BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Quran has no contradictions with Science

As Pro desires I begin with an example, I shall start with with a short one, and proceed from there. Case I: Quran claims the Moon has it's own light. Quran 71.16. "And hath made the moon a light therein, and made the sun a lamp? " {1/2} The key word in this statement if "therein". That word contrasts with "Without". It implies that the light of the moon is not from a different body (the sun), but instead from the moon itself. This is in obvious contradiction with well established scientific views that the Moon does not generate light, but rather reflects the Light from the sun (Light without, rather then Light within) {3/4/5}. I would like to preempt any attempt at claiming relativity in how we defne "within". We must use the words of the book, not try to contort them into other meanings, so the definitions of the words being used is of importance.1] . http://mquran.org...2] . http://quranx.com...3] . http://www.livescience.com...4] . http://www.universetoday.com...5] . http://en.wikipedia.org...Given that my opponent desires I present only one case at a time, I shall end it here, though I could go on for quite some time. ==Unitomic==
The Quran has no contradictions with Science

Debate Structure: Round 1: Pro is introducing the debate structure. Con will accept the debate and present his first example in which he thinks the Quran is contradicting Science. Round 2: Pro will defend his stand against the first example. Con will present his second example of a specific contradiction. Round 3: Pro will defend his stand against the second example. Con will present his third and final example. Round 4: Pro will defend against the third example. Con will have the final word by refuting Pro's defences of the three examples. (5000 characters should be enough) For Con, please give a very specific example and not just a generalisation. More examples can be discussed in following debates. Good luck
The Quran has no contradictions with Science

Case III: Sexual Reproduction The Quran has quote a bit to say about reproduction, little of which is accurate. I shall now show the scientific contridictions in the Quran in relation to the steps of human Sexual reproduction.The Quran first states that sperm originate somewhere inbetween the ribs and the backbone. "Now let man but think from what he is created! He is created from a drop emitted, Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs" Quran 86.05 - Quran 86-07 {1/2} Other translations use the words "Fluid, ejected" in lieu of "drop emitted".{2}There is absolutely no denying what this is saying. The "fluid" here can have no meaning other then sperm, and there is no good way to properly justify "proceeding from between the backbone and ribs" as anything other then just that. Today we are quite aware the Sperm originates in the testicals {3}, and is in no way derived from any part of the back. Even if put into context, the passage here is rather explicit, and any attempt at re-defining the lanquage here is simple post-revisionism.The Quran from here points out that after conception, the human embryo developes in three stages. "Then fashioned We the drop a clot, then fashioned We the clot a little lump, then fashioned We the little lump bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators! " -Quran 23.14 {4/5}It also points out "Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood" -Quran 96.02 {6} There is very little denying exactly what this is saying. There is no symbolism here, nor is there a parable to be had, no religious meaning. It is an entirely physical description of human reproduction. These verses tell us that after conception, the sperm becomes a clot of blood, and thereafter, it forms into bones. Finally flesh developes. There is many things wrong with this. Firstly, as no stage is the human body a clot of blood. Secondly, we know very well that Flesh developes before the bone. No tricks can change what these verses show. They very distinctly tells us that the bones develope, and then (not "and" or "before", but "then") developes flesh. It also distinctly tells us in not one but two passages that we spent time as blood clot. None of this aligns with the reproductive system. In actual human reproduction, the human begins as an embryo, which is a collection of cells, but not blood. Blood is incredably distinct from embryotic cells. Skin begins to form with in the first few weeks of being a fetus, with 9 to 16 weeks. Bones become developed (though still palpable) by the 26th week. {7} At no point is there any blot clot mentioned, nor can it be shown that bone developes before the skin. I rest my case.1] http://www.usc.edu...2] http://quran.com...3] http://en.wikipedia.org...4] http://www.usc.edu...5] http://mquran.org...6] http://www.usc.edu...7] http://en.wikipedia.org...==Unitomic==
Not all countries must adopt to modern day democracy

Pro FF'd so I'll keep it short. REDUCED CORRUPTION- Pro simply argued that democracies also have corruption. Pro failed to show that autocracies have a better track record on corruption than democracies. ECONOMIC IMPROVEMENTS- Pro argued that the economic growth of Western Democracies has slowed somewhat since the crisis of 2008. How is this an argument in favor of autocracy? In general, is there any denying that democracies have a better track record for ecomomic growth. Even Asia's economic boost of the last 20 years has had more to do with imrovements in democratic trends than the master plan of some dictator. Continue all other arguments from above.
Posting an arrest photo online-Part 2.

There are plenty of people who have charges dropped or shouldn't have been arrested in the first place. They haven't even had the chance to defend themselves yet and now it is right there for the public to see you in an unflattering pose against your will. Most people assume you are guilty or did something wrong just for being arrested and there are a lot of applications and forms now that require you put down your arrest record even if you were not convicted so merely being arrested is a punishment in and of itself. Can somebody give me a reason why this should be the case other than that is what some politician or judge says or some body's convoluted interpretation of the constitution. And no, don't give me this democracy crap we all know this was never put on some federal ballot and not everybody votes anyway. Give me a philosophical reason why somebody should be shamed and have their personal business be available to everybody. I have already started to debate this topic with somebody but they appear to have abandoned the argument so if you could read over the points they have made so far and continue. I realize you might not feel exactly as they do but if you could just summarize or reconcile your views with theirs so we could continue this argument. http://www.debate.org...
Posting an arrest photo online-Part 2.

go ahead with your argument. i don't care about the technicalities or being pro or con or having this argument judged or getting points or whatever else the rules of this web site. I already stated this if you look at the last argument on the link I provided. If you read that like you should have you will already see my position. I am looking for counter arguments beyond what the previous guy already said and looking you for you to specifically address my arguments.
Posting an arrest photo online-Part 2.

I accept. Since this is just a remake of a previous debate, the resolution given is below.It right that someone's arrest photo is posted online.My opponent must prove that it is not right that someone's arrest photo should be posted online.I must prove that it's sometimes alright that someone's arrest photo should be posted online. If I can even prove one situation where this would be helpful or good, then you affirm.As the instigator, and the one proposing a shift in the status quo, the BOP is on my opponent, but we will both be encouraged to present arguments of our own.Since BOP is on him, I will be fair and let him have the first say.
Indecent Exposure law should be abolished.

With growing regret, I must enter the inevitable "Round 3" of this debate. I want to thank my bandy partner, who has been kind and thoughtful enough to present this forum. Unfortunately, his last argument in favor of legal repeal of indecency laws is based on a fallacy. Observe."If a woman can expose her breasts in public, then a man should be permitted to expose his penis."This is a variant of the wonderful "Tu Quo Que" fallacy, or the "you, too" fallacy. With the switch that my partner is using the guilt of the female to justify the guilt of the male. Essentially, it argues that the presence of hypocrisy associated with an arguer disqualifies their argument. By this logic, a smoker cannot claim that smoking is unhealthy, because "they do it too." The fact is, that a person might be correct in arguing that smoking is unhealthy, even if they are a smoker themselves. Likewise, it is possible that female public nudity could be wrong at the same time that male public nudity is. Further, I remind my partner that exposure of a woman's breasts is often a criminal act, and so cannot be used as a justification of public fondling of one's self....Good lord. I am actually debating this. In conclusion, I argue that the public demand for indecency laws trumps all of the arguments presented by my partner. I speculate as to what might be motivating these demands, but in the end the exact reasons for this public antipathy is irrelevant. Our democracy wants these restrictions, and so they are provided. I doubt that the public will find my partner's position persuasive. I am so certain of this, that I shall finish out my character limit by reciting the lyrics to the theme song from the hit television series, "Laverne and Shirley." I want to thank all of the voters for following the debate this long, and remind everyone to score for grammar. "Laverne and Shirley Theme Song"One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight.Sclemeel, schlemazel, hasenfeffer incorporated. We're gonna do it! Give us any chance, we'll take it. Give us any rule, we'll break it.We're gonna make our dreams come true. Doin' it our way. Nothin's gonna turn us back now, Straight ahead and on the track now. We're gonna make our dreams come true, Doin' it our way. There is nothing we won't try, Never heard the word impossible. This time there's no stopping us. We're gonna do it. On your mark, get set, and go now, Got a dream and we just know now, We're gonna make our dream come true. And we'll do it our way, yes our way. Make all our dreams come true, And do it our way, yes our way, Make all our dreams come true For me and you.
Indecent Exposure law should be abolished.

No how many names u call the male penis guys should have the right to pull it out anywhere he chooses. And yes i can compare penis to melons cause like i said before if women can plash and whip their breast out in public so can a man with his jimmy. What give a woman the right to expose their breast and a guy can't expose his jimmy to me that's just not fair when a woman flashes her breast it's ok. But when a guy pulls his Jimmy out it's "HELP 911 POLICE" so if females can flash theirs so can a guy pull out his jimmy.
Indecent Exposure law should be abolished.

I seldom miss an opportunity to engage in an intellectual sharing of ideas on the etiquette surrounding the proper public presentation of the penis. I say that the penis should be concealed to whatever extent is possible, and that it should only be unsheathed upon specific, explicit request. I further maintain that its unbidden inclusion is seldom anything but unwelcome, no matter what the social situation might be. There is a high likelihood that any occasion will be ruined by the sudden appearance of the unexpected penis. I therefore, accept the challenge to debate this topic. Many thanks to my partner for thinking to present it.
Flag Burning Should Be Banned

My opponent believes that standards of obscenity are defined by society and that laws should reflect these standards. However, I still fail to see how and when such standards are collectively established. I can see how laws against murder are not subjective (because they violate the victim's right to life), but the ending of a life is an objective phenomenon. The entering of light into one's eyes, and the representation of that image in one's brain, along with the individual's interpretation of that image, is a completely subjective phenomenon. Although no one is forcing me to eat peanut butter, no one is telling me that I cannot eat peanut butter. Why? Because the benefits or harms of eating peanut butter are a matter of my subjective experience. The situation is no different with burning a flag. My opponent, on this point, has presented no evidence to support the claim that flag burning hurts or in some way damages the "spirit" of a society. Children are not damaged psychologically, nor are adults. The act itself does not harm anyone and thus is not a crime. My opponent believes that a flag is equivalent to the U. S. Capitol building, and he is right that, if I owned the deed to that building, I would not burn it down. However, I would not arson the building because it is worth more to me standing than in ashes. The act of burning a flag, on the other hand, may be worth more to some person because of its symbolic value than the actual flag blowing in the wind. My only question is, that if any single person cannot claim a flag, why are they mass-produced and sold by private organizations in places like Wal-Mart right next to the dog food and baby toys? My opponent believes a flag is different from a jersey. However, just because something "carries a lot more weight" (which is another way of saying that "more people attach value to that thing") does not make the object a different kind of thing. A flag and a jersey are still cloth representations of an idea: not the idea themselves. Burning a representation states, in a dramatic fashion, one's opposition to the idea. Hopefully the United States will allow the freedom to express ideas in the future. As to the claim that the government "gives" me the right to burn flags, I suggest that my opponent look into what the function of the United States government is. According to Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, governments are instituted among men to protect the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Governments do not exist to give people rights, but to protect rights that already exist. Additionally, murder and theft are not wrong because our society has arbitrarily decided that they are wrong. They are illegal because they violate these natural rights to life and property that John Locke and the Founding Fathers spoke about. If anything, the natural right to property guarantees the protection of one's right to burn personal property (i. e. the flag). In the end, opponent has done nothing but propose that burning a flag, in his opinion, "is gross". There is no substance behind his "arguments".
Flag Burning Should Be Banned

My opponent believes that obscenity and grossness are completely subjective. They are not completely subjective only somewhat subjective. Our society has defined what we find permissible and what we do not. Anything can be considered subjective. MURDER can be considered subjective. But you can't murder somebody. Can you? Not under the law you can't. And still, no one is forcing you to eat peanut butter, that is your choice. But, in the case of flag burning, we all collectively as a society have to deal with the damage it does to our spirit. My opponent believes you can "own" the flag. A similar analogy would be to own the U. S. Capitol Building. Even if you had the deed to the U. S. Capitol Building, it would be really stupid of you to burn it. The Capitol Building, like the flag, is symbolic of our nation and its history, and therefore cannot be claimed by any single person. My opponent equates the American flag to a Pittsburgh Steelers flag. A flag of a nation carries a lot more weight than a flag of a sports team. A flag is suppose to be a symbol of unity amongst a nation's citizens, a flag of the Pittsburgh Steelers is just a way of endorsing a team. The flag carries a lot more weight. My opponent compares the flag to Aristotle's Metaphysics. *See above comparison to Pittsburgh Steelers* ===Closing=== Burning a flag would be to burn your right to burn a flag. The United States government gave the "right" to burn flags. So, therefore, burning a flag would actually destroy your right to burn a flag (symbolically). There are things our society deems too *wrong* to do. Murder and theft are examples of those. Why do we illegalize murder and theft. Because the collective says its wrong. We don't let the "rights" of the murder or the thief encroach on the rights of the victims and the need for justice, so why should be with flag burning? Flag burning is just a horrible way of communicating ideas, obscene, and quite frankly stupid. Flags represent unity, the destroy this symbol of unity is gross.
Flag Burning Should Be Banned

My opponent would like you to believe that you can burn a flag because it is an element of freedom of expression. He goes on to say that flag burning is a "victimless crime". However, this a perfect thing that can be deconstructed with an analogy. A man decides to walk around nude in a public arena to protest the use of animal skins/furs in the clothing. He is making a political statement. He is not harming anybody (physically). Nevertheless, his actions are deemed "illegal" because they are obscene and gross. Similarly, flag burning is both offensive and not a very good way of communicating ideas. 'Freedom of Speech' or 'Freedom of Expression' is not an infinite thing, it has limitations. And in my opinion, these limitations should be extended to flag burning. My opponent believes that flag burning is a very effective way to communicate ideas. So, if I decide to stand on a street corner, hold us the stars n' stripes, strike a match, and watch our flag burn, I would somehow communicate some kind of intelligent thought. My opponent says that I can express resentment toward my country. But, I am doing nothing to detail what that resentment is and how I think we should go about changing whatever resentment I have. Flag burning, of itself, conveys no thought that couldn't be better conveyed by language. My opponent believes that burning a flag is not vandalism. This is what vandalism is: Defacing something that is not yours. For example taking a spray paint bottle and spraying some type of statement, even a political statement, is not protected under the 1st Amendment because you are defacing something that isn't yours. You may go to Wal-Mart and buy a flag, but is that flag yous? In a legal sense, since ownership is 90% of the law, yes, that flag is "yours". But in a moral sense is that flag yours. No, a flag cannot belong to any one person. A flag is symbolic of a country and its people. Therefore, the flag doesn't belong to any one person, but rather it is a symbol of unity. Since the flag isn't "yours", you have no right to burn it. My opponent believes that a flag is nothing more than cloth and dye. Calling the flag cloth is dye is like calling the Bible (or the Constitution, since I know your an atheist) nothing more than ink and paper. However, the ideals expressed by the Bible or the Constitution run a lot deeper than ink and paper. They represent ideals that we hold, what we've been through, and what is going to guide us as we head forward. It runs a lot deeper than that. To burn a flag is to deface this countries ideals, history, and citizens. Why shouldn't I be offended? Why, this "flag-burner" has just put everything I believe to flame. A flag is more than cloth and dye. I would like to remind my opponent he hasn't established his own case. I look forward to rebuttals.
It is up to theists to prove that god exists. No exceptions. None.

Until god waves his rosey red flag, he's a forgery. How can you prove something that is unproved and something that is unknown and something that has never been seen? What do you look for to prove this unknown commodity of non existence? Um no. Sorry. The burden of proof is always upon those who claim "let there be light" or "let the truth be known" because it is they that makes those claims. And we sit around and laugh with glee and the mint cookies on the shelves. There’s absolutely no evidence for god. None. There’s no tests that can prove god. None. So how do you even know god exists? Through faith? What? What kind of god, especially the god according to the bible with his truly bloated superior ego complex would ever NOT show himself and present evidence instead of having his so-called creation of man to rely on faith? Also if this god is god, he would not rely on faith and he could simply come on down here and---talk---to---us and the bible which is in TEXT form, in which no god would EVER use, the worst form of communication possible, with copies upon copies and translations upon translations, with no updates in at least 2,000 years, and no possible way to trace it back to the original, so EVERYBODY misinterprets this so-called holy book, no exceptions, none, so this bible would be and is a useless pile of scrapping without proof of anything. If god is god he can simply come on down here and talk to us rather than using faith or text. That’s evidence in which there is none to be proved. So until this so called god presents any kind of evidence, he’s a sham, a fake and a forgery. Also if you have the slightest whimsical doubts within your beliefs in this god in which you cannot prove exists, then you are an atheist. So the rules are simple for this debate... you as the Con MUST prove that your god according to the bible exists.
It is up to theists to prove that god exists. No exceptions. None.

Unfortunately, his last response did not respond to my rebuttal. Instead there were more insults directed at me. In this debate, he has not shown the willingness to have a respectful debate. I must say that I am disappointed in this debate. I have had great discussions with numerous atheists and a lot of them were great exchanges. My opponent has shown me that his intention for all the "debates" that he engages in is to slander demean Christianity. He is not interested in a respectful debate and dialogue. If you reading this debate and want to engage in a respectful discussion and debate with me, don't hesitate. If you want to show the kind of debate attitude that my opponent has shown me, please don't waste my time. In conclusion, if you want to experience the hope that you can only find in Christ go to . http://blazeofhope.weebly.com.... If you want me to be a guest speaker go to . http://blazeofhope.weebly.com.... If you want to debate me on another format other than debate. org go to . http://blazeofhope.weebly.com.... God bless!