BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the bible = not infallible

I don't know what a cop out is or isn't. But I do know that the verses you provide don't relate to the question you asked and that's its part of a strategy to have you win a debate based on something other than the question. If you want to argue that the bible is cruel make another debate but you picked that the bible is not infallible and I expect relevant text that backs that statement up. I can engage all the verses , most are taken out of context anyways, but that wouldn't help my con argument that the bible is infallible. And your not only taken what the bible says out of context but your also twisting what I said. Here is what I said "For the people to believe in the bible they have to believe that the bible came from god. In order to believe that the bible came from god, they obviously must believe in a god. But where do they get the idea that god exist? Outside of the bible how do people even know about god? The answer to that is that, it is embedded within us the notion that there is a god" Here is what you say I said. "Your other arguments. "man believes in God. he must have a reason for believing so God must exist. God says that bible is true." God says the bible is true?" And I never said that because someone has a reason o believe something its true. I go on to explain that this natural assumption that there is a god, is not the reason that got exist, but its what gets people searching for different religions and many even in their search turn atheist. Your only good assertion is that man say's god says the bible is True. And that would mean that go didn't write the bible. And this goes back to the question. If god didn't divinely inspire the words written in the bible , than of course its wide open to errors inconstancy's and inaccuracy's. But you have yet to give me an example of this. None of the scripture that you provided answers your side of the debate so I wont refute them, there's no need to.
the bible = not infallible

I wasn't throwing the arguments at you. I was throwing them at whoever wanted to debate. If you didn't want to engage my examples, you shouldn't have taken the debate. The reality of the situatino is you're arguing I'm appealing to pathos, so that you can go ahead and avoid the issues. The definition of a cop out. If you can't engage the verses in the next post, and we can do other debates if you wish, then you're obviously in denial. Your other arguments. "man believes in God. he must have a reason for believing so God must exist. God says that bible is true." God says the bible is true? that's the definition of circular reasoning. Really, God doesn't say it's true, man says God does. The only way to know if I'm right or you are, is to look at the bible itself for what it has to say, and check to see that it's rational. unless.... you don't think God is rational? I don't deny God. in fact i believe in him. That doesn't mean the bible is word for word true. in fact, i think the bible is generally inspired too, but these are all beside the point. other than to show that your insistance on the bible is not warranted based on your belief in God, and apparently must only be based on your blind acceptance of what society tells you. of course, again, the only way for us to find out who's right, is for you to actually engage teh verses.
PS3 is better than xbox

As my opponent has given me liberties to start the debate, I will start with the defining of a few terms. Although this right is normally reserved for the affirmative, the affirmative has granted me this liberty. PS3-Sony's Play Station 3 xbox-Microsoft's XBOX. better-improved in health or mental attitude health-the condition of being sound in body, mind, or spirit mental-of or relating to the mind mind- in a human or other conscious being; the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc. attitude-a mental position with regard to a fact or state http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... My argument is a short one. PS3 is not better than XBOX because it is not improved in health or mental attitude. This is because it has no health, for it has not body, mind, or spirit. Nor does it have mental attitude, for again, it has no mind. Since it lacks all of these things, it cannot be in any way "better." Given that it would be impossible for the PS3 to be better, it is even further separated from being superior to the XBOX because the PS3 cannot play HALO. Case closed.
single gendered schools do more harm than good

.. Pillaging Invaders . .. Looting Set ablaze the campfires alert the other men from inland Warning must be given there's not enough men here for a stand The Vikings are too many too powerful to take on our own We must have reinforcements we cannot fight this battle alone They're coming over the hill they've come to attack they're coming in for the kill there's no turning back Invaders . .. Fighting Invaders . .. Marauding Axes grind and maces clash as wounded fighters fall to the ground Severed limbs and fatal woundings bloody corpses lay all around The smell of death and burning flesh the battle weary fight to the end The Saxons have been overpowered victims of the mighty Norsemen You'd better scatter and run the battle's lost and not won you'd better get away to fight another day Invaders . .. Raping Invaders . .. Plundering
single gendered schools do more harm than good

Just sixteen, a pickup truck, out of money, out of luck. I've got nowhere to call my own, hit the gas, and here I go. Chorus: I'm running free yeah, I'm running free. I'm running free yeah, Oh I'm running free. Spent the night in an L. A. jail, and listened to the sirens wail. They ain't got a thing on me, I'm running wild, I'm running free. Chorus Pulled her at the Bottle Top, whiskey, dancing, disco hop. Now all the boys are after me, and that's the way it's gonna be Chorus
single gendered schools do more harm than good

I affirm, "single gendered schools do more harm than good. " My opponent is CON in this debate, and thus must disprove this resolution. She may either say that they do more good than harm, or that they do equal good and harm. However, her first round statement does not agree with this. She seems to be agreeing with me. I don't know why, but she does. If I have no opposition, you must vote PRO. With that said, this is my opening statement why single gender schools do more harm than good. because of today's society, i feel that single genders do more harm than good because there will be more single sexes geting together. there will also be more of the same genders getting together. it will be uncomfortaness in schools and environments.
Should we judge governments on economic performance

The debate question posed is "should we judge governments on economic performance", and I am saying how can we not if they are involved in aspects of the economic performance of a country. It isn't limited to should we vote for parties based on their economic performance. In order for one to judge on a performance; a history of activity needs to have taken place. When judging something as important as a countries Government, I'd say there is a balance of things we would consider. Since the question you asking is limited to yes or no ultimately and since the Government is involved in aspects of the economy, we don't have a choice but to judge them on their performance in this regard where it fits. Also a Government is a group of leaders and it consists of members of different parties sometimes. People get chairs in Parliament who represent other parties but all strive to work together in Government even if the main party and President represents one party. When we vote, we vote for a party and we most certainly judge their performance but there may be a majority vote for a party that has had no performance or perhaps not a lot of performance in the leadership of a country but they able to influence the public in order to get majority votes. But does that mean we neglect to consider the current leading presidential party and their performance in all aspects including economy wise? Like I said before; when it comes to importing and exporting which is a very huge influence on an economy and what deals a country makes with other leaders of countries; this is something that lays on the top level of Government. In answer to what you have said here: 'Zimbabwe is an example I wouldn't put in this debate. The country is run by a dictator neither focused on the economy or his people' Whether he is focused on the economy or not; is something we would judge his performance on. There are many things that cause the economy to crash. One would be violence. So even if a leader is responsible for a war for instance, or contributes to his countries financial problems - we would of course take that into account. 'An example I would put to you is health care in the US. Something which certainly won't directly help the economy (although may do if people can work more), but drastically helps the lives physically and psychologically of those who previously couldn't afford health insurance' Obama's healthcare is going to come at a price. There are always conditions attached that may not actually benefit ALL the people in the end. I agree that we don't judge a Government solely on economic factors and performance but that is not the question you asked. I still say if the Government is involved in aspects of the economy which they are; we have no alternative but to judge them on their performance ALSO in this regard. ;-)
Should we judge governments on economic performance

I think you have misunderstood. I wanted to argue on how we should judge our governments. With my argument being that there should be less emphasis put on economics (which I feel is growing as peoples key indicator) because voting is a market based transaction whereby we exchange votes for policies, and if politicians believe that economic growth is the key to votes they'll focus on that solely and that's damaging. We see this a lot when we argue over welfare benefits saying we cannot "afford it", and we reduce welfare payments by say "5 pounds per week, reducing the overall government deficit by a marginal amount but absolutely destroys people as a result; leading them to crime in extreme instances. Of course it's not to say the economy isn't important, it's a crucial foundation - but that's it - a foundation. There is so much more to try and achieve than just wealth. Zimbabwe is an example I wouldn"t put in this debate. The country is run by a dictator neither focused on the economy or his people. I agree with you, China"s government is responsible for the environment! Yet they put economic growth above that fact. If the Chinese were less focused on growth they might focus on the environment more. I spent last summer in Shanghai and the air pollution is at hazardous levels, you literally walk down the street and you don"t want to breathe through your mouth at times. All this being said, using China as an example isn"t really relevant either because they don"t vote like we do. An example I would put to you is health care in the US. Something which certainly won't directly help the economy (although may do if people can work more), but drastically helps the lives physically and psychologically of those who previously couldn't afford health insurance. As said previously, economics are a foundation that we just expect. But I strongly feel we judge governments too much on this. Your last point is puzzling. Any government which wants to help the poor is a good thing. Ultimately, I would say look at pressure groups and there emergence recently. If we don't like something pressure groups address it. Yet, how many pressure groups are focused on economics.
Should we judge governments on economic performance

I see you question dodging. I specifically asked you what your view is on Robert Mugabe and even what the views across the world is taking a look at his leadership and his countries economy now :) It's the perfect example. 'Take Sweden for example, they're not topping growth statistics but their way of living and government system is admired across the world simply because they see the big picture and don't put as much emphasis on the economy' I haven't said that it's all a Government should be judged by. Sweden isn't exactly a country overly oppressed by poverty and crime. The economy plays a part in the statistics of crime and poverty of a country. Trade in the country and paying of debt is what influences the economy and there is a regulator. The regulators are in Government. They even control what private companies do to a degree. Take another example. China and it's environmental crises that affects the economy. Who is responsible for the environment and the regulation of labour conditions in a country as a whole? The Government is. The Government also does actually have state hospitals, postal services and buses as well as there are private owned companies. What Government is supposed to do also, is create a solution for residents who are poor for instance. So we have cheaper avenues and services for those people. That may not have a direct link to the economy; but it does oversee a very large part in the operation and well being of a country. When it comes to voting, it's safe to be in favour of a leadership who is economically successful to an extent. Poverty and economic struggle in a country affect everybody and it influences crime. Do you think Ethiopia could have been a better place for the poor if the leadership had tried harder to teach people to grow their own food and cultivate as they are doing now by help of other countries missionaries etc?
Should we judge governments on economic performance

You make a valid point. Governments are responsible for peace and well being in the country. Yet there are many ways to achieve this and focusing too much on economics can be to the detriment of the country overall. Some services are not beneficial to the economy but are beneficial to the people and so if removed the people are worse off, but the government could still be praised. To give an example, buses and postal services have to run to far to reach areas, and not just to the popular, profitable areas, because it is very beneficial to society but not to the company. If we applied that to the government can you imagine the problems it would cause in the long run. Hospitals and schools would be run even more tightly on costs and not just all-round health and education. Gov't would do the bare minimum and become a profit maximiser. Why would this happen? Because the political system is market based. We exchange votes for policies and if we believe that economic performance is the sign of a good government then we'll vote for them consistently. If we put less emphasis on the economy, and more on other factors such as all-round well being, and welfare of the whole population, and not just money we'd be a much richer society as a whole. Take Sweden for example, they're not topping growth statistics but their way of living and government system is admired across the world simply because they see the big picture and don't put as much emphasis on the economy.
Should we judge governments on economic performance

Firstly, I'd ask "how can we not judge the performance of Government by linking it with the economy"? Your statement: ('I feel other indicators of performance should also be given more weight in the news when we assess government performance i.e. happiness index, the standard of living, and general polls based on our opinions') This is all tied into the economy. ('I believe this because I do not think a growing economy is the be-all-and-end-all of what a government should be there for. And if that government feels they are judged more on economic growth than anything else, then that is what we'll receive but it could come at the loss of other less tangible qualities that are much more important and that we might only miss once they're gone') Who do we pay our taxes to? The Government. They are responsible for distribution of our taxes into the country and they also make decisions when it comes to how a country can import and export. Everything revolves around the Government and it's decisions as leaders of a country. When it comes to the economy; a good one needs a country to have employment for it's residents, and that will enable people to pay their debts to the banks etc. which in turn also helps the country to pay it's debt. For this to happen many things need to be decided upon. For instance the basic educational system, and how the Government provides for people who may not come from fortunate backgrounds so that it has equality in the country. Subsidizing training or offering tax incentives to business to offer training to those who may need skills to be entrepreneurs etc. One could also argue that Governments are responsible for peace and well being in the country. Relations with other countries are important for any economy because being able to export brings in a lot of funds. Let me ask you a question. Looking at the state of Zimbabwe in recent years, would you blame the Government and Robert Mugabe for the state of the country and the economy or not? I am not in anyway saying that it is the sole way in which we judge, but it's high up on the list.
Should we judge governments on economic performance

Often we seem to link the performance of a government with that of the economy. If the economy improves it is reported the government has done a good job. Economic factors are increasingly becoming more and more significant in affecting public perception. This is having knock on effects for government decision making which is less being based upon ideology and more upon electoral standing. I feel other indicators of performance should also be given more weight in the news when we assess government performance i.e. happiness index, the standard of living, and general polls based on our opinions. I believe this because I do not think a growing economy is the be-all-and-end-all of what a government should be there for. And if that government feels they are judged more on economic growth than anything else, then that is what we'll receive but it could come at the loss of other less tangible qualities that are much more important and that we might only miss once they're gone.
The Bible is Perfect.

Resolution : The bible is perfect ( or without error), and all the events in it should be considered credible, viable, and empirical sources. Pro is acknowledging the bible should be read literally and not metaphorically and that all the stories and accounts in the bible are true. We are taking on a shared BOP.Rules(1) Forfeit of a round will result in the loss of a conduct point. Forfeit of both rounds will result in a full 7 point win for the opposite contender. (2) No new evidence shall be presented in the last round because that is meant for rebuttals and crystallizing points.(3) Evidence should be cited(4) Valid RFDs must be provided for votes. (5) 48 hour argument time(6) 10,000 word limit(7) Failure from Pro to type "no round as agreed upon" in the last round will be considered a concession and result in his/her loss by a full 7 points, seeing as how this will give him/her an extra round. StructureMeR1: Position and rulesR2: Opening Argument no rebuttalsR3 : Rebuttals, re building previous points, and closing argumentsAdversary R1: Opening ArgumentsR2 : Rebuttals, re building previous points, and closing argumentsR3 : Shall type "no round as agreed upon"
Same-sex marriage in the U.S.

"We have found no negative effects of same-sex marriage, so who are we to tell them that their love is not equal to that of heterosexual couples?" Funny how advocates for no- fault divorce implied and made similar claims that the current law hurts a group of people (those in "dead" marriages) and that its social impact was minimal or non-existent etc.; But, we now know otherwise: divorce rates have skyrocketed since and children have been the most adversely affected. PRO is exhibiting similar hubris. So why don't you cut the pretense, because PRO does not actually know when the unintended consequences of changing the structure of marriage will be. The fact is this is reasonably a new phenomenon. When we changed the divorce laws to no-fault and reduced all barriers, it was at least 10 years of research before they began to accumulate data that indicated the impact of that change on an empirical level. Therefore, it is not realistic to find evidence of a causal link (or possibly even a correlation) between redefining marriage and the weakening of marriage.
Same-sex marriage in the U.S.

I take issue with Con's first quote. It seems to imply that heterosexual marriage is valuable because only and a man and a woman can make babies. Marriage isn't sacred because a baby can be made. If so, infertile peoples' marriages are not of value and neither are old couples'. If that were so then the purpose of marriage would be to make babies and any man should marry any woman regardless of their feelings for each other. What makes marriage sacred is that it is between two consenting adults who love each other. I fail to see how marriage regulates baby-making. Since the beginning of time, countless babies have been born out of wedlock and often still do. Marriage has never "regulated" baby-making. On the contrary, allowing for same-sex marriage will help reduce the amount of unadopted children. Out-of-wedlock pregnancies, adultery, step-parenting, and divorce will not become hard to understand or disappear if same-sex marriage becomes legal as Con seems to claim. Con also claims all these things are harmful to children. While they can, they are no innately. Some couples choose never to be married and just stay together and have children and never break up. Step parents can have very positive influences on children. Even so, I fail to see how same-sex marriage even relates to this. Same sex marriage is a civil rights issue. Many states are denying a basic right to a huge portion of our population. Two consenting adults love each other and want to have the legal benefits of marriage to help start their life together. We have found no negative effects of same-sex marriage, so who are we to tell them that their love is not equal to that of heterosexual couples?