BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Noah's flood story was NEVER meant to be scientific fact

Contention One: Genesis and the usage of prose The whole of Genesis uses prose form, and there is almost no room for the metaphorical use of words in such a form. Take into account that: 1. Hebrew Poetry goes via the lines of parallelism. For example, take Genesis 6:1-6:5 (according to the Geneva version of the Bible): 1 So when men began to be multiplied upon the earth, and there were daughters born unto them, 2 Then the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair, and they took them wives of all that they liked. 3 Therefore the LORD said, My Spirit shall not alway strive with man, because he is but flesh, and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years. 4 There were giants in the earth in those days, yea, and after that the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, and they had born them children, these were mighty men, which in old time were men of renown. 5 When the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and all the imaginations of the thoughts of his heart were only evil continually This is written in prose form; there is no parallelism. This is an example of Biblical Parallelism, as stated in Proverbs: "My son, my teachings you shall not forget and my commands your heart shall guard. " (Proverbs 3:1) Observe this: My son (the subject); 1 parallel. my teachings you shall not forget 2 parallel my commands your heart shall guard This is the true structure of Biblical poetry. As we can see, the Biblical passages of Genesis, especially from the Geneva version and when Noah’s Ark was mentioned, holds no such values and properties. Therefore, we are forced to conclude that the passages mentioned her are clearly meant to be taken literally, as no Biblical prose is ever meant to be taken metaphorically. Contention Two: Science May I remind voters that the motion of this debate is regarding the interpretation of the Biblical Verses in question; not on the truth-values of such claims. The opponent’s coded assault on science, although quite inflammatory and inciting, makes no relevance to this debate. In fact, the opponent admits and concedes to our position in R1 by saying that “just because it’s literal doesn’t mean its scientific” Nevertheless, taking this into account, we must debunk the opponent’s case rigidly. His assaults on the scientific method is based upon the assumption that all texts, in order to prove its validity and its true meaning, must be accordingly used with the scientific method. This is a very faulty assumption; let us take this for example. We cannot ensure that Alexander the Great, via the scientific method, fought his battle and won many. This is an illusion accordingly to the scientific method. However, we know it happens because literature suggest so; there are many accounts from many countries of this fight/war happening. This debate must be based on deductive reasoning; we cannot change history. We can only logically deduce the fact and true intention of these texts, via literature, not science. :)
Noah's flood story was NEVER meant to be scientific fact

"what we are debating is that the people who wrote the bible meant the flood story to be read as a literal story." Being a literal story doesn't imply that it was meant to be proven scientifically. For 1, Genesis uses poetry (something that is far removed from precision in science) to explain things. Here is the outline of the scientific method (1): 1) Observations - in science, you need to make observations on how the world works. Since all we have is the Bible's text, where are the observations of a flood of that proportion? Where can we observe Noah and the Ark? The animals? We can't.. 2) Hypothesis - In science, you must make predictions of the outcome of events (namely the extent of damage in the biblical flood) How can we test to see if the claims of the narrative are true? We can't 3) Experiment - With that in mind, science requires experimentation for phenomenon to be validated. Because it happened in a region not specified in the Bible, we really can't give experiments as this is set in historical format and it already happened. In conclusion, the author clearly wasn't intending to confirm this as scientific fact. " We need to remember that it doesn"t matter what people say nowadays. It matters what the author of the flood story"s intention was." We know what the author's intention was based on the observable data we have of the ancient near east. According to wiki, myths can be true stories and also mix in allegory. Since we have so many different parallel versions of Noah's flood story (2), we can only conclude that Noah's story followed the same pattern and was trying to communicate God's truth of his justice and grace vs. confirming the actual story as scientific fact. Vote pro Sources: 1. http://chemistry.about.com... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Noah's flood story was NEVER meant to be scientific fact

“I refute my opponent's position by saying that just because it's literal, doesn't mean it's scientific. ” If we look at the resolution clearly, we’ll see that this debate is not about the scientific evidence for the worldwide flood, but, what we are debating is that the people who wrote the bible meant the flood story to be read as a literal story. Now onto refuting my opponent’s first round: My opponent starts by pointing out that there is no evidence for global floods, but that isn’t the point of this debate as we can see in the above sentence. Then he goes on to say that people will say the Biblical flood account is a myth. We need to remember that it doesn’t matter what people say nowadays. It matters what the author of the flood story’s intention was. In conclusion, My arguments remain wholly unopposed and pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof and it is too late to do so.
Noah's flood story was NEVER meant to be scientific fact

Hi! I'm excited to take this debate, "Noah's flood story was NEVER meant to be scientific fact" that Truth_seeker initiated! :D I accept this debate and I would like to remind everyone Truth Seeker has the burden of proof to prove that “Noah's flood story was NEVER meant to be scientific fact” This is my major key point, which I will be expanding on later: Information vs. Poetry Genesis is written in an actual informational form. It is not poetry and therefore should be taken literally. Hebrew poetry shows “parallelism”. If it were written as a poem like the Psalms are, then perhaps Noah’s flood could be taken figuratively but, due to the way it was written it needs to be read as if it is real. I will be bring up more points and expanding this in the rebuttals.
Noah's flood story was NEVER meant to be scientific fact

Most Christians take the position that Genesis is literally true and that a global flood did occur, however i will argue for why Noah's flood is NOT a global and go as far as to admit that it was never meant to be taken as literal scientific accurate. According to the book "Reading the Old Testament" by scholar Lawrence Boadt, modern historians are objective and ancient historians are subjective. Modern historians prioritize being scientifically and historically precise, ancient historians do not. Modern historians are more concerned with gaining knowledge of the past for intellectual purposes, whereas ancient historians studied the past to help better live moral lives. I must be honest and admit that there is no evidence for a global flood or Noah and his ark which leads me to question claims of creationists who say there is. I now turn to alternative explanations of understand the narrative. I take the position that there is more evidence to suggest that it was based on a true story. There are many flood myths around the globe in every culture and tribe which parallel the account in Genesis, so the flood story in Genesis is technically a "myth" but it doesn't imply that it's false. I will start by defining a myth. A myth according to Wiki is a sacred tale telling of the origins of humankind. It can be a truthful depiction or an allegorical and personified one involving gods and other supernatural beings. It's purpose is to explain the origins of a culture, practices, people, etc. and instill religious values. Now, Noah's flood myth seems to fit that description as we note the following: 1. The flood - every myth around the globe involves a disastrous flood being caused by gods to wipe out mankind. Noah's flood follows the same pattern, except that it is centered on Yahweh's judgement on moral evil. 2. Animal sacrifices - Noah was commanded to take in clean and unclean animals which probably explained the origin of the Jewish concept of kosher food. 3. The Dove - the Dove can be symbolizing God's grace towards those who are faithful to him (Noah). 4. The Ark - the Ark is a symbol of God's salvation to those who believe on him. Scholars now agree that Mesopotamian myths are based on a true historical event, therefore Noah's flood myth is not completely made up (1). Rebuttals are after my opponent's turn. Sources: 1. The most characteristic element of the Babylonian account seems to be that the Ark, driven from the South inland against the current of the rivers, was stranded in the northern mountains. This element is so remarkable that it could only have been stimulated by a corresponding natural phenomenon. E. Suss (25ff.) suspects that a violent earthquake in the Persian Gulf may have been the cause. A powerful cyclone from the South, associated with voluminous rain and horrible darkness, drove the destructive waters far into the inhabited land. This event must have taken place in a very ancient time. The news of the terrible catastrophe was preserved through all times. This theory is certainly very plausible.", Gunkel "Genesis" (1910), Biddle (trans.), p. 77 (1997 English ed.).
The Existence of God

My Opponent's BeliefIt is fine (I shall not say 'good,' for I personally believe that it is unhealthy) that you have personal beliefs, indeed strong personal beliefs in a deity. However, you cannot use your personal beliefs as evidence in a debate. Since there are few other underlying concepts to your case, I shall make a point-by-point analysis of your first, then second, paragraph. For the sake of saving space (though it may be unnecessary), I may not quote entire sentences. "The proofs for God, are all around us. "This may be plain to you, but the burden of proof is still on you, and still unsatisfied, for the audience and I have yet to see an example of the proof which is allegedly all around us. "We all are not just a body, but we are a person who consists of 3 parts. .. "I sincerely hope that this is not your proof of God. If it is, then this debate just spiraled rapidly down into a very deep and rocky ravine with no shoes. This is yet another totally unfounded statement. To my knowledge, all evidence points indefatigably toward only one of these three components of which you speak: the body [1]. I don't know of any evidence for a soul or spirit. Enlighten me, please. "We Christians can 'Feel the presence of God' which is part. .. "I think there is a medication for that. .. [2]"If there is spirit in us then. .. "Actually, all energy is the 'energy that cannot be destroyed. ' The first law of thermodynamics states that the energy of an isolated system is constant, meaning that energy is never destroyed, only transferred [3],[4]. I would not, however, call this concrete evidence for the 'spiritual world. '"Body is only a shell. .. "I would love to see some documentation of this--it sounds a little interesting. By dust, I believe you are referring to inert carbon and mineral deposits. If not, please elaborate. If so, elaborate anyway; you've got plenty of characters to do so. "The bible said spirit was the breath of God. .. "The Bible also says that daylight is not produced by stars, and that long hair bestows insatiable strength. I would not consider the Bible the most reliable source of information. "This is another proof how wonderfully God has created us human being. "You have yet to provide one piece of evidence, let alone proof. Evidence for GodI agree with you absolutely; absolute proof of the existence of God cannot be realized by humans. I disagree, however, that the great weight of evidence, when rationally evaluated, clearly tips the scales toward God, and you certainly haven't been very helpful in changing my mind. To the contrary, all evidence of which I know suggests that the existence of God is a myth. Since we're quoting scriptures, allow me to quote one: "He that hath his privy member cut off shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord. " Deuteronomy 23:1 [5]. I now turn the floor over to my opponent; good luck! Sources:[1] Life: The Science of Biology[2] . http://jnnp.bmj.com...[3] . http://www.britannica.com...[4] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] The Holy Bible: King James Version
The Existence of God

First of all, I am not a man. Back to God. I believe in God because I know He is real and I can feel His presence. The proofs for God, are all around us. We all are not just a body, but we are a person who consists of 3 parts: Body, soul, and spirit. We Christians can "Feel the presence of God" which is part of that discernment of the spirit. If there is spirit in us then there must be the spiritual world, which is eternity because spirit is the energy that cannot be destroyed, it will exist forever and ever. Body is only a shell for us to live on this earth, once the spirit left the body, the body will just rot away to dust again, for it was made from dust, thus come back also to dust.The bible said spirit was the breath of God, where we were all created in His image, that we are all bestowed with knowledge and creativity to create things on earth. This is another proof how wonderfully God has created us human being. Evidence for God :While absolute proof of the existence of God cannot be realized by any human being, the great weight of evidence, when rationally evaluated, clearly balances the scales heavily in favor of God. We can demonstrate "beyond a reasonable doubt" that "He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6).
The Existence of God

There's a sad sort of clanging from the clock in the hallAnd the bells in the steeple tooAnd up in the nursery an absurd little birdIs popping out to say "cuckoo"Cuckoo, cuckooRegretfully they tell us Cuckoo, cuckoo But firmly they compel us Cuckoo, cuckoo To say goodbye . . . Cuckoo! . . . to youSo long, farewell, auf Wiedersehen, good nightI hate to go and leave this pretty sightSo long, farewell, auf Wiedersehen, adieuAdieu, adieu, to yieu and yieu and yieuSo long, farewell, au revoir, auf wiedersehenI'd like to stay and taste my first champagneSo long, farewell, auf Wiedersehen, goodbyeI leave and heave a sigh and say goodbye -- Goodbye!I'm glad to go, I cannot tell a lieI flit, I float, I fleetly flee, I flyThe sun has gone to bed and so must ISo long, farewell, auf Wiedersehen, goodbyeGoodbye, goodbye, goodbyeGoodbye!
Cows are better than dogs

Cows are better than dogs: 1. Cows look nice and clean while dogs are dirty. 2. Dogs want everything while all cows want is grass, a home, and water. 3. Cow milk can be used for food and drinking while dogs can't produce any type of liquid nor food. 4. Dogs can be mean and bite people and have rabies but cows are not mean, don't bite people, and don't have rabies 5. You have to walk and feed dogs but all you have to do is bring cows out of their barn into an enclosed grass field and let them eat and walk themselves.
Torture

1.Torture is the intentional infliction of extreme physical suffering on some non-consenting, defenseless, other person for the purpose of breaking their will. 2. Morality is principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. 3.Torture and interrogation coercion are never morally permissible. 4.The comparison of defense and interrogation is superficial. 5.Questioning is not a case of aggression, unlike defense. 6.The difference between our duties to perform certain acts of causation and our duties not to perform certain different acts of causation on the other had. 7.The bare illegality of their act of torture does not render it morally impermissible given it was otherwise morally permissible is irrelevant. 8.The premise that says torture might be the best possible action in some emergency situation needs more specification because your conclusion only says some instances. 9.In Conclusion, there are not any instances of minimally morally justifiable torture. Yes we both agree on the definition of torture and morality. Yes we agree on what is maximalist torture and requirements for one to justify torture. Yes in the last argument it would be after the incident. There is not a low chance because how would the people on the other side planning the attack know that we got information out of the person we have captured. Also your conclusion states that some instances of torture are minimally morally justifiable and you can stand by that but it doesn't mean it is completely ethical. In my view torture is wrong in all ways weather a maximalist uses it or a minimalist uses it either way it is wrong and not minimally morally justifiable. My premises are now proving how my conclusion is correct and what was wrong with your premises. I believe that torture cannot be the only possible way to get information there has to be a more ethical way to get what you need. I stand by my conclusion torture is wrong no matter which technique you chose to do.
Torture

1. Torture is the intentional infliction of extreme physical suffering on some non-consenting, defenseless, other person for the purpose of breaking their will. 2. Morality is principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. 3. Maximalist torture is morally wrong and should not be used in any circumstances. 4. To make torture justifiable, there needs to be a reason like saving lives,there is no other way, and threat to life is imminent. 5. In Conclusion, there are some instances of minimally morally justifiable torture. The definition of torture and morality are matters that are not controversial since we both agree on it. Maximalist torture is also another subject that requires not controversy and so is the the requirements for one to torture. In the subject of maximalist torture, you agreed with me that a maximalist takes it too far, when using his methods. There has been no controversy over the matter of requirements, so I am going to assume that you agree with me. Things that you pointed out in the last argument is that if the police were unable to save the people and than the police would use it as revenge on the person. But that would be after the incident. That is totally a different secanrio and it would be wrong to torture somebody using a reason like revenge. That would not be part of the some instances that my conclusion is stating. There is no actual reason and the requirement are not fulfilled with just that reason. One of the argument that you used is about the source of the information. The information may come from anywhere but it needs to be concrete like, it could be intercepted from call between a terrorists or other sources. About the maximalist torture, you said that what makes me sure that the person wouldn't go back to the people and try to do the same thing. For one instance, we could keep a watch on them and make sure that they wouldn't go back. But on the other hand , there is a very low chance that they would go back after they just betrayed them. In the end , I stay with my conclusion that some instances of torture is minimally morally justifiable.
Torture

I agree that not all torture is based off the idea of revenge but when you say that the one being tortured and the torturer do not know each other is true but based off of anticipated revenge. Therefore that argument is invalid. I was saying when you said you can use minimalist torture but also keeping the requirement in mind is that I was asking you if minimalist torture is one of the instances you are referring to. If you had answered yes to the question above then answer what are other examples of these instances and what makes them morally justifiable? Along with using the terrorist example you keep on using if the terrorist planted a bomb and a bunch of lives are at stake what is the possibility you can have a chance to save them and if you are unable to save them then torture could possibly still be used but then it would not be an act of anticipated revenge it would be an act of revenge. There some part of your argument I can agree with you but it doesn't mean I support your conclusion anything I say is supporting my conclusion continuously supporting my conclusion that no type of torture is minimally morally justifiable. Also you need to explain how you would figure out that the terrorist or whoever has information or not and how you are to figure it out if it is true. I also agree that a maximalist consequence could be that they would not let the person being tortured also referred to as the tortured go. Then but if you let them go what makes you sure that they won"t go back to the terrorist and help them plan another attack you can never be sure if what you are doing is the right decision. If you think you can be sure explain how. Explain how each of your instances is minimally morally justifiable. Specify at least three types of torture that are from a minimalist and three from a maximalist. There is a lot more specification needed in many of your arguments. You have only given one example of an emergency situation but what is another one.
Torture

To summarize what you said in the beginning of your round two is that revenge is the only reason why someone would want to torture someone. Not every torture that is performed is based on the idea of revenge. There are other problems when the information is needed. Revenge might not be the only thing that you are talking about but not every torture has to have feeling involved in it. In most cases the torturer and the tortured do not even know each other so there would be no reason for one to use feeling in this matter. I don't understand when you stated that the minimalist argument is contradicting my conclusion. My conclusion states that some cases of torture is minimally morally justifiable. What I am trying to say is that when all the requirements are met than you should use minimalist method of torture not the maximalist ways of torture. You also said that "Then if you are completely sure that there is no time to interrogate them then it"s okay to resort to torture even if it doesn"t meet all of the requirements." is helping my case because you are stating that there are some instances where torture Is minimally morally justifiable. Another consequence that might happen are a maximalist tortures somebody is that when a torturer is done and plans no letting the tortured go, the tortured should be able to move after a little while, has a mental state of mind and can go with their life. An example of the emergency situation would be the terrorist example that I used in my last round . If a terrorist planted a bomb , thousands of lives are in danger and there is no time than using torture would minimally morally justifiable. Also in my conclusion when I state that some instances of torture are minimally morally justifiable , the some instances include emergency situations. For situations to be called emergency , those situations are very serious , the situation is threatening many lives and there is no way of saving people using methods beside torture .