BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Old Testament of the Bible: A Depressing Paradigm PART II

I read the original debate over this topic, and to be bluntly truthful, I was appalled by both sides. I was so appalled that I could not cast a vote on who was better. I strongly believe if someone is going to judge the Tankah (the Old Testament) it should be judged strictly on its own grounds. In other words, the Old Testament should be judged apart from the New Testament. Christian theology and ideology should not be the underlying premise to the glory of the Tanakh. We should read the Jewish Bible through a Jewish interpretation and Jewish mindset. That is what I plan to do in this debate. Furthermore, I will also try to evaluate some of the points on the original debate (i.e. animal sacrifice etc) and bring up, what I believe, to be more crucial points concerning the Old Testament. Below is the outline of my opening round: 1- Wisdom (logic) vs. the Bible- An incompatible truth a) the difference between reason and obedient love b) Because the Bible is beyond human comprehension, we shouldn't judge the things that don't make sense c) Understanding that the Bible doesn't really make itself understandable is the glorification of the sacred works 2- The Exemplification and Glorification of the Old Testament a) Animal Sacrifices b) Brutality within the Scriptures c) Why the Israelites were the Chosen people (Deut. 4:15-19) d) The Torah e) An Ostensible reading of the Old Testament shrouds the essential meaning of certain narratives in the Bible (e.g. The Laws of Moses, more specifically, the Sabbatical and Jubilee years. This innovative agricultural system (Sabbath) allowed for the land to recuperate and replenish itself after harvest. Or, another example, the reason why Joshua forbade the plundering of cities even after a murderous rampage). There is no such thing as "The Old Testament of the Bible of the Catholic Faith." Even to the Catholics, the Jewish Apocrypha is not considered part of the Old Testament. The Old Testament is how it is. Interpretation, of course, is different between Christians and Jews. I believe to truly exemplify the glory of the Old Testament is to see it through the ones who brought it down to us: The Jews. My only wish for this debate is to make at least one person who reads this realize that there is nothing worse than being ignorant of your own ignorance (St. Jerome). I do not proclaim that I know everything about Judaism. And for those Christian readers who are urging for some New Testament, here ya go: "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For is say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 17-20
you are more evil than i am crazy Sudden Death

This is the last time I do this debate. I have not handed you brutal defeats. http://www.Debate.org... http://www.Debate.org... The only 2 debates we have had together are right there. As you can see, I am not beating you by a huge amount, like 60 points. It can't be brutal if you are losing by less than 10 points. 1You have not proved how I am more evil than you are crazy. You have only tried to show I'm evil. 2You are crazy. You can see that from my arguments from the
caste system

I fail to see how the point was explained here. I fail to see how Hindus and Muslims have anything to do with the caste system. A caste system does not have to do with terrorism and not necessarily religion, either. A caste system is like a ranking. We use a form of caste system every day in our modern world. We have the leaders, such as the kings, queens, and presidents. We have those who work for the leaders. We have those who lead smaller sections of the country as well, such as governors. We use a form of the caste system. Therefore, the caste system is not always people of lower class begging people of higher class for money. The higher class is not always charging them more for money. Without the caste system, we would have chaos. With the caste system, everyone knows where their place is in ruling the country. Otherwise, everyone would try to rule the country and make decisions. Nothing would get done. All countries today use a form of the caste system. It is not an evil. It is simply social hierarchy. It is where people know their place. They know their role in the community, and they have a role in their community. It is not the system itself that did not allow people of lower caste to interact with people of higher caste. It is the rules that came along with the system, but those rules don't have to be in place. The caste system is a necessary system and functioning system in society.
caste system

Caste system is major topic one can discuss about. in many countries caste system is being followed and on basis on that privileges are given to people which the high caste or rich people.caste system is being practiced over very long period of time.in India there is 4 important caste Hindu, Muslim, Sikhs and Christians.Even today, most Indian languages use the term "jati" for the system of hereditary social structures in South Asia. When Portuguese travelers to 16th-century India first encountered what appeared to them to be race-based social stratification, they used the Portuguese term "casta" " which means "race" " to describe what they saw. Today, the term "caste" is used to describe stratified societies based on hereditary groups not only in South Asia but throughout the world.caste system is pratised everywhere in temples,houses,work,profession,education,arts and science. the people of lower caste are not allowed to go to temples of rich people.in villages this is till now in practice. the people of lower caste has to beg before the zamindars which in turn charge higher while returning the amount. today the caste system is increasing day by day as people of Hindu caste think that the terrorism is due to Muslim people and Muslim think that it is due to Hindus.this view leads to conflict between the two and because this many innocent people are killed in numbers. we people have created this caste system. today also various zaminders in villages charge higher rate of interest on money given to villagers.In modern India the term caste is used for Jat and also for Varna. The term, caste was used by the British who ruled India until 1947. The British who wanted to rule India efficiently made lists of Indian communities. They used two terms to describe Indian communities. Castes and Tribes. The term caste was used for Jats and also for Varnas. Tribes were those communities who lived deep in jungles, forests and mountains far away from the main population.
Overall, 1984 is worse than Brave New World.

I've never seen a debater who used such concise arguments. However, my opponent's conciseness will be his undoing. He has failed to address any of my contentions, in particular contentions 3 and 4. "In 1984, at least the proletariats [sic] have rights, and even party members are not indoctrinated at the level of BNW." If you have read my arguments, then this statement will make no sense. I have already shown this to be false. In BNW people are no more "indoctrinated" than in any other healthy society. I hardy see why it would be worse to be the Big Brother, and how that relates. Is my opponent saying that every person in BNW is like Big Brother? If not, then how is this relevant? Allow me to recap my arguments, which have not been adequately addressed. 1984 has direct physical control that causes great suffering; BNW is not oppressive any more than our genes are oppressing us right now. Control in 1984 is very real, while in BNW the control is no different from how anyone is controlled by their own culture or genetics. In BNW people are happy, while in 1984 they simply are not. And in BNW people know exactly what's going on, while in 1984 they are lied to. Thank you.
Overall, 1984 is worse than Brave New World.

Thank you for a good debate. However, I feel that a rash statement was made in both your analysis and comparison of both books. I will try to keep my response short and to the point, because that is simply how I debate. Would you rather be watched by big brother, or would you rather BE big brother. In 1984, at least the proletariats have rights, and even party members are not indoctrinated at the level of BNW. From an average moral standpoint, it is simply worse to be the 'big brother' than to be surveilled by one. Thank you, and I await an exciting argument.
Overall, 1984 is worse than Brave New World.

A definition? Less morally preferable is not an objective view, in my opinion. From my moral standpoint, things may appear different then from others. Yet I see what you are saying. We can debate this from a sort of common moral standpoint. As for the debate at hand, Brave New World presents a world/era where the world is not only controlled by a dictator physically, but in fact physiologically. What I mean is that Brave New World's 'World Citizens' are far beyond indoctrination, but have a common, bleak, mindset. Sorry to get my point out in round one, this was my first debate.
Overall, 1984 is worse than Brave New World.

My first real debate in 8 months. This should be exciting. ======== Procedure Definitions will be created and clarified in round 1. Debate will not begin until round 2. ======== Definitions By "1984" and "Brave New World" I refer to the worlds that these books are about, and not to the books themselves. You cannot live in a book, obviously. So "1984" really means the fictional world created for 1984. (1984 refers to the novel, not the time period.) worse: Less morally preferable. I will allow the debaters to make whatever arguments they want as long as they argue that their world of choice would be morally worse than the other. For example one could argue that one world is more oppressive than the other, and is therefore less morally preferable because oppression is morally wrong. Hopefully, further definitions are not necessary. Please use common sense. If my opponent wishes to clarify anything, he or she should do so in the next round. ======== Although it is perhaps not defined as well as one would like, please stay true to the spirit of the resolution. I wish good luck to my potential opponent, and will be looking forward to this debate.
lowering driving age to 15

Lowering the minimum age for getting a driver's license wold greatly increase the number of accidents and deaths on the road. People aged 15-24 account for only 14% of the U.S. population, but are responsible for 30% of the costs of motor vehicle injuries. Teen drivers are three times more likely than those over 20 to be in a fatal crash. The perceived "responsibility" of a new generation does not mean they will become better drivers at a younger age. http://www.cdc.gov...
Marijuana should be legalized

Many people have not tried marijuana since it is an illegal drug. Legalizing it will eliminate the fear of certain people trying it. And from there, it will collect more users. Obviously, your knowledge on marijuana possession is limited, if you are caught with a minimal amount of it, it will not lead to doing time in jail. Most people in jail for marijuana are those who carried enough to be suspected of selling it. Also, those who sell marijuana are more likely to go on to sell other drugs if marijuana is legalized. Many drug dealers begin by selling marijuana, become addicted to the easy money and from there move on to selling more expensive drugs such as cocaine and pills. Legalizing it will not give drug dealers a sudden epiphany to stop selling drugs, it becomes a way of life for them which can be hard to break. Legalizing marijuana would do more damage to our country than people may realize. Think of all of the students who go to school high, all the parents who smoke in front of their children and those who smoke on a daily basis, they will all worsen. Marijuana has been illegal for numerous reasons and making it legal will certainly worsen society and make more people seek to use it.
Marijuana should be legalized

Being that its illegal is appealing to people looking for a rush just from doing this. Also legalizing it will take plenty of drug dealers off of the street. Once these dealers are off the street they can finally be productive citizens. Also less crime would take place from this and there will be less people in jail for petty marijuana possession. Overall legalizing marijuana would benefit our country as a whole. Less money spent by drug task force, more money will be generated through taxation. Also there will be more people off the street selling drugs and they could contribute to society and be productive citizens.
Marijuana should be legalized

I believe that the reference to Amsterdam is another irrelevant issue. America is a completely different country and the outcomes of legalizing marijuana would be drastically different. Also, if marijuana was legalized the use of it will surely increase. Especially among teens, they will no longer be restricted from using this drug, therefore, it will be easier to purchase and they will definitely use it more openly. For example, the drinking age is 21, but of course under-age people still do consume alcohol. If the drinking age was dropped to 18, would that mean that less minors would consume alcohol? Absolutely not. Being that it would be legal to take this action, more teens would do it simply because obtaining it wouldn't be as much as a hassle as it was. Legalizing marijuana would in no way shape or form help lower the use of it, it would absolutely put a rise to this drug since it being illegal holds people back from doing it.
Marijuana should be legalized

But if these other drugs are already legal it wont do any harm to make marijuana legal to the public over the age of 18. In Amsterdam where marijuana is legal they have a lower percentage of marijuana users then the U.S and a lower percentage of teen marijuana use. The fact that its illegal makes it more appealing to teens and is sort of "taboo" in a sense. If it was legal less people would use it and also more people who are using hard illegal drugs would just stick to marijuana. In Amsterdam they also have a lower percentage of hard drug users as well.
Marijuana should be legalized

If marijuana is legalized it won't change the fact that caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol are also dangerous. Instead of legalizing marijuana since its less hazardous, those other drugs should be controlled. We should not look toward legalizing marijuana to benefit our economy, it is a drug! Any type of legalization of a drug is not the best decision. The fact that it can harm your health should not be ignored simply to help the government and its debt. The use of marijuana has been linked to increased rates of anxiety, depression, and schizophrenia. All three of these outcomes will directly affect the life of the smoker which can be avoided. Therefore, the legalization of this drug would lead to an even higher number of people with these disorders.
Marijuana should be legalized

The fact that alcohol use is legal is relevant because marijuana is illegal and is far less hazardous to your health. Marijuana doesn't create a physical addiction it is more mental for users and becomes a habit. Marijuana is far less addictive then three of the most popular and legal drugs sold in America; caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol. Not only is marijuana not a real health hazard, the legalization of marijuana can allow the government to tax it. Not only would the government benefit from the taxation of marijuana, they could stop putting money into police efforts to end its use. Studies show that just stopping drug enforcement on marijuana would save our government an estimated $7.7 billion. The taxation of this drug could also generate about $6.2 billion in profit. In a time of great economic need this extra money from a non harmful substance will definitely benefit our country.
Marijuana should be legalized

The amount of deaths caused by alcohol is irrelevant to the use of marijuana. Although it doesn't directly cause death, it does harm the human body. Smoking anything is obviously not advantageous to your health. The use of marijuana causes distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty with thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory. In addition, marijuana can become addictive after long-term use. It has been reported that when people have tried to quit they experience withdrawal symptoms such as anxiety, sleeplessness and irritability.
Marijuana should be legalized

Being that alcohol is legal and contributes to 4% of deaths world wide and marijuana has never been a cause of a single recorded death. This goes to show the inconsistency in the governments effort to try and protect its citizens. Not only does alcohol contribute to more deaths cigarettes do as well. Both of these are far more potent and addictive then marijuana. Marijuana even serves medicinal purposes for cancer patients and can temporarily relieve certain aches and pains.
Acronyms should have a period mark after each letter, instead of there just being the letters.

I believe acronyms should always have a period mark after each letter, because, centrally, of two reasons. (1) Acronyms, originally, had been presented in this format. I am not much of a traditionalist, but origin is important for some things, language being one of them. The origin of a language shows the true characteristics of that language, and thus how to, in veritable correctness, speak, write, read, etc. that language.(2) The period marks differentiate the letters, they emphasize their individuality, and thus indicate they are not a solid word, but the fact that each letter represents a solid word. If there would not be any period marks, as there often is in today's society, it would seem to display the acronym not as an acronym, but as a solid word, therefore possibly leading the reader to believe they are reading a word [that is not what the writer intended to be present.] For example, the "word" 'laser' was originally 'L.A.S.E.R.', because it is an acronym that stands for 'Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.' However, it soon started to be changed to 'LASER.' This, in turn, because of a sociological process characterized by long-term changing of ideas, views, etc., it was further changed into a solid word and was known as 'laser.' (This sociological name, if it does possess a name, I do not know. Therefore, I gave it a name of my own that I believe may not be entirely legitimate, but still gives the idea of the concept, at least to a basic degree. I call it 'social blur.') Unfortunately, because of this changing to a solid word, it is expected to be defined by the definition of its previously acronymic self. However, this new definition is not as complex as the old, because it is more simplistic. And since it is more simplistic, the definition supplies someone with much less information about a L.A.S.E.R. The thing is, an acronym is important because it not only supplies the reader with a definition of the thing, but also of the processes. For example, 'laser' supplies one with only the simplified definition of a 'L.A.S.E.R.', but 'L.A.S.E.R.' gives not only the definition, but also the process (to restate). The reason behind this is because 'L.A.S.E.R.' stands for (to restate) 'Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.' The acronym itself of 'L.A.S.E.R.' gives the definition, but the individual representations of the letters say the process that the effect of a L.A.S.E.R. is achieved through the amplification of light, in which this amplification is achieved by stimulating radiation emissions. This is my standing point. If anyone out there wishes to combat it, be my guest, for I would love to challenge your challenge that challenges my challenge (that was a joke; basically, I just enjoy challenges, so come on and try to prove I am wrong about this).
People of all ages should be considered inherently equal.

My opponents opening statement was that all humans in existence should never be treated differently based on age for any reasons. I've provided multiple instances where they should be treated differently, while conceding that age can be an imprecise method and is sometimes, but not always, in need of revision. I appreciate my opponents zeal for debating for the sake of debating, but if he really thinks humans less than one. Both old should have no legal restrictions as to how it functions in society as a general rule of thumb, then I submit he is either stupid or a troll. Please also note how my opponent shifted his thesis from the start to the end.
People of all ages should be considered inherently equal.

I only responded to relevant points. All of the scientific evidence presented described typical circumstances, and I happily concede them as fact. But they don't address individual varience, which is the entire thrust of my argument, and they presume a requirement for minimum development that, at the very least, obviously varies from one proposed activity to the next (how much development is truly needed for that job tying strings at a factory?). Therefore, there's nothing in there that actually advances the argument that a catch-all line in the sand is appropriate for a free, civilized society.Direct quote of my opponent:My opponent claims that I am taking his premises to an extreme by citing absurd hypothetical examples.My opponent seems to forget that he said that senior citizens should be allowed to marry a 5 year old, based on a "merit based" case-by-base system.My opponent, conversely, seems to forget that this is yet another "absurd hypothetical" initiated by themself, not me. I will reiterate the point, not rebutted in the last response, that there is a world of difference between advocating something and stating that there should be different reasons for disallowing it. Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is still wrong. My opponent asks: Does my opponent think that a newborn infant, fresh out of the womb, should be afforded the opportunity to be the POTUS speech writer?Again, an absurdist example. And again, I ask my opponent to explain to me under what circumstances a newborn infant who somehow miraculously beats out all the competition for that job should still be denied it, despite somehow managing that impossible feat. They say that this human can be be dismissed by age, "among other factors". I say that simply looking at those other factors alone should be sufficient. Other than saving two minutes of someone's time, where's the benefit of considering age? And are those two minutes really worth all the harm I described in my last round, all those border cases - cases that my opponent conceded to be imprecise? As a reminder, we're talking about potentially millions of people either unjustly oppressed by being denied the right to do things they're more than capable of doing, or else inadequately protected by being granted the right to do things that they really are NOT ready for - all solely on the basis of how long they've been breathing air. I think it fair to say that the burden of proof is no longer on me at this point. I've already proven that age-based assumptions cause harm. My opponent's only hope of victory is to prove that the benefits of age-based assumptions outweigh that harm somehow - a case that they have not even attempted to make, much less make compellingly.