BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the Christian Bible is Self-Contradictory

Thank you Con.Now let’s take a closer look at Cons arguments. “1. It is unique in its continuity” “But the Bible stands alone. It was written over a period of 1,600 years by more than 40 writers from all walks of life.” The bible does not stand alone.There are many Holy books claming to be the true word of god.Such as the Qur'an in Islam or the Veda in Hinduism and many many others that declare no affliation with the bible. “3. Unity of Writing Styles: With all the unique writing styles, it adds to the uniquness and historicity of the Bible.” Actually we very well know that The Bible is at odds with the actual history of its times and often tells stories upon which there is no evidence to support. The greatest of these is the alleged exodus out of Egypt. It didn’t happen. The same applies to the story of Esther. It routinely gets the history of surrounding civilizations wrong such as crediting a “Darius the Mede” with the taking of Babylon when it was Cyrus of Persia. “4. MORAL UNITY OF THE BIBLE:” Moral unity?The Bible potrays Ritual human Sacrifice , Rape , Murder , Slavery ,… There is no unity in the bible it says to kill the worshiper of other gods but love thy neighbor as thy self? Furthermore,none of these statements offer reason to belive that the bible is not self contradictory which is what this debate is all about.So in closeing biblical teachings fundamentally distort humanity's moral purview. God, in his infinite compassion and wisdom, had ample room in the Bible to instruct us on how to kill people, keep slaves , and sacrifice a wide consortium of different animals. On numerous occasions he even advocates that we kill people for imaginary crimes like witchcraft. In fact, the Bible, if followed word for word, provides for a system of ethics that would make Mullah Omar of the Taliban look like Lyndon B. Johnson in comparison. Those who doubt this claim need only spend a few hours actually reading the Christian scriptures. Look anywhere you want for the warrant for slavery, for the subjugation of women, for the burning and flogging of homosexuals, for the abuse of animals, for the torture and slaughter of apostates, for ethnic cleansing, and racism: you don't need to look any farther than the bible. Let’s not for get that this is the work of a mighty
the Christian Bible is Self-Contradictory

First Let's point out exactly what the Christian bible being self contradictory means and what a logical contradiction is. The definition of contradictory from Merriam-Webster Definition of CONTRADICTORY : a proposition so related to another that if either of the two is true the other is false and if either is false the other must be true. Now let's look at some of the contradictions of the bible within genesis. Gen 32:30 states, “…for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. ” However, John 1:18 states, “No man hath seen God at any time…” Both statements cannot be true. Either there is an error of fact, or an error of translation. In either case, there is an logical contradiction. A defense used here is to look up the meaning of the original Hebrew / Greek word and read that one of the words can have multiple meanings, and then pick the meaning that seems to break the contradiction however this is irrelevant in cases like this where simple declarative statements are involved such as “no one has seen God” and “I have seen God. ” Simply put, no “context” makes a contradiction or a false statement, like 4 = 3, true. These are just some of the many many contradictions within the bible . Matt 19:26 says “But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. “ Judges 1:19 says “And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. ” Mark 15:25 says “And it was the third hour, and they crucified him. ” John 19:14-16 says “…about the sixth hour…they cried out…crucify him…. Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. ” God good to all, or just a few? PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works. JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them. Is god peaceful? EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name. ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen. We can clearly and logically conclude that the Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions and this is the supposed work of an all omnipotent omnipresent and omniscient omnibenevolent God? Surely not. References The King James version of the Bible. Self-Contradictions of the Bible by William Henry Burr (written in 1859 as a response to fundamentalism). The X-Rated Bible: An Irreverent Survey of Sex in the Scriptures by Ben Edward Akerley The Bible Handbook. (This is a compilation of several previous works by several authors, including W. P. Ball, G. W. Foote, and John Bowden. It's a collection of biblical contradictions, absurdities, atrocities, immoralities, indecencies, obscenities, unfulfilled prophecies and broken promises. This 372-page volume will give the atheist tons of scriptural ammunition for shooting down the flimsy arguments of the reality impaired. ). http://www.patheos.com...http://www.evilbible.com... . http://ffrf.org... . http://bibviz.com...
The Vancouver Canucks are currently the best team in the NHL

Now the argument is are the Canucks the best team in the league currently not in 2012 or 2011, but now. Alright lets do some math here since you claimed the Blackhawks are the best team in the league you just made your chance of winning drastically lower because if you were arguing that they were not the best its a 29/30 chance but since you brought up the Blackhawks now its 1/30, but onto the facts. You said the Pens are good cause they got Crosby and the Caps are good cause they have Ovechkin, I'm sorry to tell you but 1 person can't carry a team the Canucks had some of the best scorers and assists in the NHL, so people like the Sedins, Kesler, Burrows and Luongo is an amazing lineup that any GM would love to have, and you're point that nobody knows who they are is garbage why would you look at a sports debate if you don't know anything about sports. Now onto your argument that the Hawks are the best in the league is weak, ok so they won the Stanley cup same with 20 other teams, Your only argument is about how many cups they've won which is only 5, you didn't bring anything else about there players or their coaching staff so my question is are you new to this?
The Vancouver Canucks are currently the best team in the NHL

"Now before you bring up the point that the Canucks have never won the cup for the obvious reason they were an expansion team joining in 1970 and since the NHL started in 1917 (53 years)"Ok youre kinda new here so let me give you some advice, never ever in a debate start out by claiming someone/something is the best..... And then the first thing you do is introduce the most glaring evidence that negates your argument.....But yeah, the Canucks havent won a single Stanley Cup in their 53 year history in the NHL which kinda does kill the idea that they are currently the best team in the NHL....."So the number of Stanley Cups the Canucks have won is irrelevant"It kinda is relevant.... I mean teams that are the best in the league tend to have a tradition of winning, and if the Canucks havent won the Stanley Cup ever then that is pretty good evidence that they dont have a long history of winning, and therefore arent the best. "However the Vancouver Canucks had won the Presidents Trophy in 2011"They may have won the Presidents Cup in 2012 but they were then were promptly raped in the first round of the playoffs by the Kings and ended up being eliminated 4 games to 1.... "The Canucks probably have the best players and coaches that the league has to offer. for example the Sedin Brothers, Kesler, Burrows, Luongo, Bieksa and for the coaching staff Alain Vigneault and now John Tortorella"Nobody on here knows who any of those people are and other teams have equally good lineups which are arguably better then the Canucks. The Capitals have Ovechkin and the Penguins have Sidney Crosby, both of them far more famous and known then anybody on the Vancouver line up. ===========================================================================================My argument is that the Chicago Blackhawks are the best team in the NHL for the following reasons:1) They have won 2 Stanley Cups in the past 4 years, if they win again this year it would officially be considered a dynasty. Meanwhile the Canucks have gone 0-1 in Stanley Cups in the last 15 years2) The debate is who is CURRENTLY the best team in the NHL. Since this is the offseason and the Blackhawks won the cup the most recently, they are the de-facto best team in the NHL3) The Blackhawks are 5th all time in number of championships won while the Canucks are in a 6 way tie FOR LAST PLACE with 0 championships
The Vancouver Canucks are currently the best team in the NHL

Now before you bring up the point that the Canucks have never won the cup for the obvious reason they were an expansion team joining in 1970 and since the NHL started in 1917 (53 years), and the Stanley Cup was first given out in 1893, so that is why teams such as the Montreal Canadiens and the Red Wings have won so many because they were founded earlier. So the number of Stanley Cups the Canucks have won is irrelevant. However the Vancouver Canucks had won the Presidents Trophy in 2011 and 2012 and had a great playoff run in 2011 also The Canucks probably have the best players and coaches that the league has to offer, for example the Sedin Brothers, Kesler, Burrows, Luongo, Bieksa and for the coaching staff Alain Vigneault and now John Tortorella. For those reasons that is why I believe the Vancouver Canucks are the best team in the league.
The Vancouver Canucks are currently the best team in the NHL

"Now the argument is are the Canucks the best team in the league currently not in 2012 or 2011, but now. "Exactly. But since it isnt in season what we have to do is refer to the current Stanley Cup Champions as currently the best team in the NHL. .. .. . And that would be the Blackhawks, not the Canucks. 'if you were arguing that they were not the best its a 29/30 chance but since you brought up the Blackhawks now its 1/30"I figured Id give you a fighting chance since your arguments were so bad ;)"and you're point that nobody knows who they are is garbage why would you look at a sports debate if you don't know anything about sports. "Thats not the question though. .. The real question is why would you believe a team is the best when nobody has heard of any of the players on the team. .. .. "Your only argument is about how many cups they've won which is only 5"Which is 1) 5 more then the Canucks currently haveAnd 2) You conveniently left out the part where I mention that they won two of those stanley Cups in the last four years, while the Canucks have gone 0-1 in Stanley Cups in the past 15. "my question is are you new to this?
E-Readers are better than Computers

1. It actually does matter. Point cancelled. 2. I know a computer can do all this but the e reader as I stated is more time and space, efficient. A pc has to take a year to download a game, and the last time I checked, the pc, could not play angry birds, which is the best selling game for two consecutive years. Like I stated you can download android market, which has over millions of game choices for free. Some of the games on the pc is not free, or you have to be a member of some website. 3. Same. 4. The e reader can download music studio, video editor, and millions of movies. The e reader has different memory spaces, 16 gig, 32, gig, ect. A movie is not even 1,000 megabytes, which for me is plenty of movies. 5. Buy.. do I look like I want to buy a safe guard to protect my computer. Computer vary in prices from 350 to 1400, which to me is very ridiculous. Why would I want to spend all this money then buy a safeguard when all I have to do is buy a e reader, which saves 100's of dollars. There is no viruses which can attack you computer when you want to play a simple online game. Point conceded. 6. I can play all those games and more on my e reader,which takes less then 2 mins to download, all the the palm of my hand. When your walking across the street, or even in Starbucks, most people have a e reader handheld while few have computers. Point conceded
E-Readers are better than Computers

1. It does matter, since this is a debate about which is generally better. Point conceded. 2." It can search the web, jot notes, games, the huge variety of different apps, paint, netflix movies, music, ect." A computer can do all that, with the ability to, say, play a game like Knights of the Old Republic. The fact is that in raw stats, PC wins. Everything an E-reader does a PC does better because of a bigger screen, a better sound system, and a real keyboard. 3. Same as above. 4. My original statement was "The reason that no viruses exist on E-Readers is because you can not download nearly as many programs, and the ones available for download are verified by the developer." Can you download a music studio, video editor, or even more than a few movies? Another point is that the PC has an immensely bigger hard drive. This means that i can go to amazon, buy a movie and a game, download them, then play them without an internet connection. The fact is that an E-Reader cannot handle more than an Angry Birds-like game. 5. There are safeguards to prevent this. I can buy an antivirus program, or even download a free one. This helps block most viruses. Also, if you do not download anything you don't know about, you will not get a virus. Even if you start the download, an antivirus program will usually stop the file. 6."Although it still has paint and boring games, tell me the last time you really use theese functions" Boring games? There are millions of games that i can download and play offline. Let me name a few i have: Deus Ex, Deus Ex:Human Revolution, Starfarer, Mount and Blade: Warband, Rome: Total War, and Minesweeper. "A e reader without connection can, play games Most games on the android app store are extremely similar and repetitive. "read a real magazine, You can read a magazine in about ten minutes. "draw" With an unprecise tool "wacth a recorded movie or tv show, and many more." You would only have space for about two or three movies on a two gig hard drive.
E-Readers are better than Computers

1. It does not matter about the proccecing power, ofcourse the computer is going to have more. 2. the e reader can do a variety of different things not only simple task. It can search the web, jot notes, games, the huge variety of different apps, paint, netflix movies, music, ect. 3. like stated in #2 there is variety of things to do. 4. actually you are wrong the e reader can dowload many programs, android market, amazon app, ect http://www.androidfornook.com... Another advantage is there are no annoying pop ups. Once your computer is hit with a virus, it is technically done the internet will not work, it will not turn on or off properly ect. Also when there is no internet connection, the computer can be extremly boring. I know a few people understand what I mean. Although it still has paint and boring games, tell me the last time you really use theese functions.A e reader without connection can, play games, read a real magazine, draw, wacth a recorded movie or tv show, and many more.
E-Readers are better than Computers

Advantages of E-readers: 1. They have a longer battery life because they use less processing power. Lets be honest, which are you more likely to use in long bursts? An e-reader or a computer? Therefore, the battery life is irrelevant. 2. It is easier to use because it is made to do very simple tasks. Do you think that you would trade a variety of programs on a PC to save a few extra seconds? 3. Again, this shows that an e-reader is good for a very specific thing. Also, as for the claim about portability, I have already addressed that in my last round. 4. The reason that no viruses exist on E-Readers is because you can not download nearly as many programs, and the ones available for download are verified by the developer. Pro has not attacked any part of my case.
E-Readers are better than Computers

I thank my con for partcipating in this debate. Theese are some of the advantages for e readers. ADVANTAGES They have more battery time than other computers. E readers are easir to use, if you want to quickly check your email, you can just use it quickly instead of turmimg on the whole computer. It is easier for listening to music and to carry around. NO VIRUSES , which is a very important deal
E-Readers are better than Computers

On to my case. Computers have much more storage space, and can store over one terabyte of data. Most E-Readers only have four or so gigabytes of space. Computers can have bigger screen sizes. The laptop i am typing on now has a 19 inch screen, while most E-Readers only have screens about 6 inches long. Computers have more processing power. My laptop has about 4 gigs of ram, and a fairly good graphics card. This is far better than most E-Readers. Laptops can be portable. Some laptops and netbooks are small enough to be transported with ease. I await your rebuttles. Sources: http://www.amazon.com... http://www.buydig.com... My laptop:http://us.toshiba.com...
The monarchy should be abolished in the UK

I will therefore keep this last round brief. The 3 arguments my opponent put forward were: 1) The monarchy costs the taxpayers money. 2) The treasury would benefit from the abolition of the monarchy. 3) The monarchy has no place in 'modern' British society. I disproved all three of these by providing evidence that: 1) The taxpayers actually make a profit from the monarchy 2) The treasury wouldn't be able to confiscate the wealth of the monarchy as it is not the proceeds of crime, but an inheritance. And that seeing as the taxpayers make a profit from the monarchy, to abolish them would lose us money. 3) The majority of people in all surveys support the monarchy, and can relate to the monarchy. Thus showing that British society wants the monarchy, and so they have a place in that society. Thanks for reading.
The monarchy should be abolished in the UK

Thank you wolfhaines for your reply. You say that the monarchy costs the UK nothing but then why does it say in my BBC source that the royal family cost the taxpayer ï¿½40 000 000 in 2008 {http://news.bbc.co.uk...}. Secondly from your argument I now understand that the monarchy do contribute a lot to the British government through events such as weddings and funerals but those events aren't a daily occurrence. Yes the monarchy does generate millions from tourism and other things but why would tourists come to the UK just because it is still a monarchy? according to wikipedia the top 4 International tourist arrivals by country of destination 2010 were France, The USA, China and Spain 3 of these countries have no monarchy {http://en.wikipedia.org...}. are you saying that tourists wouldn't visit the UK if it weren't still a monarchy? there are dozens of reasons tourists visit the UK. According to walletpop.co.uk the royal wedding will cost us around 50 to 100 million pounds. this money coming from the taxpayers pocket of course. {http://www.walletpop.co.uk...} why should we be paying for the royal wedding when the monarchy can clearly afford it? Yes the Wedding will generate hundred of millions for us but businesses have warned that creating consecutive four-day weekends in April may cost the economy 5 billion pounds. {http://www.telegraph.co.uk...} In my last argument I said that the monarchy has no place in __MODERN__British society. you argued that without the monarchy there would be no Britain only Scotland, England and Wales but your wikipedia source shows that the 1707 act of union was a parliamentary act not act of the monarchy and to be honest with you wolfhaime I would be in support of no United Kingdom (but that is another topic altogether). as I said in my last argument the monarchy's duties are all handled by the British government so what is the point of keeping them? To generate money for the UK? A question I'd like to ask you wolfhaime is why should the monarchy if they have no powers in our society today and are simply figureheads be regarded as such important people? it it because of their family history? hardly seems fair. what separates the queen from the homeless man on the street? Not much apart from millions of pounds and family history.
The monarchy should be abolished in the UK

The title is self explanatory. I will be arguing that the monarchy is a burden to the UK and that the monarchy should be abolished and 99% of its wealth should be given to the treasury. Reasons: The monarchy is a waste of taxpayers money. in 2008 the royal family cost the British taxpayers £40 000 000. this money is spent on things such as official overseas trips and palace maintenance. Why should this money be given to them when it could be given to support our troops or fund our hospitals?{Source} http://news.bbc.co.uk... If the monarchy were to be abolished the treasury would be given vast amounts of money. If the monarchy were to be abolished and 99% of its wealth was given to the treasury it would receive £346 500 000 this money could be given to the ministry of defense or to our schools and hospitals instead of being in the possession of undeserving people. The monarchy has no place in modern British society. according to wikipedia "A monarchy is a form of government in which all political power is passed down to an individual (usually hereditary) known as a monarch ("single ruler"), or king (male), queen (female)." Years ago the monarchy was the dominant power in Britain. declaring wars, deciding on foreign affairs, running the country. nowadays all this stuff is handled by the British government and the monarchy no longer has a place in Britain anymore. I am done researching for the night so I will give my opponent some time for his or hers rebuttal and resume debating tomorrow if an opponent has accepted by then.
God does not exist

RationalMadman, it is not necessary for you to type in all caps (yelling). I"m not sure if you are mad or upset, but I would imagine that to be bad etiquette. "THIS DEBATE IS THAT 'GOD DOES NOT EXIST' YOU ARE PRO." You are correct. I am pro (for) the statement that God does not exist. "YOU HAVE THE BOP AS YOU CLAIM GOD DOES NOT EXIST." If you look back at my round 1 declaration, I said: "The challenger must assume the burden of proof since I cannot prove a non-existence. I can only prove alternatives and fallacies in arguments for." "I AM NOT PRO 'GOD EXISTS' MERELY CON TO THE ASSERTION THAT HE DOES!" I"m not sure I understand what you mean here? I am new to the site, if you wish to forfeit this debate and challenge me to a new one that is your prerogative.
God does not exist

God is not physical, and is scientifically unfalsifiable.God made you think you were pro on this matter and will control any argument you make against god. God will decide whether or not con or pro wins this debate. God allows you to exist and to be atheist until it (I don't call God a 'he') wishes you not to be.God is so powerful it is immeasurable by human means.God is so undetectable it is indeterminable by technological means.God is great.Allah hu'akbar.Peace be upon it.
God does not exist

I would like someone to challenge my position that there is no God. ("God" being a creator of the universe. Not any specific Religious deity) The challenger must assume the burden of proof since I cannot prove a non-existence. I can only prove alternatives and fallacies in arguments for. Challenger can open debate with any/all arguments for. Following rounds will involve me debating opponents arguments and possibly offering my own alternate scenarios. Also, opponent can offer modifications to the debate parameters which I will either accept or deny.