BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Biblical truth is false.

Con makes a lot of assumptions in round 3 of his argument. I feel I must state that when dealing with the subject of proving something to be true or false, it makes for a weak case by bring assumptions to the table. In error, I have regrettably made a couple myself during this debate. But I have based the bulk of my argument off of scientific fact, logic, and/or reasoning. First I would like Con to understand that it is not that I believe the bible to be false. I believe the bible's to be in question as we have both agreed. But, me and/or a group of people can write a book, call it "The Zexus" for example, fill it with world creation, moral stories of life, moral lessons, guidelines or rules to follow, etc. Now what if I took "The Zexus" and hid it in a remote, but important place? What if in 300 years it is found and taken as the word of God, only because it says so on the inside. Or what if I say that God came to me today and told me to write His words down and call the book "The Zexus". I would gain some believers, which could turn into more believers, which could cascade into a religious revolution. Such is what happens to Paganism, because of Christianity during the centuries of the Roman empire. If you look at the history of the religion and the book itself.. There is reason for question. But if you raise the argument that nothing can be proven true unless you are there, well then you cannot prove many things accepted as fact. All of this is to open Cons eyes to my views and questions, but this get's me quite off topic. "Biblical Truth" by it's very nature is claiming in itself to be true. By labeling itself biblical "TRUTH" it is claiming to be the truth. But cannot give any evidence at all to support it's claim. Just because we were not there to review and judge the information, does not make the information automatically in question. My argument better explained is this. To the believers in "Biblical Truth"... Who say that "Biblical Truth is the only real truth... You are false in your claim. The fact is that ALL truth is in question. All things claiming to be true, must first be accepted by someone's personal belief's before it can be the truth for them. All truth can only be personal truth, if you believe it... It is true. Atleast in your reality it is. And that is all we can live through for determining what is right and wrong, true and false, is through our personal beliefs and what is accepted in our personal realities. That is a gift of God.. Nomatter what book you believe or don't believe... It is an epic gift. So, due to the wording in my topic being flawed in reflection of my actual stance on the subject.... I admit defeat to Con. Thank you for your time Con. It has been an inspiring debate. Yes, we can have our conclusions in round 5 if you wish.
Biblical truth is false.

The point here is exactly what pro stated. Biblical information is not truth, yet it is not false. The biblical information is in question. So the wording of my statement was flawed.. I award pro this much. Biblical truth cannot be truth unless it is proven to be true. Therefore, Biblical truth is not truth and Biblical truth is not false. So, the term "BIBLICAL TRUTH" in itself is false, because the information in the bible cannot be "truth" or "false", unless proven to be so. "Biblical Information" = "Biblical Truth" How? In what way does this equal truth? In this way, the term "Biblical Truth" is false by default because it cannot be truly defined as such. So, the term "Biblical Truth" is making a claim through the very definition of it's words. And through the definition of it's words it's claim is false. Not because it is not possible for it to be true at all.. But because it is in question. It is not been proven to be true, nor has it been proven to be false. So making the claim to be truth or falsehood.. As in the term "Biblical Truth" is false by it's very definition. My statement could be worded better... But still stands to be true in essence. And I would like to thank you Pro for taking on my debate. I respect your view... And I look forward to your response.
Biblical truth is false.

Remember what we are debating, "Biblical truth is false." It is not my job to prove Biblical truth, rather I am merely defending it as not being false. It is on Pro to prove Biblical truth is false. "I am stating that the information in the bible cannot be the truth, until it is proven as truth or fact. And since this cannot be done, the information in the bible must be in question until it is proven true. So if it is not true, then it is false." Pro's makes a major flaw by saying that something "cannot be the truth, until it is proven as truth or fact." This is a completely false statement. Did the planets revolve around the sun before it was proven that they did? We could come to tons of false conclusions from this statement. So just because we cannot prove the Bible to be true does not mean it is false. It turns out that Christians BELIEVE or have faith that the Bible is true. Christians, like everyone else, base their beliefs on assumptions. Notice that everyone bases their worldview on certain assumptions. For example, we might assume that everything around us is not simply a projection and illusion. The fact is, there are plenty of things that cannot be proven yet people have faith with good reason that they are true. Likewise I believe with good reason that the Bible is true. But while I may not be able to prove the Bible as true, it is possible for you to prove the Bible false. Pro mentions novels that are fictional. There are obvious reasons that the events in those novels are false, the authors say so. Pro must show how the Bible is false, and there has been no such argument except a fallacious one.
Biblical truth is false.

I agree with con's statement that some of my argument is based off of assumptions. I have been raised around people who believe in Biblical truth. I state this only because they present it to be the only truth or fact in life, without giving any evidence to prove that it is the truth or fact at all. So, we must bring this argument to it's most raw simplistic form, before we can resolve the topic. If something is true then it is a fact that it is the truth. This can be proven through evidence or it would not be the truth or fact, it would just be a claim or theory. 2+2=4 Truth/Fact The earth is round=Fact Fire is hot=Fact These examples can all be proven. These examples are real truth. The topic is "Biblical truth is false". Con does a good job of tearing down the information I present in support of my view. But gives none to support his own. I have given widely accepted views for dating history. And even if I were to agree with you.. Even if I was to say that no amount scientific evidence could could make historical aging accuracy a fact, unless I was there.. It still does not make the bible any more true than Lord of the Rings or Moby Dick. You can choose to believe it because it makes sense to you.. But choosing to believe something does not make it the truth, it makes it a belief. You believe in the bible, as do many people. But none of this makes it the truth. Any information written or spoken, being presented as truth or fact, is not truth or fact without question until proven false. Any information written or spoken, being presented as truth or fact, is in question until the information is proven as truth or fact through evidence. I am not stating any information to be true. Therefor I need no evidence to support my information. I am stating that the information in the bible cannot be the truth, until it is proven as truth or fact. And since this cannot be done, the information in the bible must be in question until it is proven true. So if it is not true, then it is false. Belief has nothing to do with anything being actually true. I can believe with all my heart and soul that I came from aliens instead of god (although I do not believe this). Or I could believe that the novel I just read was the telling of true real life people, because the author said so, with no evidence. Or I can believe anything that anybody has ever said or written down. But none of these things can be accepted as true just because I believe them to be so. There must be proof for something to be true or it is logically false. My topic stands as a correct statement, because no matter what Con believes, Con cannot claim the bible as truth without proving it to be true.
Biblical truth is false.

In contrary to most religious beliefs.. Humans have existed for well over 100,000 years. Fossil hunters in Africa have unearthed human bones that are more than 160,000 years old ( http://www.npr.org...). Many ancient cultures and tribes provide us with a strong case of existence before the bible tells us of Adam and Eve. This evidence comes in the form of tools, bones, structures, art, and various other artifacts. The age of this evidence is proven by the science of man and the only argument for disproval would be that science is wrong. But science and biblical history rarely agree. So, if you believe the bible is Truth... Then any case where science disagrees with biblical information, you are forced to take the side of the bible. And if you choose to take sides with whatever information benefits your personal views.. Then you do not believe in Biblical truth. In order for something to become truth it has to have evidence that proves it to be true. The bible is a book. A book filled with words that prove very little to be true. At best it sounds like a great book of guidance, written by a wise human or a group of humans. At worst it sounds like a fictional book filled with rules, stories, and narrow minded morality lessons. I would like to add one more thing... How does the bible explain Dinosaurs? If you tell me that you believe in Biblical truth... Then you cannot believe in Dinosaurs. So how about we go to the museum and I can show you evidence to prove my argument?
religion should be eliminated

In my first statement, I am going to look at history. If we look at the beginning of civilization we can see that religion was used to explain what we did not know like lightning or rain or the tides but when we started to accumulate more knowledge religion was used to control people examples include Egypt with the pharaohs and Chinese emperors. this system remained up until the U.S.A was founded and people realized that the church should not rule completely. The middle ages is a great example of what "good" the church of Christianity did, not only did they cause the downfall of Rome but than prosecuted who every they wanted, whether it was Atheists or Muslims or anything that did not agree with the Bible(Spanish Inquisition), even when Europe "discovered" the Americas they used the bible to explain what they did to the natives. If we look at what little good the churches did it all refers to paintings and other art and nothing else. http://www.csis.pace.edu... https://www.ancient.eu...
God Likely Exists

I will have to concede the first point you covered, however the reason there is no life to be discovered because of the number of conditions which must be met in order to support life on the planet (i.e. distance from the sun, asteroid belt to protect from asteroids, a planet like Venus to absorb heat from the sun.) and the probability for life keeps shrinking the more scientist find out about the universe, which is why it's unsurprising we have not found any within the observable universe. And yes while believing in god rather than the multiverse theory is simpler this does not in turn make it the simplest answer. Perhaps the simplest answer would be the universe has a finite time span, but the doesn't account for there being an intelligent being behind its creation
God Likely Exists

I would like to start this off by saying I've been a Christian all my life, but I like to argue, and hope that in the process we can reach a stronger conclusion on this topic. I have a contention with the idea that an infinite time span leads to infinite possibilities. An infinitely spatial/ temporal universe would lead to all possibilities within the parameters of that universe's natural law. Another problem is I'm uncertain how you're defining the term god. if there's a possibility that there isn't an omnipotent god, then what in your eyes is a god? Also, while I think it's clever, invoking "Occam's Razor" can be considered a non sequitur argument, and perhaps even a counterproductive one, as maybe god isn't the most simple answer to the question. Perhaps a more simple answer is that the law's of the universe are dictated not by a supreme being, but by mathematical principles, making determinism the simplest explanation of the universe.
Young Earth Creationism is wrong about the age of the earth

Young earth creationism being the creationist who believes that the earth is less than 100.000 years old. The debate will be over the age of the earth, the burden of proof will be upon me, and all that con has to do is just to refute my arguments. Meaning, I have to present evidence that show that the earth is older than the given age Con subscribes to, and if con can refute all my arguments, he wins. Evidence and rebuttals must be scientific, meaning, you cannot quote the bible, qu'ran or w/e holy book and claim it as ultimate source and expect a win. 1st round for agreements and definitions. 2-3-4-5th round for arguments and rebuttals.
Water baptism, to the penitent believer, is unto - to obtain - the forgiveness or remission sins

After thinking about it, I believe it would be decidedly unfair (or at least in poor taste) to advance two or three more pro arguments as well as five more questions; therefore, I will let stand the arguments and questions put forth previously: (1) that any verses which predicate salvation upon faith does not necessarily mean "faith only", (2) that Matt 28: 19, Mark 16: 16, and Luke 24: 47 are parallel accounts (even if they weren't spoken at the same time) and support the pro position, and (3) Acts 2, an account of the first sermon in the name of a risen saviour, bears the query, "What must we do?" and the answer in verse 38 supports to pro position. The conversion of Saul/Paul was mentioned but not elaborated upon, and five questions were asked. I will simply let the prior post stand pending your reply. I was never a fan of quoting/citing so many passages that the other disputant could never really catch up: it's an old trick frequently employed by dishonorable disputants.
One Round of Random Junk!

Vote based on who's randomer in your opinion. For ideal effects read them while watching the second youtube video.http://www.youtube.com...PSYCH! There's only one.Oh, bannana, bannana, you save me from Spongebob, me gusta la rechocheta, mocha, no Google.com. Get ready for Nawm Nawm, no time for stomp cromp. Suddenly! Jump, man, hit her sky, get nobody, man up to the pan.... Fry, Pi-- And then the Terms of Service is such that Health Care should be reformed.|||||||||||||No way hozey||||||||||Oh crap I forget to put blue hereLet's talk about money anyways. Broken link right over here--> http://www.randomwebsite.com...;Imabench is a bench; no time wasting for Hasting, Iran is in Irqa war, numbers go down 7 by 12, Quantum theory is bogus Einstein, Piper does not belong in Gravity Falls. Hoping BonBon does not accept, not talkin' bout Princess an' Frog nor MLP,It's Adventure Time!WAHHHHHHHHOHHHHHHHHHHHNAHHHHHHHHHHNo Jumanji for you, drug-overdose.Swimming throughout the lakes....nothing can email gugigor....star star nowhere seen....**I"M A FADER GENTLEMEN** INTRODUCTIONDid you know Mikal lost exactly 3 times?Nothing much here, anywhere, elevator sequence within those polls, Putin laughs like Donkey Kong s://drawception.com...; alt="" width="300" height="250" />1.23509872 24444. 843$ThAt's ThE (wrong amount) oF US dEbt (http://wwhttp://www.usdebtclock.org...)Has the Ebola struck us? Pollution too? Graph correlation shows squid needs food: Finally, to bake a cake:5000. No need for Himalayas, China got Mongols!Uno. Hablo nada no nunca espanol.IN CONCLUSIONHitler stinks like bellsPink Fluffy Unicorns dance on rainbows.Happily, we should demonstrate negativity due to how penguins waddle on Mars0.99999..... equals one and so should youVOTE ME BECAUSE NYAN CAT. <3
should under 18s be allowed to vote for their futre

Thanks for being willing to hopefully shed light on the universe we live in one debate at a time.A couple arguments.1. It is not their future only.You are suggesting that 30 year olds cannot vote on the future of people younger than 18. However they can and should because the next 50 years of the nation are theoretically their future as well. It's not just the 60 year future of the kids we have today we have to consider. We need to consider 20 year olds futures', as well as 7 year olds (for example).2. The brain is not fully developed until 25."Although brain development is subject to significant individual variation, most experts suggest that the brain is fully developed by age 25. For some people, brain development may be complete prior to age 25, while for others it may end after age 25." http://mentalhealthdaily.com... The source is credible because it is a mental health source.3. Voting on elected officials is a serious matter.Many people younger than 10 are horrible on the internet. This PewDiePie video: has this comment on it. "Does anyone else pee in the sides of the toilet to make less noise?" ..... That is obviously an immature and very unserious 10 year old. Want him to pick your next president? Didn't think so.- 42
Evolution is a Myth; Creation is the Truth Part 1

I gotta say, I fully agree with you. Thank god theres at least one smart person on this website! Everyone knows that scientific studies are shams paid for by jews or fuckin nigger chinks. Of course, People like KILLARY are trying to convert us all to the ISIS religion. WELL NO MORE I SAY. I WILL TAKE A STAND AGAINST THE AL QAEDA BRAINWASHING. WITH THE POWER OF GOD, AND GOD'S ULTIMATE DIVINE WARRIOR DONALD TRUMP, WE WILL PREVAIL AGAINST DEM ATHEISRS AND MUSLIMS!
Homework Should Be Abolished

Before I present the remainder of my speech, I will deliver a succinct rebuttal, pertaining to some flaws in my worthy opponents' reasoning. First of all, in my speech I stated that homework takes time, because not all students are brilliant at all subjects, that homework is stressful to a child - and they do not need that amount of stress and that a child might not always be the one completing the homework. The second part of the aforementioned arguments were ones that you seemed to have conveniently overlooked. Secondly, you stated that homework in MODERATE amounts would be acceptable; but moderate is a relative term, and how can you ensure that this MODERATE happens (I will expand on more in rebuttal)? Also, you said that the child would have to the homework at school, making the school day longer, but that leads me on to my first argument. There is not any need for homework in the first place. From your very own source (https://www.washingtonpost.com......) "The value of homework has been the subject of various research studies over the years, yet there is still no conclusive evidence that it makes a big difference in helping students improve achievement. The most often-cited studies are those that conclude that there is virtually no evidence that it helps in elementary school but some evidence that it does improve academic performance in later grades. Yet this newest study looked at 10th graders and found no correlation." Your source also says that; "Researchers who looked at data from more than 18,000 10th-graders found there was little correlation between the time students spent doing homework and better grades in math and science courses." Not only that, but please don't forget the part where the PUPIL SPENDS THE MAJORITY OF THEIR DAY LEARNING NEW INFORMATION. Yes, it is a teachers" job to teach their students, and that includes giving them ample time to test out their knowledge without removing time from an already busy day. The pupil would leave that class with knowledge that they can utilize in the future. Also, teachers are known for giving their students a review sheet to do in class so they can be sure a student has fully grasped the concept. With this structure, homework is made obsolete. Therefore, a school day would simply remain the same length as homework would become non-existent. Moving forward to my second argument, you stated that a child learns responsibility from mandatory homework. On the contrary, the only thing a child learns is how to feel stress, and a pupil can actually learn responsibility more without the presence of homework. As you stated before, it is hard to get up and do homework, but the pupils that got up would be doubly as responsible as the work was not necessary before-hand. We are not saying that a child cannot work independently at home, but only that it should not be mandatory. So, if homework is abolished, children will gain more responsibility in life.
Homework Should Be Abolished

Right, before I begin my arguments, I shall do a short rebuttal of my worthy opponent's arguments. I said in my previous arguments, that homework in moderate or small amounts is beneficial. I have stressed that throughout my arguments. And then my opponent went on to say that homework can be too much, and too stressful. That the child won't have any time to do homework. Well, I will elaborate this in my rebuttal, however, I said in moderate amounts. In moderate amounts, 1 small assignment a night due in two days can't be too stressful, can it?Now onto my argument. Homework enables the day to be shorter. My opponent claims that the day is too busy for the child. However, the day would be even longer without homework. Homework enables teachers to get through work that there isn't time for in class, and to finish off class work from that day. Without homework, school days would be much longer. What proof of that is there? you might say. However, one does not need proof. Logic serves the mind just as well.If my opponent's claims that "there is too much homework", just pause to think about what would happen if that homework is eliminated. How much work is done at home as homework? How many assignments, and school work is done at home? How much studying at home? Well, imagine if homework is taken away. Then how many hours would be added on the set school day? If we aren't going to be finishing schoolwork in class, and teachers can't set is at homework, we would need longer lessons. And what about those major assessments, or in high school, that huge coursework? A teacher can't set that as homework, since we're abolishing it, so it must be done in class. And classes are already full of work already, where would one find the time to do it? The answer, the school days must be elongated. So that student's "already busy day" would be even longer. Of course, you may say students will just do the work at home on their own. And they can do it on their own. But let's be honest with ourselves, how many of us actually do that? How many of us would finish of the work we did in class at home, if it wasn't set? The sad answer, not very many of us. We can't find the motivation, or work up the trouble to do it, if it wasn't mandatory or required. After all, many students just can't be bothered half the time, me included.So, if homework is abolished, school days would be much longer, and who would want that? No one.