BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The bible plainly states( pun intended) that the earth is a stationary plane.

Premise I: Burden of Prove.As Pro brought this up, I feel justified in exploring it. Burden of Prove is on Pro, and what he needs to prove isn't that the bible, in some odd interpretation, states that the Earth is stationary... He must prove that it plainly, blatantly, states this.plain (plān)adj. plain·er, plain·est1. Free from obstructions; open; clear: in plain view.2. Obvious to the perception or mind; evident:Therefore, Pro MUST show text that is clearly states the Earth is stationary. So far, all of his examples require alternative definitions and unique interpretations to find such a meaning. Saying "All four corners" wouldn't work, as the 'plain' meaning, the easy one that anyone would think first, means "everywhere." If Pro shows text saying "The Earth is stationary," he might have a case.Pro must show that, without much question or separate interpretation, the Bible is specifically saying the Earth is stationary.This IS a debate about how literal the text is, as this is too relevant to what the Bible says. If I can prove that there are more likelier interpretations, Pro fails to meet his BOP. Since Pro brought the topic up...Rebuttal I: Bibilical Text.Pro's text from 2 Thessalonians is silly. The text is about anti-christs... People passing on false religious teaching, not flat-Earth teachings. Remember that the Round Earth was the main believe 300+ years before Christ (which is 20-60 years before the writing of Thessalonians.(1)) And the Israelite's believed in a round Earth (2). So if the text was referring to people misleading us on the Earth's shape, it would be about flat-earthers. Not NASA. Otherwise, this text is pointless.Pro's first two text again refers to the phrase "Four corners of the Earth." Let's review the Definitions since Pro isn't getting this simple fact:Four Corners of the Earth: "All parts of the Earth." (3)The words are not a perfect translation. The words "four corners" is translated from the ancient Hebrew word Kanaph, meaning extremities. So the text, translating Kanaph as 'four corners', refers to the extremities of the Earth, not the literal edges. Again, referring back to the meaning of the words "four corners of the Earth."Regarding Job 11:9, the "length" of the Earth is easy to interpret... The circumference. This isn't hard to find. More importantly, it's a phrase using the size of the Earth to explain that something is huge...The "ends of the Earth" literally means the same as the "four corners of the Earth."The rest of the text doesn't seem to refer to any shape of the Earth. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://stevenmcollins.com...[3] http://www.phrases.org.uk...Conclusion:Pros text has obvious meanings that refer to the 'extremities' of the Earth, not the shape of it. His text often lacks context, and in some cases, leaves out adjacent text to the point of lying about the meaning of the text.
The bible plainly states( pun intended) that the earth is a stationary plane.

Rebuttal I: Biblical TextPro blatantly misinterprets my argument. There are two types of text in the Bible. While it's all what God wanted included in the Bible, that does not make it all God's will. Take a part of the bible when the Israelites were enslaved in Babylon. The text showed them singing to the death of the Babylonians, and of revenge. All "the word of God," but only to describe, and not prescribe, meaning. It described how they felt of the Babylonians and of their situation, and not what God felt. This was descriptive text.The existence of Prescriptive text v Descriptive text is an objective truism. It is not up for debate that these two text exist. Or that, if literal, the examples Pro gave were descriptive... The opinion of those who believed in God, and not the opinion of God himself. However, I showed that they were not literal in meaning... That being "immovable" wasn't referencing actual movement. And that being "immovable" doesn't imply it isn't already moving.Rebuttal II: Second Biblical Texts.Pro's examples now are gravely unrelated to his theory. The waters 'under' and 'above' the firmament refers to underground water and ocean water. That aside, Pro's case makes no sense. The text in no way seems to refer to any formation the Earth exists in. A sphere has an up, down, under and above area... Caves are 'under' the Earth, and clouds are "upon"... This isn't proof of a flat Earth, nor does it imply a Earth of any shape.Pro's next text is silly. The tree isn't an actual tree that you could see from everywhere. It's an analogy. The text is literally about Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, and not but a few lines after Pro's text, Daniel interprets the dream... The Tree represented Nebuchadnezzar (1). As for Job 38:13, the term "ends of the Earth" means all areas... All extremities. This is one of the first figurative phrases we learn as children... Tracking someone down to the ends of the Earth, for example, means tracking them across all of it. [1] http://www.biblestudytools.com...Conclusion: Pro seems to ignore obvious figurative language, and even takes a dream/analogy and tries to convince the voters it's literal... Lying to them. As that is the only thing his actions can be considered... Taking the dream, and purposefully leaving out the interpretation found just a sentence later in the text, to knowingly lie to the voters about what it means. That, or he failed to actually read the full text before quoting part of it.His arguments fall short of the most basic laws of writing and interpretation.
Resolved: The benefits of domestic surveillance by the NSA outweigh the harms.

We the people, of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, and ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense..." There it is, in the preamble of the constitution, the document our founding fathers fought for, lived for, and died for, a perfect illustration of why Domestic Surveillance is necessary and why the benefits, fulfilling the principles stated, and protecting American lives, clearly outweighs the harms. The first sentence of this document states that our government has the responsibilities of providing for our defense and ensuring domestic tranquility. With constant terrorist attacks, and the lack of information leading up to them, basically the absence of the NSA, the government is nowhere near fulfilling the requirements of the Constitution thus causing extreme harm to our nation. Domestic surveillance by the NSA is just one of many aspects the government has put in place to follow through with the principals created by our founding fathers. First, allow me to define domestic surveillance. According to the Webster"s Dictionary- domestic means of, relating to, or originating within a country and especially one's own country and surveillance means close watch kept over someone or something. So domestic surveillance is close watch kept over something by one"s own country. According to the NSA, their primary role is to collect information through various legal procedures, including PRISIM which was authorized by FISA Section 702 in 2008, according to Dr. James Jay Carafano. My opponent may say that this is a clear violation of amendment four, but in fact is not. Procedures are in place so that FISA warrants are granted to obtain information in a completely legal and Constitutional abiding means. Now, please allow me to explain why there is utterly no harm of what the NSA is doing. Simply collecting and scanning information has absolutely no impact on human lives. Those citizens who are not involved in any terrorist activity should have no concerns as it will not impact them. A direct quote from President Obama, "Our intelligence professionals must be able to find out who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying, and what they're planning," "The lives of countless Americans depend on our ability to monitor these communications." This means, that the benefit, is upon our ability to view these communications and legally intercept and prevent the potential attack. The benefits of the legal surveillance, prevent potential terrorist attacks, save countless lives, provide for the common defense and ensure domestic tranquility. So as you can see, the completely legal domestic surveillance, not spying, by the NSA, provides very little, if any at all harm to Americans, but provides numerous benefits of saved lives, increase in national security, and peace of mind for citizens in a completely lawful, safe way that has virtually no harm to American lives, ideals, or principles in any way, shape or form.
The Bible Says Homosexuals Live an Acceptable Lifestyle

Given that I tried to accept your previous debate on this subject, and was beaten to it by seconds, I thought I would challenge you to a debate on this topic, being it is one I enjoy debating. Now to the meat of the subject. I believe that the Bible has a lot to say about the behavior of homosexuals, and I also blieve that none of what it has to say is said in a positive manner. The Old, as well as the New Testament has a good deal to say against the behavior of homosexuals, however, in this argument I will stick with the Old Testament, and then address the New Testament in later arguments. LEVITICUS 18:22--- " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.'" LEVITICUS 20:13--- " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.'" This says in no obscure terms that God detests homosexuality, and that in the Old Testament it was punishable by death. The Old Testament is not credible? Well, Jesus says himself that He did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Matthew 5:17--- "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." If Jesus did not come to abolish the law, then it must still be credible, don't you think? One more passage before I await your response... GENESIS 29:4-11--- "4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men (These men are said to be angels in earlier verses) who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." 6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof." 9 "Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door. 10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door." The men who were attempting to sodomize Lots guests were struck bling for their attempts, and last I checked, blindness is not a gift that is generally affiliated with good things. Obviously blindness was a punishment to the men for attempting sometghing so vile. I eagerly await your reply! Thanks! Renzzy
this argument proves that people cant travel back in time

Unfortunately, I have come to the understanding that my opponent is not using any scientific facts or reasoning for a question that is essentially pure science based. Although I feel that I have portrayed my side correctly, my opponent will never see things from my point of view. The point of an argument is to view all sides, choose one and state the ways in which the other(s) is(are) wrong. I at least hope that those who view and/r choose to vote on this argument are able to understand both perspectives and determine for themselves what is most likely. To the instigator: Induced, the true hole in your logic is the inability to understand another's logic.
this argument proves that people cant travel back in time

time being different wouldnt cause a hole in my logiclet's say i said this:1. if roses are red, then time exists2. roses are redconclusion: time existsif premises 1 and 2 were true, then the conclusion would have to true, regardless of what the nature of time is. time is just a variable. you could replace it with X, and the logic would be valid. defining the variable wont falsify the logic. this is what that would look like:P1. Bob's son is named FryP2. Fry did XP3. because of X, fry was able to never be bornif you knew that a contradiction could happen if Fry were able to do X, then you would have to conclude that X is impossible. it doesnt matter what X is. if X is the source of the contradiction, then it is impossible, regardless of what the nature of it is. Con has failed to understand this. if there is a hole in my logic, Con hasnt found it.
this argument proves that people cant travel back in time

As you stated in the first argument, I am not here to prove that time travel is possible. I am here to prove that the way in which you "disproved" time travel is not correct. "CONs goal is to find an irreconcilable logical hole in my argument." Whether or not the theory is correct, it disproves your argument. When you stated your original scenario, your conclusion was based on THEORY about the space-time continuum. Thus, an answer using THEORY about the space-time continuum would effectively prove or disprove your argument. When I said that anything is possible, I meant that anything is LOGICALLY possible. Special relativity has more or less been proven [1]. As I stated in my previous argument, scenario is entirely possible based on MULTIPLE theories. Just because you feel you can prove that time travel is not possible under a specific theory's frame of reference doesn't mean it is holistically impossible. We have no way to prove that any of the a fore mentioned theories are wrong or right. My goal, as you stated. is to say that your argument is not guaranteed, which I feel has been done. [1] http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu...
this argument proves that people cant travel back in time

"do P3, P2 and P1 refer to the Persona series of video games?"no, i dont know what youre talking aboutanyway, you said "It is wrong to assume that some part of the scenario NEEDS to be logically impossible."it sounds like you agree that part of my scenario is probably false, but you just disagree that part of the scenario must be impossible? this is a good point to bring up, and i will try to explain why it's not an assumption. let me illustrate by using an example: i consider being a married bachelor to be impossible, rather than something that is possible, but just hasnt happened or wont happen. saying it's possible means that you think a contradiction could be true, but speaking logically, it is impossible. it's not just false to say Bob is a married bachelor, it is impossible that anyone is a married bachelor.now let me put it this way; let us assume for now that backwards time travel is possible. if so, then P1, P2, and P3 would all be able to occur, which means that a contradiction would be true if and when those things happened. but that would contradict logic. doesnt that mean that some part of it is impossible?all the other points you made are arguments for the possibility of backwards time travel. but first of all, they are only theories and dont prove conclusively that you can travel back in time, and secondly, they don't refute my logic. indeed, i dont know everything about how time and space work, but if my argument is valid and sound, then my conclusion must be true, regardless of anything else
this argument proves that people cant travel back in time

i believe that the argument below is proof that people cant travel back in time. CONs goal is to find an irreconcilable logical hole in my argument. give your rebuttals in the 1st round. state every point that you would disagree with and why.===========================================consider this scenario:P1. Bob's son is named FryP2. Fry traveled back in timeP3. Fry killed Bob, resulting in Bob never having a sonbased on P3, Bob never has a son, but according to P1, Bob did have a son. this is a contradiction, so at least one part of the scenario must be logically impossible. let's go through them: is it logically impossible to have a child? no. is it logically impossible to kill someone? no. is it logically impossible to not be a parent? no. is it logically impossible to travel back in time? MAYBE. Given that one part of the scenario must be logically impossible, and the only part that might be logically impossible is backwards time travel, then backwards time travel must be logically impossible.
Screens make us feel more isolated than we really are.

My opponent holds the burden to prove that screens make us more Isolated As my opponent offers no definitions, for screens or isolation, I will offer my own, Screen a flat panel or area on an electronic device such as a television, computer, or smartphone, on which images and data are displayed. Isolation 4. (Sociology) a lack of contact between persons, groups, or whole societies http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Instead I argue that screen give us more ways to communicate.
Timespace Itself Is Energy

. Language is gamma code information. Body language is beta code information. And, matter itself is alpha code information. These definitions are in "Living Systems" by James Miller. . The nonconducting neuron walls hold the sodium charges. Without sodium we would have no consciousness. The little doors of the cells release excess sodium. When these little doors fail to release enough sodium you have bipolar manic depressive disease. That was revealed in Scientific American about fifteen years ago. . Last year Discover Magazine revealed that the magnetic fluxes of the iron of the cytochromes of every cell, that open and close the little doors of the cells, are counterclockwise in males, and, clockwise in females. They were explaining the cause of a sense of direction in that article. . The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that in a closed system, and the universe is considered a closed system, entropy always increases. . At the event horizon of a Black Hole the value of pi is 2. As you approach a Black Hole the value of pi descends from 3.14159265... gradually down to 2 at the event horizon. Inside a Black Hole, the value of pi descends from 2 at the event horizon, gradually down to 0 at the singularity. This has been printed several times in both Scientific American Magazine and Discover Magazine. . The probability timelines, in the Twentieth Century were discovered by Dr. Hugh Everett, and mentioned by Dr. Max Tegmark in his May 2003 Scientific American Magazine article "The Multiverse", where he said that every possibility, having its own timeline, even shows on TV, and movies, etc., are reality on other timelines.
Timespace Itself Is Energy

From what I have observed so far of your debates, you seem to be arguing on the topic of metaphysics, physics, entropy, dimensions, philosophy and religion. You are however making links that are completely irrelevant, some of your facts are true, but very few.You say that you were captured by the military and given a clockwork orange treatment, this is highly unlikely and completely against what the military would truly do to you if you were to posses secrets.On to the debate at hand. You claim that because you must travel further through space to exert a higher pressure, you are utilising the "energy" of space time. This is incorrect, the same quantity of energy is used, you merely have an inversely proportional force to distance ratio. Read here for more information on lever mechanics:https://en.wikipedia.org...Light is not omnipotent as light is not, omnipotence would require a purpose, something not possible as light does not have will. Incorrect, energy is measured in joules, watt seconds, a single photon may carry less energy than a lower frequency photon. As for the progression of time and nature of consciousness, these are unanswerable, we suspect that the arrow of time, both observed and causal is due to increase of entropy. Consciousness is not understood and never will be. Whether God exists is also speculation, I would argue that God exists as he may not be explained by science, consciousness may not be explained by science, therefore something other than science is required for occurrence. Whether God is omni-anything is questionable, I believe that he does not interfere, we certainly do not observe a God interfering.I wish for you to acknowledge my post, please reply directly, as from what I have observed in your other arguments you do not acknowledge others messages, rather continue on your narrow view.
Timespace Itself Is Energy

Light omnipotent? Energy is measured in units of light: photons. Timespace is also energy. If I take a lever and put it so that 10% of the lever is under an object to be lifted, by pushing down 100 pounds pressure on the end of the 90% of the lever, I will be applying 1000 pounds pressure up at the 10% end. That is the law of the lever. But, I have to span 90% more timespace to do this. I am using the energy of timespace itself this way. So, timespace itself is energy. The infinitude of energy itself is eternally in the past and eternally in the future. Differentiation causes consciousness. Being differentiated by the circuits of itself in itself energy is eternally conscious. In actuality, God is talking to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, here now reading your mind, and fulfilling the Last Judgment, in the eternal now. God is totally aware of the tiniest fluctuations of the tiniest subatomic particles, and unlimited largnesses of clusters of what we call universes in the multiverse. In God's infinite dimensions every possibility is on their resonant timelines. Throughout the infinite multiverse everything is already done for God. That is omnipotence, omniscience, and, omni-everything.
Timespace Itself Is Energy

I apologise for my previous incivility, I was frustrated because you would not acknowledge my argument. Very impressive IQ, I doubt I have one over two hundred though! I concede, you have made excellent arguments and have given much thought provoking material. As we are arguing over meta-physics and the fundamental nature of reality, this argument may be hard to judge, after reading your arguments my views have been changed. I have no where near as much information as you do, despite being unable to find references on the Internet of your claims, I realise now that not everything is available on it. I have grown up solely with the Internet and am prone to this misjudgement. My thanks for your compelling arguments, Lavaguava
Timespace Itself Is Energy

Wow, you're the fourteen year old boy. You're very smart. I presumed that you were my 43 year old opponent. I had an IQ of 164 when I was 9 years old. You must have an IQ over 200. But, try googling anything you don't understand. These things I have written are not beliefs. I have used them as sure as I opened a can of tuna fish for lunch.