BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion Is Murder!

First, I must point out the obvious and immediate contradiction in your short argument.You open saying that you consider "anything with a human brain and heart" to be living. Just a few sentences later, you say that "we all agree lobsters are living things." There is also a lack of substantiation here. You claim, with no backup, that "lobsters don't feel main when boiled alive" yet the scientific community is largely divided on this point. See below:"No one knows if lobsters feel pain, which makes boiling them alive rather complicated." - Popular Science"We can't prove pain in any animal species." - Dr. Robert Elwood"Do lobsters feel pain? Switzerland says yes." - Seattle TimesSince your only piece of actual argument besides restating your initial question in a vacuous sense (which is what you're doing when you say "killing is murder) is the lobster analogy, let's pursue that. As of March 1st, 2018, some countries in Europe are mandating that lobsters be knocked out - either by electric shock or "mechanical destruction" of the brain - before they're boiled. This legislation came as the result of a great deal of scientific research by people far smarter than you or me. If you feel that the fact that we boil lobsters is proof that abortion is murder, surely the fact that the government sanctions said boiling once the lobster is effectively numb in all senses of the term must be "proof" of the fact that completing an abortion once a fetus was anesthetized would not be "murder."Let me also address this definition you provided regarding the brain and heart. There are many creatures, including some humans, who have lived many years without brains. By definition, it is clearly not a precondition that one have a brain in order to be considered "living". Therefore, though for you anything with a human brain and heart counts as a living thing, the majority of the respected scientific community does not believe that one have a brain in order to be alive.For the sake of argument, however, let's assume that anything "with a human brain and heart counts as life." The heart and brain do not begin to form until the 4-6 week mark of pregnancy (Mayo Clinic, et. al.). Based on your discussion, I have to assume that you are 100% okay with completing abortions before the 4-week mark.Allow me to lay this out using formal logic, starting with your argument:1. Anything with a human brain and heart counts as life.2. Killing a life is murder.3. So killing anything with a human brain and heart is murder. (1, 2)4. Fetuses do not develop hearts or brains until at least the 4-week mark.5. So, fetuses do not constitute life before the 4-week mark (1, 4).6. Since life is a prerequisite for murder (2) and fetuses, before a certain point don't constitute life (5), completing an abortion before the 4-week mark is not murder.QEDIf you are willing to change your position to, "Abortion is murder only after the 4-week mark in pregnancy," we can continue the discourse. I suspect, however, that this will not be a concession you'd like to make.
Abortion Is Murder!

1.There are a number of reasons why abortion, at various points along the gestation timeline, should and can not be considered murder: 2.Ample medical evidence has shown that fetuses cannot live unsupported, even with respirators, prior to 21 weeks3.Even more medical evidence has shown that a fetus cannot feel anything like pain because they do not yet have the brain connections to do so prior to at least 24 weeks4.Many pro-life advocates allege that every fertilized egg is a human, despite the fact that most of them do not actually make it to birth “There has been no concerted anti-abortion effort to demand research funding into why all of these fertilized eggs die, or to find a cure. Perhaps that’s because even the most active anti-abortion advocates know the truth is that a fertilized egg is not the same as a three-year-old, and they do not genuinely believe that it has the same right to life.” - Jill Filipovic, lawyer and author of The H-Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness 5.Often times, abortions are almost the antithesis of murder in that a being whose life and conscious status is debatable is being sacrificed for the livelihood and survival of the mother"A fetus poses a risk to a woman, purely because she has to use her body to incubate it. And in America, she has to do so in a country with the worst rate of maternal deaths in the developed world."6.If a person is not allowed to live inside one's house without their consent, why should a person (if we are calling fetuses persons) be allowed to live inside one's body without their consent. Here are some topical quotes stated by people ranging from politicians to comedians to scientists: “No woman can call herself free who does not control her own body.” - Margret Sanger “How come when it’s us, it’s an abortion, and when it’s a chicken, it’s an omelette?” - George Carlin “I cannot understand anti-abortion arguments that centre on the sanctity of life. As a species we've fairly comprehensively demonstrated that we don't believe in the sanctity of life. The shrugging acceptance of war, famine, epidemic, pain and life-long poverty shows us that, whatever we tell ourselves, we've made only the most feeble of efforts to really treat human life as sacred.” - Caitlin Moran "No woman wants an abortion as she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg." - Frederica Mathewes-Green “If you are against abortions, don't have one.” - Scott Andrews Excited to hear your thoughts!
The Bible contains historical inaccuracies

The simple fact is this: My opponent has interpreted this passage in a very specific way, and a way that a large portion of Christian scholars disagree with. He then goes on to shift the meaning to "a whol damn lot of people all spoke the same language" which is very different than what he originally asserted. Ultimately, my argument has not been refuted in this regard. This narrative is only historically inaccurate, if it was intending to be history. No one with a shred of reason will say that accounts of Paul Bunyan creating the Grand Canyon by dragging his axe through the Arizona desert is ahistorical. .. because it is not intended to be historical. In order to prove that this contradicts history, my opponent MUST prove that this is attempting to make a historical statement, which he has not done. The next contention is rather simple. I have shown irrefutable evidence that the author of Genesis is known to skip generations if they are insignificant (The example of Laban and Nahor). My opponent claims that in order to assert this that the list MUST include why the person is significant in order to assert that this is the case. .. however, in the case of Laban and Nahor, there is no such indication of the person's significance. Furthermore, I have shown that other Hebrew writers skip generations, and my opponent has not refuted this other than to say "no it isn't. " Unless my opponent can fulfill his burden of proof and reliably prove that this is a direct genealogy vs one with skipped generations, he cannot prove that this establishes a timeline or dating for the Tower of Babel. Without establishing WHEN in history this story occured, it is impossible to know if it contradicts history. Single Day CreationMy opponent again believes that "no it doesn't" serves to fulfill his burden of proof. A large portion of evangelical scholars, both Old and New Testament scholars, would argue that Genesis does not indicate a single day creation of the earth. Even a literal reading does not indicate that the whole world was created in a single day. "Mass DeathsMy opponent gave no response to my rebuttal. I must assume therefore that he is conceeding that point. Final ThoughtsMy opponent accuses me of using very few sources, however this debate is about what the Bible says, and therefore no source outside the Bible is required. Furthermore, my opponent says that my logic is faulty, but has done nothing to show how. I on the other hand have shown that each of the historical contradictions my opponent attempts to level are not necessitated by the text itself, rather by my opponent's specific understanding and interpretation of the text. My opponent has provided no credentials to indicate why his interpretation holds weight, nor has he shown anyone of significance that says that these are the only possible interpretations. I on the other hand hold a Bachelor of Arts in Biblical Studies (BA Biblical and Theological Studies: Bethel University, Minneapolis St Paul - www. bethel. edu), and a simple google search will reveal that my proposed interpretations are held by various scholars and Christians. Thank you.
The Bible contains historical inaccuracies

The world speaking in one language. My opponent seems to think that you can simply believe any interpretation of the text that you want and that makes it infallible. Scholars can read and twist it however they to try to side step the blatant inaccuracies, but the text is written. It says, "Now the whole earth had one language and the same words." That is not a metaphorical statement, nor more than saying, "My car gets 20 miles to the gallon," is a metaphorical statement. If anything, it is a hyperbole, an exaggeration. What they meant was that a whole damn lot of people all spoke the same language and got together to build a tower and so on. However, being a hyperbole does not excuse the fact that it is still historically inaccurate. As shown and unrefuted, the European world at the time had many different languages. And that is just Europe. The other contention my opponent tries to make is to suggest that the genealogy is only referring to significant ancestors, rather than every single one. This is easily refuted because it does not refer to any of the significant things that they've done, it is merely a list. If they were only counting the significant members, they would also mention why they were significant, at least once. Afterwards, they wouldn't need to repeat it. Since nothing significant is mentioned, logically, they listed everyone, including the insignificant. Single day creation. I wasn't aware that my opponent needed basic science links for the formation of planets. http://www.cfa.harvard.edu... That should do. As for the problem of the literal day, there is no problem at as. The bible starts in listing events chronologically with date stamps, but later switches to simply listing events as they happen. Dates are omitted because they are not important later on. Much like in studying ww2 history, one my say, "On June 6th of 1944, American, British, and Canadian forces landed on the beaches of Normandy. They fought up the beaches and into the small towns. From there they began pushing south and turned East to attack Germany…" That doesn't mean that all of that happened on June 6th. It merely means that June 6th was a significant date and the rest were significant events, but their dates were not. There is no reason to believe that the 7th day has not ended, since afterwards, god did do work, like in Egypt and what nots. There is just simply no reason to say "on the first day" unless that is what was meant. The bible could have easily said "First, god created the Heavens and the Earth, then…" that would have been normal by their language at the time the bible was slapped together. So far, my opponent's only defense has been "well maybe they didn't mean it," that doesn't make it less false. The logic and sources, of which my opponent has not used hardly any, show clearly that what the bible describes is not what happened.
The Bible contains historical inaccuracies

In Genesis chapter 11, http://www.biblegateway.com..., the bible goes into the tower of Babel. At this time, the bible says, "Now the whole earth had one language and the same words." In this chapter, it makes clear reference that this is not metaphorical same language, but that there was only one language on earth. Going through the time line of births in the same chapter, and the rest of the book, the bible says that this took place in approximately 2,400 BC. However, we have found mass amounts of evidence that there were multiple languages before this time, when there should have only been one according to the bible. http://www.historyworld.net... This is one clear historic inaccuracy. Creation of the earth in a single day, and everything else in just a few days. Many christians claim that this is not "days" like we view "days" but just periods of time. But in exodus chapter 20, the bible is clear in saying that they are literal days. http://www.debate.org... Does my opponent need me to provide logically evidence that the Earth was not created in a single literal day? This is another historic inaccuracy. In 2 chronicles, the bible refers to mass death of 500,000 people, http://www.biblegateway.com... and 1,000,000 people, http://www.biblegateway.com... these are just in the initial battles, the death that occurs on "god's" side is not mentioned, and the deaths that occur when they pillage all the cities in the area is not mentioned. So over a few short years, millions of people die, 1.5 million confirmed by the bible, and many more not mentioned. However, the population in that area was only 10 million tops, http://worldhistorysite.com... if 50% of that is men, and only half of those men are of adult age, then god just killed 60% of all men capable of reproducing in that area. Such massive death would cause long last drops in the population for centuries to come. I'll stop with these obvious three.
Dogs make better pets than cats

Dog are far more a better pet then Cat. first of all to put all the obvious stuff first. Cat does not act nearly as happy as a dog when they see you, and as human we are the world most social animal, if anything that we need the most it would be a dog, you can not play a lot of sports with a cat, you might need to teach it before. for dog sometime it almost seem they can actually understand human behavior, maybe they do i'm not sure, but when a human is in trouble a dog will notice this, and they will do all they can to safe a human, cat would just run away to safe themselves, cat can not defend a human from lets say a wolf, or even tiger, they are very protective of them self, a dog does not care who it is about to attack, making them much more brave then a cat. and when it comes to beauty a dog would win this by a far rang, once you see one cat you have seen them all, but a dog comes in so many form, colors and shapes, making them a perfect representation of us human. i grow up with cats and dogs, and i remember mostly the dogs today, because the cats never came on the field to play with us, these dog acted like they knew their position in the family,and they loved it, i cannot say the same about the cats, they where sometime fun to play with but only when everyone is home and tired from playing. Cat is only for people who are not active, don't like go out, don't like games, and just stay inside all day long.
Dogs make better pets than cats

There are also people who do not like taking dogs for walks and cleaning up after them. I highly doubt that anyone like picking up dog faces. Me and I`m sure a whole lot of other people like playing string with cats, as its actually quite entertaining. Its exactly the same as playing Frisbee or catch with dogs. I guess in my country there are no tigers and bears running wild so I wouldn't need protection. Also a cat is perfectly capable of defending itself, and its owner if it ever came to getting attacked by a tiger. It has claws and teeth, which in fact are sharper and more efficient than dogs teeth and claws. It also depends on the dog. A small dog/lap dog could not do anything like that because it is exactly like a cat but its a dog. A cat CAN guide a blind person if it is trained to do so. Another thing is that they hardly use dogs now days as modern technology is taking over. There are heaps of story's of cats saving lives. My city was hit by an earthquake and there was a lot of story's about how their cat warned them to get up and was scratching at doors. Like I said dogs are not the only pets who can save lives and be hero's. Go and search on the internet for "Cats saving lives" and you will find that there are a lot of stories about heroic cats out there. Cats are also loyal and seem to know how you are feeling. They know when to be quiet and leave you alone and they know when to be playful and it is a proven fact that when you are in the presence of a purring cat it helps you feel at ease. Temporarily helps you forget stress. Cats are better behaved than dogs. Dogs chew clothes, especially school uniforms. They also put muddy footprints everywhere making your house very unclean. They leave hair everywhere and I will bring this up again but they make the place smell. You can walk into a house and instantly know that they keep a dog by that smell that lingers round. Dogs are also dangerous. Have you ever heard of a cat mauling the face of a toddler? Have you ever head of someone dying because a cat has attacked them?Dogs attack people. Its in their nature, they get angry or excited they attack. They hurt people quite severely . In 2012 dogs killed 38 people in the US alone. Every year there 4.7 million dog bites around the world. Although dogs may make good pets is it worth your pet turning around and biting you or possibly mauling you to death?
Dogs make better pets than cats

you are proving my point here friend. like i said you can not play a lot of games with a cat, a string game, i believe that a cat would love it,not all human like playing with string, can a cat play basketball,soccer, or even as seen on YouTube, skateboard, play tag, you will have to teach a cat to do these things, which comes naturally to Dog. the scenario of a dog defending from a tiger is absolutely possible, and can a cat safe you from drowning? can you use a cat to pull you in the coldest weather on earth, can a cat guide a blind person. can you use a cat to detect dangerous thing from a criminal's car, house cloth etc? dogs have been saving humans life for many years and they still are today, dog have work all the up the rank of trust till we human even trust them with some very dangerous jobs. today they with police officer, and those dog are more then qualify for the title as pets. they are Heroes, they have done some thing a Cat can never do,and if it does it would years of training and money. Dogs are truly loyal to human, and you can see that in the guide dogs. they give up their play time, freedom to help a blind human 24/7, think abut that. And have you ever heard a cat cry? which is more convincing? dog cost more money because they are absolutely better then cat, and yes there more responsibility because dog are almost like a human child. And i would rather be waken my a nice happy dog who give you energy and joy to start your day then waking up by an alarm, cause a cat would never bather to wake you up.
Dogs make better pets than cats

You can actually play with a cat as they are pretty active creatures they like a good game of string. I don`t think that in any scenario that you will need a dog to defend you from a bear or a tiger. Cats are good for relaxing with and quiet time. If you have a dog that is so active and annoying you can get quite sick of it. You can also train your cat to do nearly anything. Also dogs cost money ,dogs cost over 1,800 dollars a year. This includes getting them council approved, de sexed, vaccinated, deflead, food, shampoo, brushes, clippers , leads and a whole lot more.That is quite a lot of money you could be spending on power or water remember going to my friends house and my friends dog was jumping on me and being so obnoxious that I was pretty sick of it. Another thing is that cats smell better than dogs. Dogs have a particular smell that stays on your clothing . Cats are smell free as they clean themselves regularly. Dogs are hard work to maintain,clean and take for walks. Unless you are super active and a triathelete I think you would prefer to sleep in on mornings than have to get up to have your dog jumping on your bed and licking your face hurrying you to feed it, take it for a walk and clean up its waste that is , most probably done on the kitchen or lounge floor.
If a God is Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent, then Free Will Does Not Exist

I concur with the fact that he is no longer willing to be omnipotent due to the fact that in our modern era everything is much more complicated and diversified with no true messiah or pious sign to follow without it being ignored or persecuted. During biblical times, people believed in his teachings so much so that they would follow anyone who was given the word and/or approval of god. After the New Testament (Or the Quran if you are Muslim) God most likely ended his direct interference with the growth of humanity to see the potential of us with his own visage. It doesn't mean he's not all powerful he just chooses not to use it as frequently as he did. Omniscience as being God is too complicated for mere human understanding. He is more of a watcher now, but he knows exactly the outcomes, however we make the choices from free will. He knows I will make a sandwich, but I'm doing it because I want to. I may fail, I may succeed, but it is I who chooses which. He knows but wont tell. It's human resolve that truly counts in this world, something God has given us to overcome fates hand.
If a God is Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent, then Free Will Does Not Exist

So, what I am now able to gather from my opponent's argument is that God is not omniscient. His knowledge is limited by the will and behaviour of humans; he is able to predict, but that isn't absolute awareness. And I will next argue that if He is not omniscient, then He cannot be omnipotent either, for how could anyone have any control or influence over something they know nothing about? If one is unaware of a set of circumstances, say with the suffrage of others in some far away country, then how could they do anything to assist the people? It is the same way with God: if He is unable to know about future events with absolute certainty, then He couldn't have the ability to alter or influence those events. He would be, I dare say, surprised by the outcome of certain affairs, would He not? So, as far as I can tell, Con concedes that either we have no free will should such a deity exist, or God cannot be omnipotent and omniscient.
If a God is Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent, then Free Will Does Not Exist

What your saying is true, but the "plan" he has for us...that's it. He gives us the tools but we as a species utilize them for our own purposes. He shows us the passage to heaven but we get there on our own. Maybe he wants us to evolve using our developed intellects to become ethereal as he is to stand with him as the king of kings. I also believe that he knows ending outcomes but he must simultaneously predict out-branching outcomes produced out of human free will while coming to a final conclusion. This may not seem possible due to human thought, yet we must remember he has godly powers. Our free will comes first before gods deductions even if the space between them is minuscule.