BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
bible christians - if you lived in old testament days you should have stoned people or supported it

i'm not sure why con is acting like this is a one time thing. the OT has lots of examples of it. in fact, almost every 10 commandment has a following death punishment later in the bible. most people dont realize that. here is one example. Leviticus 20:13 "'If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." i just picked the fist example cause i clearly said God directed it. we see no where that it wasn't God directing it in these, but it's implied, and it's from the bible, so. plus, if God directed it once, there's no reason the logic couldnt be extended to other rules like ive stated. if it's not wrong in one place, why is it wrong in other places?
bible christians - if you lived in old testament days you should have stoned people or supported it

God never did anything the same way twice, yes God did say to stone that man you are correct, but God also: ~sent a flood (Genesis 7:10-16); ~250 people were burned to death for offering incense (Numb. 1616:35); ~seven people were delivered to the Gibeonites and hung before the Lord (2 Samuel 21:9); ~the pass over, where the spirit killed many first born children (Exodus 11:5); and ~the snakes God sent to the Israelites in the desert because they were complaining (Numbers 21:6-9). God killed or "looked favourably upon" many killings, that took MANY different forms in the old testament. Now in Numbers 21:7-9, the snakes in the desert the people came to Moses and told him they were wrong and asked Moses to ask God for forgiveness. God told Moses to make a snake and put it on a pole and when someone was bitten they could look at it and live. As time went on though they twisted that. It changed from a single act of God, to an idol that people worshiped. In 2 Kings 18:4, Hezekiah, who did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, destroyed the bronze statue that God had commanded Moses to build. This was changed in the old testament by God not in the new testament through Jesus. That is just one example of how people misinterpret Gods will. They take something God did once and turn them into fact, tradition and law, when in fact when He only intended it to be done once. I believe that stoning is one of those times when the people God commanded took it too far. They thought if it worked once it will work again for other things too.
bible christians - if you lived in old testament days you should have stoned people or supported it

The bible says it was dictated by God. 'Matthew 15 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don"t wash their hands before they eat!" 3 Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, "Honor your father and mother"[a] and "Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death."' 'Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses. (Numbers 15:32-36)' Most people just say they would not stone anyone, nor support it, as if that is the proper response. Then they are unable to articulate why. If you follow the bible though as God's word, as most of these people do, doesn't that mean you would be compelled to stone and/or support it?
An agnostic is also an atheist

I will say an atheist is not an anti-theist. Where an atheist differs from an agnostic is in, that they are willing to accept claims that God does not exist. The atheist usually accepts the concept that God does not exist. They would say that the evidence against the existence of God is far greater the evidence for his existence. So, most atheists I know would say, the existence of God is possible but highly improbable. Whereas, most agnostics I know would say, both the existence and non-existence of God could be possible but neither can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. Therefore it is impossible to know whether or not God exists. The difference between an atheist and agnostic is this. An atheist weighed the evidence and found one side wanting, whereas, an agnostic weighed the evidence and found the scale balanced. I will say that agnosticism is more philosophical and atheism is more in the realm of science. This from what I have seen of atheists and agnostics. In order to be agnostic one must clearly reject both sides. An atheist only clearly rejects one side.
An agnostic is also an atheist

First, let me tell people what an atheist is in depth: An atheist is someone who does not accept any claim of a god existing. An atheist does not have to accept evolution as true, an atheist does not say 'there is no god', an atheist does not have to accept the big bang theory as true. An atheist is simply someone who does not agree with a claim that a god exist. Saying that they are absolutely positively sure that there is no god would describe an anti-theist. Atheists have absolutely nothing in common with one another in life style, politics or culture, EXCEPT that they do not accept a claim made that a god exists. As defined, an agnostic is someone who does not accept the claim of a god. They do not deny the claim, and for the most part, are on the fence about the decision, sometimes leaning towards one side. That being said, an agnostic Christian is someone who thinks that Christianity claims can be true. An agnostic atheist is someone who does not believe a claim of a god is true, but does not reject the claim. With the definition of an atheist being someone who has not accepted a claim of a god, an agnostic falls under this definition. They do not reject a claim of a god, but they do not accept it. And that is where the line is drawn. The second someone says they do not accept the claim of a god, they have fallen under the category of an atheist.
An agnostic is also an atheist

Definitions are as followed: Agnostic: a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic Atheist: Someone who does not accept any claims that a god exists If my opponent disagrees, then please do not accept until we resolve the matter via the comments No plagiarism No foul language Wikipedia is an okay source, however, if I find a reliable source that is not an encyclopedia that contradicts the Wikipedia article, I will present it in the round following, and I request the voters to take in consideration the Wikipedia article that has been contradicted. Round one, as mentioned, is acceptance and rules Round two is arguments Round three is rebuttals Round four is a friendly farewell and a thank you to everybody who watched and also a round in which we discuss what we have learned from the other debater.
An agnostic is also an atheist

I understand what you are saying. I agree that by these definitions an agnostic can be an atheist. I will say this is not always the case. In the very first round you admitted that there are agnostic atheists and agnostic christians. By admitting this you discounted the entire premise we were arguing. From there on out you tried to prove how and atheist is an agnostic and not how an agnostic is an atheist. You have condemned me for making generalizations and then proceed yourself to make generalizations. I accept that an agnostic can be an atheist but I do not accept that they are. It would have been easier if the premise had been that an atheist is also and agnostic.
An agnostic is also an atheist

If you do not 100% accept the god claim, then you are an atheist. An atheist is just someone who does not fully accept the god claim. An atheist does not always say that there is no such thing as a god. An atheist simply does not know if there is a god, and will not claim to know that there is one or isn't one. Atheism is also not a position. In a question about claim, the default position is to not accept it. If you do not take up a position, then you take up the default position, which is disbelief. Atheism is the default position of the claim of god. If someone has never heard of gods, then they are atheists. When a missionary goes to a place where no one has heard of a god, and the missionary relays the message to them, they either accept it, deny it, or don't take a position. And the default position of any claim is disbelief, or lack of belief. If someone has never heard of any claim, they are by default in the disbelief position. In any language, the default position is disbelief, or skepticism (http://www.scientificamerican.com...). Not having an opinion or position is disbelief, which is what atheism is. Not accepting something is good enough to be an atheist. If someone has not met their burden of proof (http://www.atheist-community.org...). My last source may have been an atheist group, but along with the scientificamerican page, it makes sense. Not only that, as pointed out several times, atheists aren't biased towards other atheists. Atheists are generally open to any idea, and do not side with one another just because they are similar in their religious (or lack of) beliefs.
An agnostic is also an atheist

Using the logic you are using an agnostic is also a theist because they do not accept any claims that God does not exist. This is not the definition of an agnostic. The agnostic holds neither of two opposing opinions on a topic. This definition first of all has nothing to do with the existence of God at all. Second we know there are two camps on the existence of God (atheist and theist). To say that an agnostic is an atheist goes against what they stand for which is to not hold either oppinion. My opponent has made a generalization, which he claims to hate, by saying that agnostics are atheists. I do think that some could be considered atheist but not all, especially if they are a true agnostic. This is because, to say they are atheist is to have them on one side which is not what an agnostic is.
An agnostic is also an atheist

I see what you are saying, but this is purely a debate about how, if the current given definition of both an atheist and agnostic are the ones we know, then logically, an agnostic, someone who can not claim they accept god, which is what an atheist is, is an atheist themselves. (McAfee, David, G. "Mom, Dad, I'm an Atheist)(Mcafee, David, G. Disproving Christianity and Other Secular Writings) If agnostic does not personally accept a god claim, and does not make up one of their own, then, by definition, they are atheists. As I said earlier, an atheist is not more in to the realm of science. Buddhists are atheists because they do not have a dogma. Atheism is not the rejection of spirituality, only the rejection of claims made by god. And an atheist is not someone who just rejects god. They simply do not agree with a claim given about a god due to the lack of convincing details, or evidence, in their minds. (Patheos.com) An atheist can also reject the 'no god' claim as well. Generally, atheists are people who have not been convinced that there is a god. Not being convinced does not mean they never will. As an atheist, I say so myself that in the face of evidence, I have no problem considering the claim of a god. An atheist does not always say that there is no god. They may say they do not believe in a god. Rejecting the possibility of a god entirely falls under the realm of anti-theism. By the way, anti-theism is also falls under the atheism, because they fit the definition: not believing in a god. That is the only requirement to be an atheist. My opponent has made a generalization. Actually, a few. Saying "usually" is a word that comes before generalizations. I would like you (and when I say 'you', I mean any reader, opponent, voters. readers of all kinds) to not generalize because it can be insulting to the wrong person. I, being an atheist, have encountered generalizations that are not true to me, and are actually offensive. I do not fit what the conservative republican's definition of an atheist is. I am a good person, I have good morals, I do not worship Hitler, I do not harm other individuals, and I am a very smart person. Do not generalize about atheists. Atheists are average people, and they deserve respect. Not believing in god is not the same as saying there is no such thing as god. Skeptics is the word. Skeptics do not believe in god (or ghosts, mermaids, goblins etc) but they do not say there is no such thing, or at least by definition, they do not. In conclusion: Not all atheists say 'there is no god' By definition, an agnostic does not accept that god is real, only speculates that it is possible An atheist does not accept that god is real Therefore, an agnostic fits the requirements to be called atheists.
Two parallel lines can intersect.

Conduct Pro must just be laughing after turning this into a troll debate. " The sheer number of dropped arguments, and the apparent deception applied by Con that I demonstrated above, warrant argument and conduct votes." If I recall, I had 2 rounds in which I made arguments ad backed them, in no way is this statement correct. As you can tell, I haven't dropped or denied any of my own arguments, I had ten points, I made 5 in the second round, and 3 in the third round. Sources Pro made a heavy effort to attack my sources " It is simply a non-sequitur to suggest that, because an idea has been misapplied and abused, it is therefore not true." I don't know if he even read what he said, i never said Non-Euclidean Geometry wasn't true, I said it was needlessly complex, i said it is constantly misused, and i said it was a poor way of doing Math, I never denied it altogether. Pro even attacked miles Mathis, below you will find a Miles Mathis quote on what he was actually talking about. "For all those going ballistic over my title, I repeat and stress that this paper applies to kinematic situations, not to static situations. I am analyzing an orbit, which is caused by motion and includes the time variable. In that situation, `0; becomes 4. When measuring your waistline, you are not creating an orbit, and you can keep `0; for that. So quit writing me nasty, uninformed letters." [1] Pro eve suggested that was I said about infinity wasn't valid, although in truth Pro said. "This debate is not specific to any geometry." To anyone who has read the entire debate, I thank you and hope for a vote and/or comment. Source: http://milesmathis.com... [1]
Two parallel lines can intersect.

1. Non-Euclidean Geometry has been used historically as a cover for bad math. Its needless complexity, and its inherent lack of rigor have opened it up to broad and one might say universal misuse. [1] 2. Infinity itself isn't a point proving that most non-Euclidean Parallel Lines doesn't intersect, no source is needed for this obvious statement. 3. [2] -Euclidean geometry is a mathematical well-known system attributed to the Greek mathematician Euclid of Alexandria. Euclid's text Elements was the first systematic discussion of geometry. -It has been one of the most influential books in history, as much for its method as for its mathematical content. -Although many of Euclid's results had been stated by earlier Greek mathematicians, Euclid was the first to show how these propositions could be fitted together into a comprehensive deductive and logical system. - Euclidean has been validated and acknowledged by almost all Mathematicians, and is in constant use in the field of Computers. While Non-Euclidean has bee ignored by many great Mathematicians, often hard to prove, and hard to understand. http://milesmathis.com... [1] http://www.sciencedaily.com... [2]
Two parallel lines can intersect.

Why do you think I'm trying to define my way to victory? I decided to post clear definitions, I always use the 1st round of an argument for acceptance and Definitions, I also tend to add to the definitions as debates continue for clarity, there are a lot of youths who use Debate. Org. Hyperbolic Geometry is a non-Euclidean geometry that rejects the validity of Euclid"s fifth, the parallel postulate, because of this it differs from many common types of geometry. In Euclidean geometry, for example, two parallel lines are taken to be everywhere equidistant. In hyperbolic geometry, two parallel lines are taken to converge in one direction and diverge in the other. In Euclidean, the sum of the angles in a triangle is equal to two right angles; in hyperbolic, the sum is less than two right angles. In Euclidean, polygons of differing areas can be similar; and in hyperbolic, similar polygons of differing areas do not exist. The axiom in Euclidian Geometry is that parallel lines never intersect. The axiom in non-Euclidian Geometry is that parallel lines intersect at infinity, this is more like a Illusion though, and if you don't believe me consider this. Consider an isosceles triangle (where 2 side are equal in length) - if you increases the length of the two equal sides the angle subtended by these lines decreases; as the length of the lines tend to infinity, so the angle tends to zero and the lines are therefore parallel. But as it is a triangle they must meet at infinity, though infinity itself is not a point. Equally, if you and a friend drove 2 cars both 7 feet apart at a 180 degree angle (Straight Line) through an infinite field of snow the tire tracks would never meet. 1/9 = 0.1111111111111111111111111111. .. 2/9 = 0.2222222222222222222222222222. .. 3/9 = 0.3333333333333333333333333333. .. 4/9 = 0.4444444444444444444444444444. .. 5/9 = 0.5555555555555555555555555555. .. 6/9 = 0.6666666666666666666666666666. .. 7/9 = 0.7777777777777777777777777777. .. 8/9 = 0.8888888888888888888888888888. .. 9/9 = 0.9999999999999999999999999999. .. But 9/9 is quite obviously =1 therefore 0.9999999999999999999999999999. .. = 1 So you might argue that at infinity there is still a small distance between the lines of the triangle, but the above equation (that is both right and wrong at the same time depending on the form of Geometry) this isn't the case.
Two parallel lines can intersect.

Since Pro failed to provide definitions I would like to supply them. Parallel- extending in the same direction, everywhere equidistant, and not meeting. [1] Parallel Lines- Two lines on a plane that never meet. They are always the same distance apart. [2] Geometry- a branch of mathematics that deals with the measurement, properties, and relationships of points, lines, angles, surfaces, and solids. [3] Good luck in the up-incoming debate PRO. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.mathsisfun.com... [3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Two parallel lines can intersect.

Ave.Topic: Two parallel lines can intersect.Position: Pro/ForCategory: ScienceRounds: 4Voting Period: 1 WeekTime to Argue: 72 HoursArgument Max: 8,000 CharactersVote Comments: YesI am taking the Pro position. It is my burden to demonstrate that two parallel lines can intersect each other. It is the burden of Con to demonstrate that the arguments I use cannot affirm the resolution. The winner of the argument will be the side that demonstrates their case beyond a preponderance of the evidence. In other words, if 51% of the evidence favors one side, that side should win arguments.There is not a category for this debate that I find suitable. I chose the closest thing to the subject, science. I prefer this debate to be in a mathematics section, but such a section does not exist.There are four rounds in this debate. The first round is for acceptance of the rules and framework. I will present my opening statement in the subsequent round, and the next rounds will be devoted to rebuttals.The voting period will be one week. Each side will have seventy-two hours to post each round.The maximum number of characters is eight thousand. Using pictures in order to demonstrate geometric concepts is allowed in this debate.Vote comments are allowed. Two lines that are parallel is defined as two lines with the same slope. This is an example of such a situation. Intersection is defined as a point that is common to lines or surfaces that intersect.This debate is not specific to any geometry.Vale.
The Ld topic

Ok I'll start with your arguments. >>V: Utilitarianism You give no warrant as to why this value is inherent to the resolution, you only say there are bad things in the world. Contradicts your case later, I'll explain under C1. You can never tell what the ends of an action will be, thus there is no way to affirm with this value. >>VC: This can never be done to the fullest extent, thus under your value you admit some people must lose their rights so a greater number of people will gain their rights. I would accept this as the criterion for the round, after establishing the prior point. >>C1) Contradiction: You state that the US needs a check to stop them from committing torture, etc to get information out of people. However, by doing these acts of torture the US is able to get information that will ultimately stop other crimes against humanity, and save more people, thus achieving a utilitarian benefit. Thus contention one contradicts your entire value structure as by joining the ICC, the US would no longer be able to get this information and no longer be able to save the greater number of people. You admit in the value structure that it would be necessary to torture these terrorists to save more rights, however contention one is about stopping the US from doing just that. >>C2) ICC doesn't have a police force, its a court. The UN provides all peacekeeping forces and we're already in the UN. The US is already fighting wars in two other countries to stop terrorists and crimes against humanity. If we were to go into Darfur, our military would be spread too thinly to be able to help anyone. We do not have the resources to fight three wars at once. >>C3) Turn: you state earlier that by joining we would be prosecuted. This can only lead us to believe that new information would most likely come to light, which could potentially damage our reputation more. This would not help our image, countries that dislike us to not simply dislike us because of our refusal to join the ICC, they dislike the US because of dozens of reasons, ranging from cultural hatred, to the dislike of our hegemony which would continue. Advice: Change the value to justice. It results in nearly the same thing, but is easier to defend. Get rid of C1. Change the case to by the US joining, we would help the ICC be able to prosecute criminals which would deter them in the future. You can also bring up instances in the past where criminals were never prosecuted, i.e. Cambodia and East Timor.
Paul Broun does not belong on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee

Why not ? Even supposing the person is wrong in being a creationist, it hardly calls into question his ability to make good judgements on legislations as they affect the practice of science and technology. Science and Technology are vast and overlapping fields and aren't confined to an evolutionist's fickle over a creationist belief. And let me state this upfront: I don't believe in evolution.