BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
To Be Decided During The Debate

The issue of the debate is "The Bible Should Not Be Considered Holy". While my opponent is arguing this point, I as CON shall argue against my opponent's claims. As my opponent begins his first point by defining the word "Holy", I shall also like to direct the audience's attention to the other definitions of the word "Holy", the first one having been provided by my opponent. Holy: 2: divine 3: devoted entirely to the deity or the work of the deity 4 a: having a divine quality b: venerated as or as if sacred 5—used as an intensive ; often used in combination as a mild oath -From the Merriam-Webster dictionary entry on "Holy" . http://www.merriam-webster.com... And also the entry on "divine" 1 a: of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god b: being a deity c: directed to a deity 2 a: supremely good : superb b: heavenly , godlike -From the Merriam-Webster dictionary entry on "Divine" . http://www.merriam-webster.com... As can be seen from these above definitions of Holy (Including Divine, since it is also one of the definitions of Holy) All but Definition 5 match up perfectly. The Bible is indeed divine in that it relates to God, and it is taken to be God's message to man. In addition, it is obviously devoted to the work of God, and undeniably venerated as if it were sacred. Thus, I disagree with my opponent's contention that the bible must be, as he says, "entirely without fault or defect and must be perfect etc. " However, I accept my opponent's contention that in terms of this debate, the Bible should be shown as "righteous", "good", and "sacred". As for my opponent's second and third contentions, I will address them, but before I do so, I need my opponent to comment on a preliminary argument before I address his points in my second round. The reason why many people are against the notion of flag burning is not that it is a waste of white cloth, wood, and blue/red dye. Similarly, when we are discussing the "Holiness" of the bible, we are not merely referring to a stack of documents. Whether the documents in the bible were written by man or not, it is taken to be inspired work. Thus, I ask that the *validity* of the Bible not be called into question, purely because this debate will turn into a squabble on biblical interpretation or worse, a debate on the existence of God, which is trite, boring, and quite unnecessary. I shall respond to my opponent's points above after he responds to the ones I made in this post. Thank you.
To Be Decided During The Debate

I'll take PRO on the resolution then. Contention 1: In which Holy is defined and analyzed. "exalted or worthy of complete devotion as one perfect in goodness and righteousness" That's Merriam-Webster's most applicable definition of holy for this debate. That means a holy object/being must be perfect in goodness and righteousness. Perfect is defined as "being entirely without fault or defect" and goodness is defined as "the quality or state of being good" good being defined as " well-founded, cogent" and righteousness is "acting in accord with divine or moral law." That means, in order to be considered holy, the bible must be entirely without fault or defect, and it must be well-founded, cogent, and in accord with divine or moral law. Contention 2: In which the history of the bible is summarized The Christian Bible was put together during the Council of Nicea. The Old Testament came from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Tanakh. The New Testament was a compilation of writings and letters written by early Christians. Emperor Constantine, benefactor of the council, wanted a Bible that would allow for the organization of a strong church, presumably so he could use it to wield more power. That meant that certain books of the Tanakh, and some early Christian writings, most famously the Gospel of Judah, were declared apocryphal and heretic, and were not included. Contention 3: In which I support my claim The bible was compiled by men, and it was written by men. Men, are by nature imperfect, so clearly they cannot produce a holy work. That's one reason to vote PRO. Also, the bible was compiled by power-hungry leaders. Constantine only gained power because he called the Council of Nicea. If he hadn't, Rome would have stayed pagan, and Constantine wouldn't have been emperor. The Council of Nicea was used as a tool to grab power. Clearly its result cannot be called holy, as it is most certainly not righteous. Also, the bible, because it was written by different men, at different times, it often contradicts itself. Therefore, it is not cogent. Clearly the bible is not holy.
To Be Decided During The Debate

This is a special debate in which the one who accepts the challenge will be the one suggesting the topics of debate. There will be 5 rounds of this debate. 1A: This introductory post 1B: My opponent will suggest 3 topic of debate, of a wide variety of categories. The three topics of debate suggested cannot all be within the same topic of discussion, (ie. All three cannot be about Religion, All three cannot be about Politics), cannot include both sides of a particular argument, and must be broad enough for a layman to be able to adequately debate with limited research (ie. No extraordinarily complicated Physical theorems). 2A: I will respond with my choice of the three, or rule that the choice of the three subjects violates rules stipulated in 1A. If I make that ruling, 3 new topics of debate will be given as a comment and I shall respond with my choice of those 3. 2B: After choosing one topic, my opponent will then pick a position, either PRO or CON. If my opponent picks PRO, he/she shall use the rest of 2B as his opening post, and FORFEIT 5B by typing "Thank you for the debate" until the character limit is satisfied. If my opponent picks CON, he/she shall choose a position and wait for my opening post in 3A. The rest of the rounds will be devoted to a typical 3 round debate.
Word Debate

I would just like to add a few rules. .. Rules1. Do not say a HUGE word that will not only think you will look smart but especially if you spell it wrong. ..2. No need to add any double words. Ex: Off-Road. (No using the - symbol to conjoin two words. )3. DO NOT USE ABRIVIATIONS! Ex: SOPA (I shouldn't have to explain what this means. .. .)
Newton vs Einstein

I choose to advocate for Isaac Newton. I feel as though he has paved more of the way in science. Also, since the topic does not specify science (let alone physics), we will extend our arguments to which man had a bigger influence ALTOGETHER. So, I am allowed to make mathematical arguments rather than strictly scientific ones. I hope that my opponent uses credible, reliable evidence to back up his claims and that grammar, conduct, and professionalism are all superb.
There are contradictions in the Bible

Good luck to my opponent. I agree with your definition of a contradiction. I ask that you leave an open-mind and I shall do the same.Contradiction 1: Shape of the Earth? ISA 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:An obvious circle MAT 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; Astronomical bodies are spherical, and you cannot see the entire exterior surface from anyplace. The kingdoms of Egypt, China, Greece, Crete, sections of Asia Minor, India, Maya (in Mexico), Carthage (North Africa), Rome (Italy), Korea, and other settlements from these kingdoms of the world were widely distributed.Contradiction 2: Do you answer a fool? PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceWow! I can't believe how clear of a contradiction that one is. Proverbs 26:4 says Answer not a fool according to his folly, but the VERY NEXT VERSE says Answer a fool according to his folly. I can't see how that is not a contradiction!Contradictions with science and history.1. Jesus attempts to teach biology (but is an epic fail!)Mark 4:31-32 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth: But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it.What? Mustard seeds are NOT the smallest in all the earth, nor do they grow up and are greater than all the other herbs. Epic fail!Back to you, con. I have a ton of more arguments. But since I know it takes a ton of time to refute them, I shall be kind and only list those.
There are contradictions in the Bible

I have never defended this specific objection to the Bible prior to this debate, so I will expect to learn from this. When arguing this topic, I think it is necessary that we understand what contradictions are. It must be understood that some Biblical statements must not be taken out of context. I am hoping that my opponent will be trying to show contradictions within the nature of God or notable events rather than small trivial matters. There are also two Biblical doctrines, inerrancy and infallibility. I will leave it to my opponent what I am upholding in this debate, which is almost definitely inerrancy given the resolution, but I personally adhere to Biblical infallibility. On the debate structure, I would have the first round include rebuttals on my part since I have no opening argument to give. After all, Pro has the burden of proof to show that there are contradictions in the Bible. If my opponent refuses to allow any response to his argument, I will think of something to write in Round 1. It is after all, his debate so he can structure it as he wants. Lastly, we must formally define contradiction. Logical contradiction – an incompatibility between two propositions Good luck.
There are contradictions in the Bible

I have re-opened my account and shall finnish out this debate. Debate objectives:I will attempt to prove that the Bible contains contradictions. My opponent will attempt to refute them.Debate structure:Round 1: Acceptance only, no arguments to be added.Round 2: Opening Arguments (No rebuttals) Round 3: First rebuttalsRound 4: Final rebuttalsRound 5: Closing argumentsGood luck
Nas is better than Jayz.

Jay Z is 10 times better than Nas. Jay Z is more famous, and for a reason. If you walked around the street and asked people who Nas was, not many people would know. Jay Z's best songs are Empire State of Mind, the song about Paris, Run This Town, and 99 Problems. My favorite Nas song is Hate Me Now, and that's not even close to any of Jay Z's best songs.
Nas is better than Jayz.

Nas puts a lot of thought and a message behind his lyrcis, Jay z just gets his ghostwriters to put a load of rhymes, alliteration, and other dumb stuff. Who cares when you're listening to music? I want great sounds, not some circus tricks. Illmatic is better than Hov's entire discography combined, and I'm barely being hyperbolic. I haven't listened to any of Jay's albums, apart from blueprint, which I got as it came out. He just doesn't have any cool story to get you interested in his stuff, and if he isn't a bit dull then he's doing just weird stuff, like the collab with Linkin Park. Jay Z's best song? Black Republican. For this debate, the burden of proof is on con to get me interested in Jay Z's stuff
We have either unlimited, or absolutely no freedom at all.

My opponent was clearly online and had the time to see and respond to this debate. He failed to prove that the theories he was pushing were realistic on a large scale. I only ask that you remember that the debate was about freedom, something my opponent claimed was just something humans made up to describe our surroundings. Simply put, I proved that freedom is more than that. In the end, my opponent failed to respond when he was challenged on the subject. He refused to answer a question that would prove his argument incorrect. I hope that all the voters reading this have read carefully and now will vote the way they have been convinced is correct.
We have either unlimited, or absolutely no freedom at all.

I did read your argument carefully but thank you again for restating it. I don't disagree that all molecules in the universe are connected in some way. I do however, disagree that because everything is touching, we are all automatically forced to lose all sense of freedom. It is with that I went to explain why the definition of freedom is defined so that multiple arguments can be brought up defending such said freedom. Where it makes sense on a molecular level, I talked about how it does not make sense on a global level taking into account the human factor. Assuming we are all "liquid like construct, no matter is divided" on a level above molecular, this debate should and would not be happening. Me and my opponent are divided on this topic right now. I have the freedom to say what I like, even if it goes against the popular ideals of all people. This is not an illusion of freedom because my opponent and I are acting on it right now. If my opponents theory goes anything beyond the smallest level of life, his argument does not hold water. With that, I state that the claims that we have "no freedoms" and are " liquid like construct, no matter is divided" are completely false as my opponent and I have proven by voicing our freedom of speech in a divided manner. Now moving on to the fact that we have unlimited freedom. As I talked about in my first argument referring to the work of the "founding philosophers" of government, the ideal that we have complete freedom is naive to think. Seeing as how this debate is not limited to the ideals that freedom is limited specifically to the molecular level, I now ask that my opponent prove his ideals of unlimited or no freedom, keeping in mind that in his own words he described it as "a false ideal created as one of man's need to provide explanation to his discribable (real) surroundings." Key word in that quote is "man," not molecule. My opponent has yet to proven or hinted at anything that describes freedom in relation to a human being as a whole, not as a group of particles touching.
We have either unlimited, or absolutely no freedom at all.

Con If you were to carefully read my argument you would understand that I have dis proven the ideal of freedom. "In union of these concept one speculated that as a product of an expanding universe which was put forth into entropy by two colliding forces, everything that is and ever was is in fact entangled. That is that everything that is around us, is still touching. With this in mind it is irrelevant to argue that limitations set forth by any force measurable holds any true effects in with holding the freedom of you and I. It is thought this we leave forth only two viable options for the concept of freedom, It is either that freedom is just the expression of an action preformed in relation to time or that it is irrelevant to any discussion of the observable universe ." To simplify; All Observable functions of our universe are in fact touching, connected, joined etc...... This means that our universe is a liquid like construct, no matter is divided. BY understanding this concept the prejudice of freedom is a false ideal created as one of man's need to provide explanation to his discribable (real) surroundings. freedom = "irrevelant inside out universe" there for we either have no freedom or we have unlimited freedom: By understanding that there is no limitations of the observables in our universe we can emply that any observables is not restricted by another for all observables are equal, or that there is no such thing is the concept of restriction between these observable there for there is no restriction, ties between them.
We have either unlimited, or absolutely no freedom at all.

To refrain from a debate revolving around semantics here are some definitions. Freedom- The absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc. Absolute- Free from imperfection; complete; perfect: absolute liberty. dictionary .com "http://dictionary.reference.com...;. I will like to thank my opponent and I look forward to an interesting debate. My argument revolves around entanglement, and the concept of the big bang. Entanglement - "When pairs of particles are generated by the decay of other particles, naturally or through induced collision, these pairs may be termed "entangled", in that such pairs often necessarily have linked and opposite qualities" wikipedia"http://en.wikipedia.org...; big bang- "The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the universe that is best supported by all lines of scientific evidence and observation. As used by scientists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day." wikipedia"http://en.wikipedia.org...; In union of these concept one speculated that as a product of an expanding universe which was put forth into entropy by two colliding forces, everything that is and ever was is in fact entangled. That is that everything that is around us, is still touching. With this in mind it is irrelevant to argue that limitations set forth by any force measurable holds any true effects in with holding the freedom of you and I. It is thought this we leave forth only two viable options for the concept of freedom, It is either that freedom is just the expression of an action preformed in relation to time or that it is irrelevant to any discussion of the observable universe . I will clarify any part of my argument at my opponents request.
Gun Control Laws

A voter in this debate must look to my arguments because: 1) I provided the better statistical evidence as to why my side is right. a. A voter must first look to my "findarticles.com" evidence that sights a scientific study done to prove that it is the lack of enforcement of laws, such as the Brady Bill, that have led to an increase in gun violence in this country. b. A voter must look to my evidence from Third Way that also points to the lack of enforcement of these laws c. A voter must also look to my evidence that supports my alternate causality that sights socio-economic factors such as poverty. 2) My empirical examples of Canada and England prove that stricter gun control laws lead to less violence. This has directly answered PoeJoe's indict of my argument. He says I need evidence that gun control laws lead to less violence in America. But look at my evidence that points out that gun control laws, when enforced lead to less violence such as in England and Canada. 3) I have told a more logical story and provided better analysis in the debate, unlike PoeJoe's logical non-sequiturs. ---- So basically the voter has no reason to vote for PoeJoe. Enforcing the gun control laws that are already on the books, just like Canada and England have, would lead to less violence in America. Since there is is no way the PoeJoe's policy can reduce poverty in this nation and solve for the root causes of violence repealing the gun laws this nation has will increase the death due to guns in this nation.
Gun Control Laws

I guess I must take care of more of your bull first. *sigh* 1. Again, I in no way said, or am saying that poverty does or does not help gun violence. That is irrelevant to this debate. Perhaps in addition to loosening gun control laws, we should also help impoverished cities that so happen to be riddled with gun violence. However, this is irrelevant. 2. You said it yourself. America is different. We shoot each other a hell of a lot more than other countries do. Perhaps it's the culture, or the media, or whatever Moore is pointing his (huge) fingers at at the time being. But it still should be known that we are different with gun violence. I agree, when some other countries (besides Switzerland and Germany) increase their gun control, gun violence does go down. However, all the statistics that are relevant to America, show that less gun control means less gun violence. 3. True at the extent of I-am-not-sure-of-why. As stated above, ask Michael Moore. However, I do know that what I say is true. All the evidence backs me up. Less gun control means less gun violence. ---- Now your turn: In your conclusion, find statistics that show that more gun control leads to less gun violence in America. I'd love to see it. ---- MidnightSpecial will probably not do the above requested. He has a knack at floating around the issues and making decent points out of that. However, given already three chances, he has never managed to dispute the fact that less gun control means less gun violence. If you support gun violence, then by all means, vote for MidnightSpecial. However, if you're tired of all the shootings, death, obstruction of liberties, and gun violence, do the right thing.
Gun Control Laws

The laws that are in place make the guns illegal, that is why they are called "illegal guns." Without the proper enforcement it makes it possible for these people to obtain these illegal guns. More gun control law enforcement is what is needed to prevent these tragedies. These laws are key to stopping tragedies that would occur in a no gun control world. In your world, a world without gun control, it would make it easy to obtain guns for any person. Whether they be a hunter or a killer. So why should there be no gun control laws? Also your "evidence" states that when gun control laws are enacted violence goes up, but you refuse to give the "why" to that argument. My evidence provides the reason why gun violence increases, and that reason is poverty. My stats directly answer yours for this fact. --- On your conclusion: Your first point says that poverty does not have any relation to gun violence. Again, that has been disproved by my stats and your own statement. Poverty is a leading cause to gun violence, and cutting down on gun violence the key reason for enacting gun control laws. On your second point I have an empirical example. England has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and their gun violence is extremely low per capita. Also, I sight Canada's 1977 gun control laws (see above argument) and show that Canada's gun violence is also extremely small per capita. On your third point, you have not proven why no gun control leads to less gun violence because you do not provide the "why" in your arguments. Saying that more armed citizens prevents gun violence is a falsehood. Look at Canada and England. --- So voters do not look to PoeJoe's logical non-sequiturs, but look to the empirical evidence that I have provided.