if they have a really good reason.
A Bill to Improve the Infrastructure of Large Airports

A Bill to Improve the Infrastructure of Large Airports 1 : A Large Airport is defined as an airport that 2 : handles Twenty Five Thousand or more passengers per day and 3 : has a customs office. 4 : Infrastructure improvements are defined as: 5 : a. Re-pavement of Controlled Aircraft Movement Areas 6 : b. Updates of computer assisted landing systems 7 : c. Updates of navigation systems 8 : d. Improvement of runway run-off areas 9 : e. and updates to airport lighting systems. 10 : A total of 10 Billion dollars will be put towards the 11 : completion of this program with the option of an additional 12 : 5 Billion Dollars with approval of the Congress. 13 : This program will be overseen by the Federal Aviation 14 : Administration. 15 : This legislation will take effect immediately upon passage. 16 : All laws in conflict with this legislation are hereby null 17 : and void.
It is not rational to believe in God

Ooh, a free round! Thanks, mine's a double :-)I recently worked out how to explain clearly the problem with every "proof of God" that I've heard. Here goes:How do you explain X?A Something simple, natural and demonstrableB Something complex, supernatural with no supporting evidenceX often takes the form of:1. The origin of the universe in the Cosmological Argument2. The origin of life on Earth3. The complexity of life on Earth in the Argument from Design4. The existence of concepts in the Transcendental Argument5. The existence of consciousness6. The existence of morality7. The existence of purposeHow could it ever be rational to opt for a complex, supernatural explanation with no evidence? ESPECIALLY since something simple, supernatural with no evidence must be a preferrable explanation! To do this before ruling out all simple, natural and demonstrable options (especially when some are so accepted by the scientific consensus) cannot be called "rational".So... there is no evidence of any gods and there are no arguments that withstand the slightest scrutiny. How, then, can belief be rational?I'd be interested in precisely what Con's take on how you explain the existence of those 7 things (and why Con thinks so). Any irrationality in Con's viewpoint will be adequately displayed in any answer, I feel sure.
It is not rational to believe in God

Well, I can stamp out that line of attack, for a start... I don't even need to go into specific refutations of the flawed KCA (even with WLC's modifications)... All you could hope to show by that line of [flawed] reasoning is that something supernatural (outside the nature of this universe) caused this universe. Whoop-de-do! You may well have made a good case for deism, but not for theism. We both stipulated that God was a personal god... and that is not something that your precious KCA argument even tries to address... but go look up WLC's arguments... I'm sure there's one in there that does get to the "personal" bit. Oh, by the way... I know all of WLC's arguments and I'll refute any that you care to bring to the table to try to justify your belief in a personal god. Why couldn't it just be a random event in something beyond the universe that caused the universe? I mean, if we're conjuring up explanations in the supernatural for what caused the Universe, wouldn't a random event be more likely than an intelligent force with all the complexity that entails? Occam's Razor seems to rule out the personal god thing... I think that if you want to make a watertight case, the onus in on you to rule out all other possibilities. Bearing in mind that we're dealing with purely hypothetical concepts, at this point, us not having any experience with the supernatural... I don't see how you can rule anything out, let alone all other possibilities. We're simply beyond the realms of the rational at this point. Nothing said about the nature of the supernatural can be said to be based in reason. Oh, here's just ***one*** possible alternative... you need to rule them ***all*** out, by the way.. Another universe very similar to our own formed two supermassive black holes. The two collided, forming our universe. I'm not saying that that's a great idea, or has any scientific backing... but you would have to rule that sort of possibility out before you arrived the highly speculative and improbable "God did it" position.
It is not rational to believe in God

Thanks for accepting. Is it rational to believe in a sentient, intelligent, and benevolent, personage who is the creator and ruler of the universe and the source of all moral authority; the supreme being who wields maximal and great levels of power, given the evidence? Firstly, there really is no evidence at all. If there is no evidence, it follows that any belief must be in excess of what the evidence justifies and that is, almost by definition, irrational. This doesn't mean that anybody is foolish to believe, or that they are wrong to believe... but it does mean that the belief is an irrational one. But here's the real deal-breaker, based on Con's definition: if God is benevolent and maximally powerful, why does he allow palpably evil things to happen when he could intervene to save the torture and death of countless innocents? This is the key problem with Con's definition of God: it makes predictions about what we would expect to see... if the ultimately intelligent, caring and powerful creator-of-everything created, well, everything, then we would not expect to see evil. Thus I contend that quite apart from there not being any evidence for Con's God, there is suggestive evidence against!
It is not rational to believe in God

I ask that any contender accepts the definition of rationality given by Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org... In short, rationality implies the conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons to believe. In other words, for belief in a god to be rational, that belief must be justified by sufficient supporting evidence or reason. Of course, what is sufficient is up for debate... bring it on! - Postscript - As requested (see comments), I will offer a definition of "God"... I suggest simply that God is a personal god in the sense that Wikipedia declares: A personal god is a deity who can be related to as a person instead of as an impersonal force, such as the Absolute, "the All", or the "Ground of Being". http://en.wikipedia.org... And since this now requires the definition of deity, I'll add that too: A deity is a supernatural being. I know that this is not a complete definition of deity but I consider it sufficient (and any stricter definition could only make it harder on my opponent). So, if Con can show that belief in a personal supernatural being is rational, I will concede :) - Post post script - lannan13 has personally messaged me and requested that I define God as the following: God- The sentient, intelligent, and benevolent, personage who is the creator and ruler of the universe and the source of all moral authority; the supreme being who wilds maximal and great levels of power. I am absolutely happy if that is the God that lannan13 wishes to defend the rationality of believing in. I do not think it rational to believe in that god. Indeed, defending the rationality of this definition will be harder than my original definition! Good luck!
Religion can be considered important

Thank you for a great response! It seems my opponents first case rests on the existence of "importance". Anyone outside of a mental ward would agree with me that importance does exist. This is evident by the way we feel. Con in this case is exercising an act on the basis of "importance" by simply arguing against me. He establishes priority, which is a clear indicator of importance, therefore, importance exists. My opponent then took this "importance" clause to a new level. My opponent assumed importance to be real, and then presented an example of this in a Catholic Mass. This theory is false due to the bandwagon fallacy. Just because the majority rules in one scenario, doesn't mean its true. So now that Importance has been established as true, my arguments can carry forth as sound. I will now present another add-on to my original arguments:5. Religion is considered important because it has been defended by the Constitution.
Religion can be considered important

'4. Religion is important to the individual by: a. Something is important if one will guard or share it with others. b. People will defend their religion with their own life. c. Ergo, religion is considered important because people will guard it with their life.' Thank you for your punctual response! I shall continue with my arguments. My opponent said in his opener that religion is considered important because it caused a person to have that mindset, but as stated before, importance and religion itself is an idea, so my opponent would have to prove that importance itself is real, that things can really be 'important.' Again, because you can't prove something is important and importance isn't tangible, you can't prove its existence. For the point my opponent provided in the previous round, they stated that religion is important if you are willing to share it with others. However--if at this point we consider 'importance' a real thing--in most cases things shared are unimportant. Statistics show that less than 50% of Catholics attend weekly Mass, and--again, in this point considering that 'importance' itself IS real--then a majority of people don't care enough to go to Mass, and if going by majority rules, then religion itself isn't important. http://cara.georgetown.edu... People will defend their religion with their life, my opponent states, but if a person is willing to give up his/her life, then his/her life wasn't very 'important.' Who is to say that this person wanted to live any longer? It would be his/her will not to live that was important, not the religion in the matter, or in their mind, it was the idea of religion that was 'important,' not religion itself.
Religion can be considered important

Thank you for accepting! I know we will have a great debate!Your arguments can be summarized simply as "my resolutions are not being fulfilled by religion, but by the mindset that accompanies religion". In this case I should simply say that I agree with the attributes of mindset you presented, however, I should point out that the cause of that mindset is religion. Ergo, religion is considered to be important. If it was not for religion, the individual would not be able to develop such a powerful mindset on life.Since those few premises I presented in round one have been accounted for, I should now present a new premise:4. Religion is important to the individual by:a. Something is important if one will guard or share it with others.b. People will defend their religion with their own life.c. Ergo, religion is considered important because people will guard it with their life.I thank you for your time and attention in this debate! And I look forward to your next argument!
Religion can be considered important

Thank you for suggesting this debate! Best of wishes! Now let us begin. "1. Religion can provide a sense of security 2. Religion can present support 3. Religion gives its followers purpose Ergo, religion can be considered important." Firstly, I will dissect the resolution that is, 'Religion can be considered important.' Can: 'be able to,' 'ability to.' Important: 'Of great significance or value; likely to have a profound effect on success, survival, or well-being.' So, basically, the resolution is that religion is capable of having a profound effect on someone or something. My opponents first contention was that religion can provide a sense of security, but first we must decide whether or not an idea can provide security or if it is the person's perception of a certain idea, religion being considered an idea. Because an idea has no definite or tangible effects, it is impossible to tell what the effects of a said intangible thing are. If one cannot see the effects clearly, one cannot tell if the effects made were important. If you cannot tell if something is important, then it remains unimportant. My opponent said that religion provides support, which is very similar to his first argument. However, support is a state of mind just as security is, and since it is not tangible one cannot know if it is important. Lastly, my opponent said that religion provides purpose. However, it is a person's perception of something and own will that provides purpose. So really, importance is derived from a person's own perception of things, not religion itself. I now await the further arguments of my opponent.
Religion can be considered important

Also, I find the abruptness and subtle insult to my sanity rude. Secondly, I myself am female. Secondly, my opponent states that he has proven the existence of importance, but truly he has not. As I had stated before, if something is intangible, we cannot truly prove its existence, just as we cannot prove the existence of God or religion. My opponent also states that religion is important because it is protected by the Constitution. The Constitution can misrepresent things and though it is a guide to live by, a lot of the time we do not follow it. The Constitution stated that all men were created equal, but African Americans were enslaved for years. So, there was falsity within the consitution, and as anyone avid in math or logic knows, if there is one bit of falsity in something, the whole itself is false.
The God of the Bible is the same in the Old Testament and New Testament

I see that you tried your best to find a match to the anger that the god expressed in the OT somewhere in the NT: "NT: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, Who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. (Romans 1:18) " - Sup3rfruit Unfortunately, This verse is barely effective and descriptive enough to express the same extreme level of anger as we can find all over the Old Testament. For example, Are creatures and animals unrighteous? No, Creatures and animals are innocent. Then where is the good and kindness in destroying all innocent creatures in the world if all you want to punish are the unrighteous humans? This is the kind of extreme and unreasonable anger that the god character in the old testament demonstrated: So God said to Noah, "I have decided to destroy all living creatures, For they have filled the earth with violence. Yes, I will wipe them all out along with the earth! " - Genesis 6:13 Do butterflies and hummingbirds fill the earth with violence? No. . . But the god character in Genesis 6:13 lied about it anyway and destroyed each and every one of them. Since you could not find the same extreme level of anger of the god character from the Old Testament to the New Testament, Then it is clear that the authors of the New Testament did not carry on the extreme level of anger so that they could bring a positive change and a refreshing perception of the old "god of violence and anger" to the new "god of love and mercy". This should be no surprise to anyone since it is known by many that the authors for the Old Testament were Jews of the Judaism religion. While the authors of the New Testament were Christians of the Christian religion. Two groups of authors from two different religions that are not exactly compatible with each others' views and opinions. So in conclusion, The god of the Old Testament is not the same as the god of the New Testament. The god of the Old Testament expressed acts of unreasonable violence, Anger, And jealousy that could not be found anywhere in the New Testament. It was interesting to experience your style of copying and pasting entire articles from other authors regarding the god character created in OT and in the NT. But it would have been great to find out their reaction when they realize that the authors for the Old Testament and the New Testament were from different religions that didn't always share the same opinion of the god they wanted people to worship. It could answer and explain so many questions that they have been pondering on but couldn't figure out for the life of them. In any case, It was a pleasure to have this discussion with you and thanks again for initiating this debate.
The God of the Bible is the same in the Old Testament and New Testament

The god of the bible in the Old Testament and New Testament were written by different authors who had different opinions of what they believed their god should think and act. Here, The god of the bible in the OT regretted that he created the human race: "The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, And his heart was deeply troubled. So the Lord said, "I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created"and with them the animals, The birds and the creatures that move along the ground"for I regret that I have made them. " - Genesis 6:6 And because of such lack of love for the human race that he created, He destroyed them: "And never again will I destroy all living creatures, As I have done. " - Genesis 8:21 The authors for the NT never made such mistake in making their god character destroy all living creatures in the world because he was not satisfied with his own creations. Therefore, The authors for the OT who created their god character versus the authors for the NT who created their god character had different attributes and mentality of what they wanted their god to portray.
Racially-Based Affirmative Action in College Admissions Should be Abolished

This is a third and (hopefully successful) re-post of the previous argument that was spammed. The user has been blocked (all his accounts, and I've set it so that only higher-ranked people can answer), so I'm looking forward to a legitimate debate on a subject I feel strongly about. As a white male college-bound student, the idea of affirmative action in the admissions process has struck me as unfair for quite a while, even before I got to this age. To set something straight though, I'm not at all a racist, and I invite anyone of any race to challenge. I'll just reserve this as an acceptance round, and also the 4th round can only be a rebuttal; no new evidence can be brought up. Anyone who wishes to be my first ever *legitimate* challenger?