BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible is full of contradictions.

I'm conceding this debate. It was flawed from the beginning. In the first place, I started one round down. My opponent should have went first, since he should be stating the supposed contradictions, at the beginning of the debate, for me to dubunk. This was my fault.This was my first structured debate. My only previous experience in debating is sites like sodahead. Yeah. I know. An opinion site. I've learned quite a bit from this, despite a disastrous showing, and it has proven useful in another debate I have going on right now.In case you missed it, in the comment section, I suffer from Multiple Sclerosis. I'm on this site because my Neurologists believes it will help me with some cognitive issues I've been having. You have to use your brain or lose it, just like your muscles. It's really difficult for me to concentrate and maintain focus on what I'm doing, and this is supposed to help out. We'll see.I would like to thank Pro for his participation in this debate, and look forward to a rematch someday. I'll get better at this. I could hardly get worse, now, could I? LOL.
The Bible is full of contradictions.

I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. As such, it contains no errors or contradictions. It is the infallible word of God.For this debate, the burden of proof is on my opponent. You present your evidence, and I will refute it. By refute, I mean that I will show how you are in error, or at least raise a reasonable doubt about said verse being a contradiction.Four rounds: Acceptance, opening statement, rebuttals, closing argument.Since the Bible is on trial here, it will be used as the sole reference material. No other source is revelant. We are not discussing historical accuracy, or even truth. We are simply looking at internal consistency. Please limit the discussion to that, and only that.
Solipsism

Hmm, I guess I'll point out to any potential audience that the Affirmative side timed-out on the last round of this debate. However, he/she has debated on this topic in a previous one, which you can readily reference. I'm not saying that he/she should be judged by this other debate, but it's all we have to guide us so far with regard to starting any sort of pondering on this subject. I'd ask you to disregard even this, and ask for your votes in the event that my opponent doesn't respond by the end of all the rounds. With that said, I'll briefly discuss that Pro - and often pro-solipsists in general - seems to be using a rationalist thought process ie. classical Cartesian skepticism. This leads to an "I think, therefore I am" conclusion - an NO other conclusions at all. Therefore, a reason to like this school of thought could include the fact that you do arrive at this one seemingly important ontological truth rather solidly. But a reason to dislike this method of thought could include its limited utility in the sense that it leads to no other conclusions (and there are many other important philosophical questions worth answering besides just existence). But perhaps, more relevantly, a reason to REJECT this stance is that it makes the continuity of existence impossible. In general, we think that things either exist or do not. And if they do, they came into existence at a point in time due to a cause. How then, do you explain - from a solipsistic point of view - what sleeping is? Or what happens during deep anesthesia? Is it that the concept of existence somehow disappears? And then when you wake up, your solipsistic universe springs back into existence from nothingness all over again? This is ridiculous. I don't know if I've ever heard this argument put more academically by an actual scholar. But basically, I'm saying: IF creation of something (existing) from nothingness is already a difficult subject (which it is, ie Big Bang vs God explanations of the first cause) THEN solipsism is even much worse, because this process happens repeatedly (ie every time you lose consciousness and regain it).
The Houston Rockets are the western conference favorites to make it to the finals!

"The addition of igloudala is canceled out by the loss of their most productive post Lee" What? David Lee is still playing for the Warriors, not to mention they have one of the best point guards in the league. Memphis' defense would be enough to stop Harden and the most OVERRATED center in the history of the league, Prince can still shoot the trey, as can Mike Miller, Randolph and Gasol are great inside players. Now the Clippers actually have the best point guard in the league, Griffin and Jordan are two above average players, they can make a deep run in the playoffs, as all these teams. Oklahoma City has a below average coach? He completely turned around the Franchise if you take out his first season his record would be 212-100, I don't think they have to worry at all, they are probably laughing at the Rockets
The Houston Rockets are the western conference favorites to make it to the finals!

Memphis off season has consisted of a new coach , old mike miller , and not much else. While Z Bo and defensive player of the year Gasol are one of the best 4/5 combos in the league. The rest of the team is average at best. Conley has improved drastically over the last year or so , but is not far from his ceiling. Prince best days are 5 years in the rear view. Strong D and half court play may make for a tough out , but Memphis want get close to the finals. Golden State great young talent and a tough minded coach are up and coming to say the least. This team is a piece or two away at best. Live by the three, die by three is very rarely a recipe for success . The addition of igloudala is canceled out by the loss of their most productive post Lee. Who guards KD, Duncan, or Howard? Possible 2nd round if the shots are falling . Clippers are the clippers. Even though lob city is not the clippers of years past still a ticking time bomb. Chris Paul is a great point guard no doubt. Blake Griffin is a one trick pony. No post moves or jump shot along with suspect defense don't count for much in the playoffs. Deandre Jordan is not going to ever be a superstar and his contract will hinder a significant move that could make LA more than entertaining. Thunder, finally a true contender. Oklahoma has 2 of the most outstanding players in the game. Unfortunately for Okc fans below average coaching and supporting cast will be hurdles even Westbrook and Durant can't get over. Kendrick Perkins is nothing more but a space eater with 6 fouls to give. If you ask anyone in Oklahoma would they have rather kept ibaka over Hardin you will get a unanimous no.
The Houston Rockets are the western conference favorites to make it to the finals!

I don't think the Rockets are even in the top 4 teams in the West They're behind the Grizzlies, Warriors, Clippers, and the Thunder. The Grizzlies have Marc Gasol, Mike Miller, Zach Randolph, and Tayshaun Prince. The Warriors obliviously have Stephen Curry, Andre Iguodala, David Lee, and Klay Thompson. The Clippers have Chris Paul, Blake Griffin, J.J Redick, and a rising star in; Deandre Jordan. The Thunder have 3 of the best players under the age of 25 (Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook, and even Serge Ibaka) and Kendrick Perkins. The top 4 players on The Houston Rockets are James Harden, Dwight "Softy" Howard, Jeremy Lin and Chandler Parsons, but i guess we have to see who's better during the season!!
The Houston Rockets are the western conference favorites to make it to the finals!

Daryl Morey has created a monster. Since taking over for Carol Dawson May 10, 2007. Morey has gained the reputation for being the master of the minor move, but couldn't never sign the coveted superstar. That all changed October 27th 2013. In a trade weeks before the season he was able to add James Hardin for a little of nothing. This was the the key to landing Dwight Howard. Now the Houston Rockets just coming off a game 6 loss to the Thunder are ready to play with the contenders in the west. Not very often playoff teams are able to add a top ten player and keep the core of the team. Now having 2 of the top 10 players under 28 to go with a a strong, young nucleus this team is ready. Becoming the most improved team in the league in a conference that got older not stronger. Makes Houston a favorite in the west this year and many years to come.
Gun bans reduce crime rates

Okay so, I'm confused. I'm the con for "Gun bans reduce crime rates" and you're the pro. Shouldn't you be trying to argue that gun bans do reduce crime rates? Also, just to be factual I'm pretty sure "After they (UK) banned hand guns in 1997 they has a violent crime increase by 70% " is incorrect. I didn't get numbers for the entire UK, only England and Wales. According to the British Home Office the violent crime (includes assault, robbery, rape and murder) rate in England and Wales was 10260 incidents/100,000 people in 1995 and 4927 in 2010 [1, page 41 and 43]. The homicide rate did increase for a brief period though. In 1996 it was 1.14, in 2003 it was 1.79 and in 2010 it was 1.11 [2, page 32]. 1 https://www.gov.uk... 2 https://www.gov.uk...
Gun bans reduce crime rates

A good example is the UK. After they banned hand guns in 1997 they has a violent crime increase by 70% and a homicide increase of 50%. Gun control didn't reduce crime it made crime worse. An important thing to remember when comparing countries is that America has 317million people compared to the U.Ks 60 million. You have to look at murderer per capita not a murders together in numbers. We have more people than all other countries accept China and India so we have more crime. Also Chicagoand D.C have strict gun laws but they hav a lot more crime than other American cities with less gun control. Also in places with conceal and carry laws there is a reduce in crime. Criminals don't know if their potential victim could be armed and are less likely to try and commit an act of crime against them. A study showed that many prison inmates (I forget the study it's on just facts.org gun control and I forget the exact numbers) are in prison because they were caught because their victim had a gun, didn't commit a crime because they were afraid their potential victim had a gun, knew someone (a fellow inmate) who didn't commit a crime because they were afraid their potential victim had a gun or had been caught because their victim had a gun.
goldenboot11 is better than bookwormbill111

Obviously my opponent is biased against me to even bring up this debate. However to humor him, I accepted. First, my opponent says he is not a debate man. And? Yes he is winning our other debate(http://www.debate.org...), but you would have to admit that i was on the losing side to begin with. So my opponent is touting his abilities to win debates that are nonsensel, and absurd. Good for him....but that doesn't help him on this debate. Second, what exactly does my opponent mean by: "Although he may beat me in this argument, there is definitely more to come."? Is this a threat? Should I fear for my life?....Should i be afraid?
goldenboot11 is better than bookwormbill111

In the beginning...there was nothing....then, there was bookwormbill1. Goldenboot11, you cannot honestly say that your username is better. You are questioning my username; however, you have failed to give any evidence or prove as to why your username is better. And you have faith in voters? You never proved that. You said: "Gosh. Who is even going to vote on this debate? It's kind of stupid and pointless." You don't have faith in this debate or our voters. You completely dropped the real name argument. You never addressed it again after Round 4. Silence is consent, so you are forfeiting this argument to me. You said: "I am not even a debate man." So if you're not a debate man, why may I ask are you on a debate website? The point of debate.org is to DEBATE. "Although he may beat me in this argument, there is definitely more to come." Is this my opponent making threats? Of something worse than making personal comments and attacks? "And maybe you should be afraid. I KNOW where you live. I KNOW where you sleep. I KNOW YOUR SISTER!!!" Now this is just downright sad. He brought up my sister in this debate in a vain attempt to win. Besides, my sister is irrelevant. We are talking about goldenboot and bookwormbill, not my sister. And you said that makes you cool because you know her? I'm RELATED to her, so that makes me cooler. You said soccer was cooler than debate. Again, why are you on this web site if you don't like to debate? You are completely contradicting yourself. I have given evidence to prove that my opponent has no idea what he is talking about, and that the majority of his ‘contentions' (to give it a title) should be disregarded due to either: not being on topic, or being completely irrelevant. For the remaining of his contentions, he gave no evidence to back them up. He also made personal attacks on both myself and you the voters. For these reasons I urge you to Vote Con. Thank You.
goldenboot11 is better than bookwormbill111

my opponent does not have faith in the voters: "Gosh. Who is even going to vote on this debate? Its kinda stupid and pointless. " he is saying that he doesn't even like this debate. would you vote for someone, who isn't even for his own debate! i wouldn't. ok, he thinks his name is better? well considering the voters don't know either of our real names to begin with, that arguement is completely irrelevant. obviously, again, my opponent has failed to give real arguements, and facts. instead, he has provided faulty information, and his personal opinion.
goldenboot11 is better than bookwormbill111

so first of all, i would like to know WHY my opponent knows my sister. second, i don't even WANT to know anything about my opponent, due to the fact that he scares me beyond belief, and he is sounding stalker-ish. "So........ I also play soccer. Its cooler than debate, so that makes me cooler yet again." what? you're on a debate website, and you're saying that it is inferior? are you mad? for the love!... my opponent has not given any comparisons to why he is better. here are mine: i'm on the debate team, and he is not. i play video games and win....my opponent does not. i am in drama...my opponent is not.... any questions?
goldenboot11 is better than bookwormbill111

You are wrong. I have addressed the topic. Because I know your sister, I am cooler. Do you know my sister? Didn't think so..... Do you know where I live? Probably not..... Do you know where I sleep???? Possibly, but only if you know where I live. So........ I also play soccer. Its cooler than debate, so that makes me cooler yet again. MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
goldenboot11 is better than bookwormbill111

........................................ Ok, now I AM afraid........... my opponent knows where i live? where i SLEEP? he knows my sister!?!?! is my opponent some kind of sick stalker? my opponent has barely even read and addressed the resolution.....he says that he is better than i am....and that's it....he said nothing else......well i'm better because i'm me......how can you argue that huh?
health insurance should be mandatory

"for someone who values freedom, how is it free to mandate that the ER look at patients who have no money or insurance? " Pro Somebody pays the costs no matter what. If the patients make a run for it and don't pay, somebody get stuck with the bill. More importantly if those patients have no money, how are they going to afford health insurance? "con would advise someone who needs a bypass to think positive? what a joke." Pro "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Ben Franklin. [2]. A chronic disease like heart disease is best prevented as opposed to a cure like bypass surgery. Positive thinking helps with stress. " Over time, continued strain on your body from routine stress may lead to serious health problems, such as heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, depression, anxiety disorder, and other illnesses." [3]. Vote Con, modern western doctors focus too much on cure and not enough on prevention. Mandatory health insure would give this inefficient healthcare system even more power. Links 2. http://www.ushistory.org... 3. http://www.nimh.nih.gov...
health insurance should be mandatory

for someone who values freedom, how is it free to mandate that the ER look at patients who have no money or insurance? that's worse than socialism. plus the costs are still there and being spread around to everyone else who has insurance or money when someone goes to the ER. con would advise someone who needs a bypass to think positive? what a joke. do you also advise the doctors to forcibably be required to operate on that person as you do with the ER stuff in general?
health insurance should be mandatory

The emergency room is effective. Contemporary medicine fails against chronic disease. If somebody I knew needed bypass surgery I would advise him or her to eat healthy, exercise, drink plenty of fluids, sunshine, positive thinking, deep breathing, and get plenty of rest. "Low active-high sedentary boys were more likely to be overweight than high active-low sedentary boys " [1]. Links 1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
The Universe can be objectively defined as matter in motion

To begin, I really have no idea were this debate is headed. So I'll just begin with a small opening argument and see where this takes us. I think the correct interpretation of reality is presented by Quantum Field Theory (QFT). QFT basically states that the universe consists of fields that give rise to all aspects of the universe. QFT states that at any given point, including a point in which no objects exist, there are fields with specific values at that point. ElectroMagnetic Field, as an example, has a value at all points in space. In empty space, the EMF might have a value of zero. Near a planet, such as the Earth, the EMF takes on specific values due to a rotating iron core in the Earth. The Higgs Field is a field that exists in all locations in space. However, unlike the EMF, the Higgs Field has a non zero value in empty space. If QFT is correct, the elementary particles aren't elementary. They have a source, and that source is the fields that give rise to the particles. Since Pro has offered a definition to the universe (Universe=Elementary Particles+Fundamental Forces) and this is a debate, I guess I should offer my own definition of the universe. Universe=vacuum(space)+energy I think this definition is simpler than my opponents, for a few reasons. One, space is required for a universe to exist. In my opponents definition he doesn't include space. Where do those particles exist? Where does those fundamental forces exist? Two, E=MC2. Energy is what produces matter. Without energy, there is no matter. With no matter, there can still be energy. Therefore, energy is more fundamental than matter. The Higgs field has a positive energy value (126 GEV) and isn't considered matter. Conclusion, space/location is required for anything to exist. Space is fundamental. Energy gives rise to matter. Energy is fundamental. I'll turn it over to Pro and see where he wishes to take this debate.
The Universe can be objectively defined as matter in motion

I will begin with the core disagreement in this debate. Con believes that at the most fundamental level, everything is made of energy, and that energy does not consist of matter. Whereas I believe at the fundamental level, everything is made of matter. Regarding the substance of the Universe, I don't think it can be broken down any further than this. Con brought up radio waves, frequencies, dark energy, atomic force fields, decay and radiation. He believes that these things do not consist of matter. That they have no physical structure or identity. I disagree. Even if these structures are too small for our current technologies to observe or measure, I believe they exist. Long ago, the wind's influence on a tree must have been viewed as an invisible force. Long ago, we were completely unaware of the cells that make up our bodies until the microscope allowed us to observe these cells. We were completely unaware of the elections and atoms that make up everything until the development of the hadron collider allowed us to observe these things. We have recently discovered even more elementary particals such as quarks, bosons, fermions, and leptons. What we continue to discover is that even at the smallest, most invisible levels of existence, particles of matter are still the primary building blocks. As I mentioned previously, the Higgs Boson discovery showed that even force has a carrier particle consisting of mass. The discovery also explains "why some fundamental particles have mass even though the symmetries controlling their interactions should require them to be massless..." (Wikipedia). I believe that radioactive decay consists of mass as well. Similar to water evaporating into vapor, but on a much smaller scale. You spoke of the photon and its wave like properties, but failed to mention that almost every physicist who has studied the photon also classifies it as a particle. In almost every example you give, I believe that at the smallest level, matter is present. You asked if I believed in the existence of energy. Yes, I believe that energy exist, and that it exists as a very specific type of matter. In the same way that rocks are different combinations of atoms than trees, energy has a physical structure that differs from an electromagnetic field, or high frequency wave. Physicist define energy as the capacity of a physical system to perform work. For that to be true, I believe that energy itself would have to be a physical system. If not, how would it influence and affect other physical systems? I think we both agree that energy causes movement. My fundamental question to you would be, if energy has no physical identity, how can affect physical objects? How can an invisible, massless domino knock over an ordinary domino? Again, if energy, magnetic fields, waves, and radiation don't consist of matter, what do they consist of? What gives them structure and identifiable qualities? How do they have an effect on anything? These are the kinds of questions I am interested in exploring. Wikipedia. Higgs Boson. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Rap battle

You may have the rap but you lack the battle Easy to tame for you're the horse, The saddle I'd sit idly and win this, Fling bars at you that will Make you melt in this heat, You're soup, I'm the laddle I'm lyrically inclined to literally define What violence really is when your health rapidly declines You're a physical fighter, Yet I attack the mind When I'm done I'll leave you horrified, Drained and behind You've seen my profile yet yours remains to be seen You read King to relish the role you never been While he is a good writer (no disrespect in between) You belong in books with more Mullick and Milind No purpose to feed, No words to read No particular source for the thirst you need This may not be my best, It's true indeed But what work should I put on an opponent losing speed?
Resolved: Freezing time would destroy many aspects of the world

Sure, I accept. And since the instigator has not defined the terms and conditions of this debate while simaltaneously asking for the first round to comprise of acceptance on my part, I'm going to readily assume that he's talking about the idea of literally freezing time, akin to the final episode of Futurama.(1) I feel this is a reasonable conclusion for me to make. Should the instigator have intended anything widely outside the scope of a reasonable understanding of the subject, I ask that you automatically penalize him on conduct points.With thatbeing said, let the debate commence.Source:(1) http://www.comedycentral.com...