BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The bible is a moral book

I'm going to keep this short, sweet, and to the point. Nonetheless, the evidence is compelling. How can the bible be considered a moral book, when it has so many promotions of violence in it?You can see a nearly complete list of all instances where violence was promoted in the bible here [1] Now of course, not every single one of those instances is violence promotion, but just a report on something violent that occured, but much of it is God, Himself doing the violence, encouraging violence, or doing nothing to condemn the violence. I'll name a few specific examples from that list though, but anyone can look through it themselves and they should do so. 1) God commanded to kill all of the amalekites, even women, innocent children, and their innocent animals (Deuteronomy 25:17-19) 2) God Comanded Abraham to kill his own son, for only the reason to test his faith, but since he's omniscient, he would know Abraham had much faith, so this was pointless. (see genesis 22)3) 42 children were mauled to death by bears through the will of the Lord for merely making fun of a bald man(2 Kings 2:24)And there are countless other examples similar to the above. There are also other examples of questionable morals besides violence, such as things that are misogynistic[2], intollerant[3], unjust[4], and against family values[5]. While there are some morally good things in the bible[6] I argue the bad outweigh the good as there are many more examples of awful things than good things in the bible, and murder outweighs just about any good thing a person could do. Sources:[1] http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...[2] http://skepticsannotatedbible.com... [3] http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...; [4] http://skepticsannotatedbible.com... [5] http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...[6] http://skepticsannotatedbible.com... Zinnia Jones: The Six Moral Dealbreakers of Christianity
The bible is a moral book

I'll make this an acceptance round for a more structured debate.I want to make it clear before beginning that1) I'm not an inerrantist. I don't think the Bible is 100% true or somehow the "word of God."2) I'm not a fundamentalist Christian. I most closely could be seen as a panentheist identifying with portions of various Christian liturgical sects and Valentinian Gnosticism.3) I'm training to be a historian of the ancient Near East and various aspects of the Christian and Jewish tradition.I know the Bible has lots of objectionable passages and ideas, and I cannot wait to get into the discussion of them and their overall place in the narrative of the canonical Scriptures.(Note: I will be using both the OT canonical order of the Tanakh and Protestantism interchangeably)Looking forward to the discussion!
The bible is a moral book

Rules of debate: 1) If pro(divergent_ambon) chooses to use round 1 for debate, they should waive round 4 to keep the number of rounds used for debate even between us since I am not using round 1 for debate. Otherwise, they don't need to if they don't use it for debate 2) No insults, ad hominem, or personal attacks 3) Last round used for debate should only be used for rebuttal to previous argument(s) made by opponent. If any of these rules are broken by either side, voters should award the point for conduct to the one who did not violate these rules or did so in a lesser manner. Definitions: We should agree on definitions of terms upfront, if pro disagrees with these, then they should comment before accepting the debate, and suggest their own definitions and I may decide to agree to those. Moral: "Holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct" [1] To determine what is proper conduct, we will go by what is generally accepted in society Bible: The old and new testaments consisting of the books Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephania, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philipians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. Sources:[1] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
Prop 8 is Constitutional

Contention 1: The 10th amendment proves that we do live in a direct democracy: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the PEOPLE." The U.S. Supreme Court even confirmed that we do live in a representative and direct democracy under the 10th amendment in a case called "Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Oregon" So my question to CON is Why would the founders create a way for the popular majority to amend their "state" constitution if they were worried that the majority would take the rights of the minority in the first place? Contention 2 This was not much of an argument from CON and I know everyone (the audience) does not buy into CON's unarticulate conditional rule. CON must provide evidence that prop 8 was based on animus ONLY through the actions of the law and the people not what some of them privately say individually. Nevertheless, I have a better condition for CON that is more consistent with the debate topic. let me provide some context first. The history of marriage and the history of racism are two completely different histories. Even if CON wants to start comparing it to slavery, it would still Beg the Question "What about the history of marriage"? If we were to take the analogy seriously, we would have to make this conclusion: Every U.S. Supreme Court since the republic that has defined marriage between a man and a woman and/or has said the purpose of marriage is for the continuation of society, essentially, has only been attempting to invidiously and arbitrarily discriminate against gay people. So I pose this question to CON: The U.S. supreme court in numerous occasions defined marriage traditionally well before Congress and the defendants have done. Is CON also claiming invidious, arbitrary discrimination against sexual orientation of those past decisions from the U.S. supreme court? If my opponent says "no" or "I don't know" to such a claim, then how can he say or know prop 8 was based on animus when prop 8 proponents were only trying to conform to the U.S. Supreme Courts in the past? Contention 3 I don't think so. Since the U.S. supreme court has not decided this case yet, the jury is still out on prop 8. My arguments are framed accordingly to that fateful day. Until and unless the supreme law of the land decides this case on its constitutional grounds, its definitely not official one way or another. Conclusion, only one out of three of CON's contention had any substance to it. He also made no effort to challenge my arguments. I think a PRO vote is obvious here. CON had his chance and he blew it as far as I am concerned.
Sarah Palin is not ready for possible Vice Presidency

Allow me to first define the Debate specifically. Sarah Palin Vice presdential nominne for the Republican Party is not ready to be the Vice President of the united States of America Seeing as how Sarah Palin has zero foriegn policy experience and absolutely no experience dealing with National Econonmy, policy, or laws. She cannot possibly be ready for the task of being Vice President and god forbid Presidnt should happen to the Republican nominee John Mccain.I make three basic and simple arguments as to why Sarah Palin is simply not ready to lead. I will expand upon them following my opponents opening and rebuttal. 1. Sarah Palin has absolutely zero forign policy ability 2. Sarah Palin lacks knowledge and experoence running external national affairs 3. Sarah Palin currently has several hildren and one with down sydrome her attention to guiding this nation will be somewhat distracted and definetely not as effective. I satnd for my opponents response
Sarah Palin is not ready for possible Vice Presidency

It is unfortunate that he had to miss the bulk of the debate, but I am glad he could find the time to post an argument now. I will address each issue in the order in which they appear. 1. Certainly foreign policy is an absolutely vital aspect for any government. The fact that a great number of presidents and vice presidents of the past have been quite successful without prior foreign policy experience show that while foreign policy is indeed vital, it is not vital to have proven experience in that field. The issue comes down to advising. No President is an expert in all areas of government and policy. Every President sorrounds himself/herself with advisors on all issues in order to gather expert advice. Therefore, it is not important for her to have experience necessary, since there are plenty of Henry Kissingers, Dean Achesons, and yes, plenty of Joe Bidens that can advise a president. 2. I apologize for misinterpreting my opponent's meaning, and I thank him for the clarification. The answer to this question is similar to the last. I will also note that the top of the Democratic ticket is in the same position as Sarah Palin in regards to Internal Affairs. If we had more rounds in the debate I would ask for evidence to support the claim that she "knows very little on these subjects and has herself shown a bit of incompeteence in her own state. " I will also point out that all of the categories listed by my opponent (Tax revenue, transportation, and budget) are areas where the governorship typically provides experience. Without evidence to support that she is 'incompetent' in these areas, my opponent's argument falls flat. 2.5 The fact that her state uses the most federal funds per capita is irrelevent to the issue of he readiness to be president/vice president. 3. We are in agreement on this issue, since my opponent conceded. Closing: In closing, my opponent has not provided any evidence for his claims. He has said that she is inexperienced in foreign policy, and I showed how this is not indicative of readiness. He has claimed that she is incompetent when it comes to running internal affairs, but he provided no evidence. Indeed, he did not provide any evidence for any claim so we can only assume his arguments to be his opinion. As we know, opinions do not always reflect fact.
Sarah Palin is not ready for possible Vice Presidency

Im sorry not being able to answer my opponents rebuttal of my arguments allowme to do so now.. 1.First of all yes Foriegn Policy is very important and if a person cannot dictate a good viable foriegn policy they could not make a good Vice President because dealing with other nations is a key matter in being the President/Vice-President. My oppnnent adresses that both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were allegedly claimed to be inexperienced runner ups. Just because other people made this claim towards both govnors the fact does not hinder my argument. Sarah Palin in contrast to Joe Biden and other Vice Presidents lacks sufficient knowledge or experience in dealing with foriegn policy issues and is this unfit for Vice Presideny 2. Allow me to clarify "External Affairs" what I mean is National Tax Revenue, National TRansportational, NAtional Health Care, National Debt, National Security, and National Treasury. All these aspects having to do wiith the Union of America itself not individual states is where Sarah Palin is missing her boat. She seems to know very little on these subjects and has herself shown a bit of incompteence in her own State Sarah Palin's home state has the largest per capita consumer of federal funds http://www.msnbc.msn.com... 3. I conencede to my oppoents third rebuutal and withdraw my third argument
Sarah Palin is not ready for possible Vice Presidency

It may indeed be seen that Gov. Sarah Palin is not ready to be Vice President of these United Stated of America. However, it is certainly not due to the reasons listed by my opponent. I will briefly respond to the three major claims by my opponent in the order they are listed: 1. Foreign Policy is not in and of itself a sufficient reason to disqualify someone for President or Vice President. Our nation has elected a number of Governors in the past and this same argument pops up. This argument was used against Bill Clinton (42), Ronald Reagan (40), and a number of other Governors. Few would claim that either of these two Presidents proved sufficient commanders-in-chief, regardless of this fact. 2. This claim is basically the same as the first, claiming that she lacks knowledge and experience in running external affairs. 'External Affairs' seems to be another way of saying 'foreign policy', so I will not address this question. I hope that my opponent would correct me if I have interpretted him incorrectly, and then expand upon what he meant. 3. Having a large family also does not preclude anyone from the position of President or Vice President. I would like to remind the reader that many Presidents of the past have had large families as well, including Theodore Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, among others. This did not effect their job performance.
Gay marriage should be legal in all 50 states.

2. Children need fathers. If same-sex civil marriage becomes common, most same-sex couples with children would be lesbian couples. This would mean that we would have yet more children being raised apart from fathers. Among other things, we know that fathers excel in reducing antisocial behavior and delinquency in boys and sexual activity in girls. What is fascinating is that fathers exercise a unique social and biological influence on their children. For instance, a recent study of father absence on girls found that girls who grew up apart from their biological father were much more likely to experience early puberty and a teen pregnancy than girls who spent their entire childhood in an intact family. This study, along with David Popenoe's work, suggests that a father's pheromones influence the biological development of his daughter, that a strong marriage provides a model for girls of what to look for in a man, and gives them the confidence to resist the sexual entreaties of their boyfriends. * Ellis, Bruce J., et al., "Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage Pregnancy?" Child Development, 74:801-821. * David Popenoe, Life Without Father (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1999). 3. Children need mothers. Although homosexual men are less likely to have children than lesbians, homosexual men are and will be raising children. There will be even more if homosexual civil marriage is legalized. These households deny children a mother. Among other things, mothers excel in providing children with emotional security and in reading the physical and emotional cues of infants. Obviously, they also give their daughters unique counsel as they confront the physical, emotional, and social challenges associated with puberty and adolescence. Stanford psychologist Eleanor MacCoby summarizes much of this literature in her book, The Two Sexes. See also Steven Rhoads' book, Taking Sex Differences Seriously. Eleanor MacCoby, The Two Sexes: Growing Up Apart, Coming Together (Boston: Harvard, 1998). Steven Rhoads, Taking Sex Differences Seriously (Encounter Books, 2004).
Gay marriage should be legal in all 50 states.

The institution of marriage has traditionally been defined as being between a man and a woman. Marriage is for procreation and should not be extended to same-sex couples because they cannot produce children together. Children need both a mother and a father. Legalizing gay marriage could lead down a "slippery slope," giving people in polygamous, incestuous, bestial, and other nontraditional relationships the right to marry.
God Does Exist

My opponent started a silly debate, but now I shall end it with common sense from my side. The first thing I want to settle here is what I mean by evidence. Evidence is something helpful in forming a conclusion or judgement. It is only considered valid if it can be falsified at all times. The reason why god most likely does not exist is because it was us that created him in our own image and not the other way around. We have surpassed the days in which we had to say that it was god that created this world. Most of the time, the term god was used to oppress people and make them feel pretty bad about themselves. We have dismantled god. 1.) knowing that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. 2.) thanks to a law called gravity, phenomenas like the big bang are possible to form themselves. 3.) Dna. Information passed on from generation to generation which would disprove all this religious nonsense about god creating each and one individualy. 4.)the laws of thermodynamics 5.)law of gravity. can be considered a heartless, indifferent god.(so there is an entity after all) 6..) evolution. the fact that we humans evolved and that pretty much all animals share a common ancestor is astounding. All these points do not disprove the existence of god, but they make him unnecessary. Vote for me because you people have something called COMMON SENSE.
God Does Exist

(A) Critiquing the Negative Case. The negative has offered no reasons, arguments or evidences that suggest as to why the given resolution is false. As a matter of fact, not only has he not done such, he hasn't even so much given the courtesy of rebutting any of my arguments. For this, I will now examine my opponent's "case". (A.1) My opponent suggests that "The question whether god does exist or doesn't is a mere assumption. It cannot be proven, nor can it be disproven. " This is a false statement, since the given proposition "God Does Exist" can be just as equally verified as it can be falsified. By this, I do not mean to say that at some points in the discourse of trying to find God, it is either sometimes true, false, or even shady. By no means; theism can be falsified by virtue of the problem of evil, reduction ad absurdum arguments, or some other counter-factual. If my opponent thinks that theism cannot be falsified, then I lay a BoP on my opponent to show how this is so. Since I think there are good reasons to consider theism as true (see my first affirmative), my opponent hasnt even surfaced to address these issues. (A.2) There is No Evidence My opponent at this point has made statements that are required to be backed up by reasons, and as such, has not done so. My first inclination is to ask what my opponent means by evidence. If he means evidence as the means to shift us into the realm of rational belief, and thinks that this means is by method of empirical verification (i. e. sense data), then I would ask my opponent to provide evidence for this definition if that were the case. More over, this still would not count as a counter-factual to theism. The "Absence of Evidence" does not follow to "Evidence of Absence" for the existence of God. My opponent has committed the non-sequitir fallacy if he thinks that this constitutes as a good reason for rejecting theism. (A.3) Unnecessary Propositional Invoking This claim is just clearly absurd and a straw man. We are not postulating God as a natural phenomena (so that he is susceptible to scientific investigation), or as the explanation as to why water boils, neutron stars collapse, or why I chose coke over pepsi. The universe requires an explanation apart from what natural causation can provide for us. My opponent is just pulling straws. (B) Concluding ThoughtsIn light of my opponents lack of arguments, lack of relevancy, and lack of coherence in reasoning, I urge you to vote in the affirmation of this resolution since the only argument avialable still stands in favor of theism.
God Does Exist

The question whether god does exist or doesn't is a mere assumption. It cannot be proven, nor can it be disproven. In the end, we rely on our senses and thoughts that have so far only touched the surface of what really lies out there. Now another important point would be defining what one means by a god. Is it the personal one or the god of love, the panthestic one and so on. You sir, believe in and defend the personal god. A god that understands our language, our culture etc.. There are several reasons why I do not believe in the theistic god (1) There is no shred of evidence for his existence(scientifically speaking) (2) We don't need a god. In a universe where there are strict laws such as the gravititational law, or the strong force, electromagnetic or weak force, we could already say that not only is there no evidence for a god but we also make him unnecessary( science) It was us that created god in our own image and not the other way around.
from fire spewing beast clawing at me, to a statue in the shadows of a dragons lair.

Not a star will remain in the night. The night itself will not remain. I will die and with me the sum Of the intolerable universe. I"ll erase the pyramids, the coins, The continents and all the faces. I"ll erase the accumulated past. I"ll make dust of history, dust of dust. Now I gaze at the last sunset. I am listening to the last bird. I bequeath nothingness to no-one. -Borges
from fire spewing beast clawing at me, to a statue in the shadows of a dragons lair.

the labels of religion might be confusing, but opposition is surely there, like illogical, limited, flawed actions or phrases spoken.. every word is absolute, every sentence has words.. stone=stone.. agnostic=let the content of the ufo in the night sky remain an unsolved mystery=not theist or atheist=maybe, not yes or no, or no by yes to the contrary