BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible Cannot Be Trusted

My opponent has failed to provide any real examples where the bible cannot be trusted and is false. However, she has given quite a couple agreeing with the con side that the bible can be trusted. I as the con side have absolutely nothing to refute simply because my opponent merely says that the bad outweighs the good and does not provide any real examples. I however believe that the good outweighs the bad and if one reads most of the points that my opponent has stated, she has agreed with me on this quite a few times. Here are my examples for correct parts of the bible. The 10 commandments (my opponent agrees that this is right) Common sense is included in examples (quote from opponent "The ten commandments are simply, as I said before, common sense and I find no fault in them but say that other than those commandments and having faith in God holy texts do not have much to offer.") My opponent also makes the rather irrelevant statement that the bible has little to offer. However, the resolution that my opponent made is actually whether the bible is to be trusted or not. She does not give any examples other than the homosexuality one that I have refuted and is currently unanswered. My opponent agrees with me that the bible has many parts that are common sense "Other than knowing God exists and the fact that we are souls that can go to heaven, the Bible, Quaran, and Torah are just stories of people and rules that the writers thought will make you a good person. This is common knowledge that you can learn yourself throughout life rather than read form a book." Also, she admits later that common sense is correct and to be trusted. The resolution is saying that the bible is not to be trusted and she admits that it can be trusted. She provides no examples that the bible cannot be trusted but instead has given me examples in which the bible can be trusted. I ask my opponent to stick with a point that is actually beneficial to her argument. Finally I ask her to give points so I have a chance to refute them. Thank you.
The Bible Cannot Be Trusted

As my opponent has pointed out, I have been unclear in my debate. I apologize. For one, let me say that my opinion towards the bible has not changed. The Bible makes delivers it's message through stories in which the meanings are already interpreted for us. The bible was created by many authors but that does not mean those authors were changers of the original words of the bible along the way of its many years of oral and written preservation. The words of the Bible did not come from God but form those who claimed to be "inspired" by God therefore the way people were created along with other teachings of the bible may not only be incorrect but purely opinion. In writing their opinion, they may include points that may be common sense or maybe even good advice, but the bad outweighs the good. It is for these reasons that the bible cannot be trusted. I make what my opponent calls "irrelevant points" because I cannot address the bible without addressing the beliefs that people hold because of it. For the record, I did not say homosexuality is wrong or not but that it is much more tolerated in the present that it has been in the past.
The Bible Cannot Be Trusted

After reading my opponent's point I gather that she has changed her opinion on the bible. If one looks at round one, she says that the bible was preserved orally and eventually written down, so they cannot be trusted. In Round 2, she agrees with me that the bible was written by authors inspired by "God" and not passed down orally. To my opponent's second point from what I can gather is that homosexuality is condemned in the bible but never was there a statement stating that homosexuality will never happen. On the other hand, the bible even mentions homosexuality because it had considered it but decided against it. That is choice. however, I must ask my opponent how the bible cannot be trusted as a result of this? I must ask her to look at the resolution again as she is getting off topic. If the bible cannot be trusted meaning that it is false then should we "You must have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is an amazing act."? I am not sure of my opponent's beliefs but I for one am against that. My opponent is at the pro side but consistently agrees with me that at least parts of the bible are right and just common sense. If she wants to have a debate on the bible having little to offer that is fine but the resolution is the bible cannot be trusted and she is making irrelevant points that only contribute to mine. My opponent has the burden of proof as pro and has failed to offer a point in which I have not refuted. The bible, as my opponent agrees is it is filled of common sense and my opponent can find no fault in them. I agree. So, I guess my opponent agrees that the bible can be trusted instead of what she previously believed. Thank you.
The Bible Cannot Be Trusted

To my opponent, thank you for accepting my challenge. My opponent is right in the fact that the Bible along with other holy texts had many authors. These authors were "inspired" by God or in other words wrote their opinions. Why did people believe them? The same reason the first Muslims believed Muhhamed when he claimed to see Gabriel in a cave. If you do not believe, you are threatened with the risk of eternity in hell after death. (http://www.religionfacts.com...), a very convincing aspect. There are many verses of the bible that Christians now contradict with their beliefs: Leviticus 18:22 You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act. The reasons behind this belief are logical. For one, God is said to command humankind to "be fruitful and multiply" in Genesis but babies can only created by males and females in the human species. Therefore, homosexuality defeats the purpose of two sexes. Many, however, have swayed away from that belief (http://www.religioustolerance.org...). If we, again, think about it logically...maybe homosexuals are here for a reason. All over the world we have problems with over-population (http://mwillett.org...) but if we continue to "go forth and multiply" our problem will become even more serious. I must point this out if you have not noticed: I have not once referred to the Bible or other Holy Texts as evil and I do not believe they are. Many of their teachings, however, do not apply to today's world such as Genesis 3:16 where God supposedly makes women inferior to men. The ten commandments are simply, as I said before, common sense and I find no fault in them but say that other than those commandments and having faith in God holy texts do not have much to offer.
The Bible Cannot Be Trusted

I first ask my opponent to define the resolution, but as they have not done this, I am forced to work with what they have. After reading my opponents argument, I offer my rebuttals. My opponent claims that the things that god told us were given orally and passed from generation to generation. While I am not sure where they got this piece of evidence it is in my understanding that the bible (Christian version) was written by numerous authors that saw a divine path from god. http://www.allabouttruth.org... These people did not hear about god's stories from other people but were instead inspired to write a part of the bible after they were divinely inspired. As to my opponent's second point, from what I can gather is that there are many similarities between Jesus and Buddha. I do not find how this has any relevance to the debate. The topic that my opponent made is that the bible is not to be trusted and while I found the topic very biased, I will do my best to defend the bible's teachings. Just because religious works are similar does not mean that they are not to be trusted. Or is my opponent suggesting that either Jesus or Buddha is completely evil and anything like them would be something not to be trusted? Finally, in regards to my opponents third and last point, they seem to be agreeing with the fact that there are some parts of the bible that can be trusted. "Other than knowing God exists and the fact that we are souls that can go to heaven,". While I am not saying I agree with that sentence, my opponent did make that statement. Anyways, my opponent then goes on to say that many things in the bible are common knowledge. Now I ask my opponent, is common knowledge not to be trusted? Is our common sense not to be trusted? All and all, I think my opponent accidentally strayed too far from the resolution and made the point that the bible is something that provides common knowledge that can be learned elsewhere. However, just because the knowledge that my opponent agrees will make one a good person and is common knowledge can be learned elsewhere, where does he/she get the impression that the bible cannot be trusted because of that? I believe that my opponent made a logical error, but it happens to all of us. In conclusion, in support of the con side, my opponent agrees that much of the stuff in the bible is common sense although it may be learned elsewhere. Is common sense not to be trusted? In my opinion, common sense is what is so absolutely to be trusted that it has even been deemed COMMON sense. Thank you.
My little pony is not gay and who say so is gay

Since my opponent has not been on for 5 days, I will make this very quick. I say that my little bony is gay. According to the resolution, that would imply that I'm gay, which I am not. As I am a legitimate expert on myself, if can appeal to myself as a source on my sexuality. My opponent will need to try and refute this. If they come back we can go into the actual show.
My little pony is not gay and who say so is gay

Since this is going to be a 5 round debate. I will allow my opponent to start with their argument in R2. The resolution is that MLP is not gay (of which I am Con) however Pro's opening is fixated upon the viewers of MLP. So I will let him decide if he is to argue about the showing not being gay, or the male viewers of the show not being gay.Thank you and lets begin.
I am a bad debater

I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind, it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind swept, God blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace - a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors, and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still. How Stands the City? And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure and happier than it was eight years ago. But more than that: after 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the Pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home. We've done our part. And as I "walk off into the city streets," a final word to the men and women of the Reagan Revolution - the men and women across America who for eight years did the work that brought America back: My friends, we did it. We weren't just marking time, we made a difference. We made the city stronger - we made the city freer - and we left her in good hands. All in all, not bad. Not bad at all. At least you stayed on topic not like me, this is proof that your are a good debater
USA helped run by man who literally thinks the Jewish God of Genesis permits them to abuse the Earth

Well, I've not much to add... James Inhofe seems to prove my assertion: He does help run the USA He does believe that the Jewish God (the central character in Genesis) gives mankind a license to do whatever he pleases; admittedly, in his mind this does not count as abuse, but it certainly is. He simply denies that it's possible for man's limited power to count for anything against God's power and God is, in his words, "still there", looking after the environment.
USA helped run by man who literally thinks the Jewish God of Genesis permits them to abuse the Earth

Well, clearly what I meant was that James Inhofe helps to run the USA. Further than that, he is the chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. This arguably makes him the most powerful man on Earth in a position to push laws, for instance, preventing carbon emissions or agricultural chemical run-off into the oceans. As such, I would rather hope that he agreed with the consensus scientific opinion that man-made climate change is real and poses a real danger... instead, he appears to have his fingers in his ears whilst humming "lalalallaaalllaa; can't hear you; God's still there, y'know; we couldn't be harming the Earth because that would be equivalent to us being as powerful as God". "Oh, and by the way, if you disagree with me you're working for the devil. LLlllAAAALLAAAlaalalalalaLLLAAAALAAA BAAAAA! Bleet Bleet"! So, is this now a non-debate or are you prepared to fight the case for this objectionable state of affairs; in short, are you happy that this religious zealot wields this power?
USA helped run by man who literally thinks the Jewish God of Genesis permits them to abuse the Earth

USA helped run [-1-] by man [-2-] who literally thinks the Jewish God of Genesis permits them to abuse the Earth It's a catchy title, huh? But it gets far, far worse... This man, who thinks that this same Yahweh will judge harshly the sinful amongst us; this man, who listens to God's every word, breathed into his ear through scripture, amen. This man, who knows that it is sinful, it is wicked, it is wrong to worship a false god. This man who thinks that liberal climate campaigners are doing the work of Beelzebub himself in making the false choice, to worship the creation, not the Creator. Seriously, I'm not making it up... he quotes Romans 1:25 as a direct analogy for people campaigning for the Environment. Here's the bible verse [-3-]: "They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator"who is forever praised. Amen." Hear what he has to say for himself (please listen to all of the audio [-4-]). So, I challenge a Con who thinks that this is a good thing. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] The man in question is a certain James Inhofe, chair of the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works http://www.newrepublic.com... [3] https://www.biblegateway.com... [4] http://www.rightwingwatch.org...
The Nature of Christ: Monophysitism vs. Chalcedonianism - Christian

After private research, I have come to the conclusion that Christ is of one nature: homoiousian with the Father and homoiousian with man. This is normally considered Monophysite, and that's propbably an accurate title for my belief, even though it's not exactly the same as Eutychianism and not even close to Miasphytism. To me, both Nestorianism and Chalcedonianism both suggest a disconnect between the humanity and godliness of Christ.
Police Brutality

Happy debating! Police officers using excessively violent means to deal with criminal and even non-criminal activity is not how the men and women that are supposed to "Protect and Serve" us should act. Race and ethnicity impact decisions.1. ) African Americans are assaulted or killed by police more than any other race and, according to Justice on Trial (2000), 70% of traffic stops involved black drivers yet only 17% of traffic crimes were actually committed by blacks. Severe acts toward a group based on race is not justice! Even criminals have Constitutional rights.1. ) Through the 6th Amendment the accused have the right to a fair trial to determine guilt. If officers take it upon themselves to dish out judgement, this right is taken from the accused. Violence breeds violence.1. ) When police use excessive force it causes reason for distrust and rebellion. These feelings lead even the innocent to act out.
The LA school board made the right decision in banning chocolate and strawberry flavored milk

Kids who drink plain milk will indeed absorb more calcium than those who drink chocolate milk:According to my opponent’s link, a child who consumes one carton of plain milk will absorb 6 more milligrams of calcium than a child who consumes a carton of chocolate milk. This difference may be insignificant in the short-term; however, it can make a big difference in the long run. If a student drinks a carton of plain milk every day, he or she will absorb an additional 2,190 milligrams of calcium every year. Banning flavored milk will not decrease overall milk consumption in the long-term: My opponent mentioned a study which found that elementary school children drank 35 percent less milk at school on average when flavored milk was removed. As it turns out, this study was funded by the Milk Processor Education Program (MPEP), the dairy industry’s national marketing group (1). The MPEP has spent over a million dollars to promote chocolate milk in schools. As extensive research has shown, the conclusions of a scientific study usually support the interests of the study's financial sponsor (2-3). Therefore, the results of this research article should not be weighted heavily. When we consider only objective research, we realize that banning flavored milk will not lead to decreased consumption in the long-term. For example, let’s examine the implications of limiting the availability of flavored milk in New York City schools. Beginning in 2006, flavored milk could be purchased only three days a week (4). In this year, most NYC schools also stopped serving whole milk. Initially, there was an 8% decline in milk purchases following the implementation of these new policies. Several students were probably not accustomed to drinking low-fat, plain milk. As a result, some kids may have initially avoided drinking milk altogether. However, by 2009, milk purchases had actually increased by 1.3% (4). This proves that children will eventually learn to accept unsweetened, low-fat foods. As Dr. Marlene Schwartz concluded, “It is probable that, immediately following removal of flavored milk from schools, children will drink less milk. Who really is surprised that, given the option, children prefer the taste of flavored milk to unflavored milk? Research with both animals and humans show that we all like the taste of sugar. However, examining what happens in the short-term is inadequate; the relevant question is what happens in the long-term when children are only served unflavored milk” (5). Conclusion: By serving our children flavored milk, we’re only training them to prefer, and eventually over-consume, sugar-sweetened beverages. Scientific studies show that banning flavored milk does not decrease overall milk consumption. Thus, all of our schools should stop serving flavored milk. I urge everyone to vote pro!References:(1) http://yaleruddcenter.org...(2) http://www.bmj.com...(3) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...(4) http://journals.lww.com...(5) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
The LA school board made the right decision in banning chocolate and strawberry flavored milk

I'd like to apologize for my lateness. I didn't have a lot of time to write this up, but, I assure you, next round I'll be completely focused. Thank you for being patient. "The decision to offer only plain milk is clearly better for the students. According to the Centers for Disease Control, a serving of low-fat chocolate milk contains 53 more calories than a serving of low-fat white milk. These are mostly empty calories, which have no nutritional value whatsoever." A 2005 study by the New York City (NYC) Department of Education found that by removing whole milk and replacing it with low-fat to fat-free chocolate milk, students were served an estimated 5,960 fewer calories and 619 fewer grams of fat per year.(1) "Chocolate contains oxalate, a naturally occurring compound in cocoa beans, which can inhibit the absorption of calcium. " ï¿½It is present in small enough amounts that the effect on calcium absorption is negligible(2)(3). ï¿½As chocolate contains relatively small amounts of oxalate, it is unclear to what extent chocolate consumption affects healthy people who eat calcium-rich diets. "Opponents of banning flavored milk also argue that some children simply will not drink plain milk. However, most students will select healthy foods if they are prompted to do so. Furthermore, evidence has shown that children who are continually exposed to healthy foods will learn to prefer these foods. These children will also develop a decreased preference for sweetened foods." Of course, not everyone likes plain milk(4), so by only offering plain milk you're depriving a certain amount of kids their calcium.ï¿½Flavoring milk ï¿½is the only way to get students to drink it. Milk provides a host of nutrients, including calcium, protein and vitamin D, which recent studies show is deficient in about three-quarters of teenagers and adults. To simply claim that, under verbal prompts, students will defy their taste buds is ridiculous. The experiment given here is invalid. "It's better for them to have some milk with some flavoring and a little added sugar than to go without milk," said Ms. Pratt-Heavner, whose organization last month helped release a study that showed that elementary school children drank 35 percent less milk at school on average when flavored milk was removed. Conclusions: While chocolate milk isn't exactly on par with non-flavored milk in terms of calories, the benefits still outweigh the costs by drinking chocolate milk. There are some students who simply won't drink plain milk, and prefer flavored milk instead. What about those students? Won't someone think of the children? Sources: 1.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2.ï¿½http://www.ivillage.com... 3.http://www.mayoclinic.com... 4.http://www.facebook.com...