BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the story of noah and the references from those in the NTestament add to discrediting the bible

it's described as literal in the bible, and the bible characters treat it as such, you nitwit. it's people like you who twist the bible to points it shouldn't be taken.... we can call it a metaphor, but that doesn't mean the bible is wrong overall. or, we can call it a metaphor, but it doesn't mean the bible is otherwise correct.... this example shows it has flaws. either way you take it, you are being dumb about it.
the story of noah and the references from those in the NTestament add to discrediting the bible

It's allegorical - you can't disprove poetry you nitwit. It's people like you that give people that simply cannot accept people's blind faith over logic and reason a bad name, because you don't understand that there is more beauty in this book when you are honest with yourself as a non-religious person than if you were a religious person - let go of your hatred towards the book, and take it upon those that use it as a tool for power and control.
the story of noah and the references from those in the NTestament add to discrediting the bible

the story of noah and the references from those in the NTestament add to discrediting the bible here is the text,which argues the flood was world wide, and wiped out every creature alive that was not on the boat. "The clearest verses that show the extent of the flood are Genesis 7:19-23. Regarding the waters, "They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. Every living thing that moved on the earth perished"birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark." despite it being at least plausible to ignore the literal langauge of the story and say it was a local flood, a lot of christians insist on calling it a world wide flood, despite all the contrary scientific evidence. Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org... Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." see also Luke 17:26 clearly, the scientific evidence indicates the flood being global and killing all the animals, was false. the best a person could argue, is that the story was a myth. and the people of hte new testament didn't necessarily say that it was true that it was a global flood, and that animals were all killed. but they did, however, give credence to the story of noah, a story that is basically a myth. even if the flood wasn't worldwide, it is still said to be in the OTestament. that alone is discrediting. ------------ more reference to noah in the bible: (Isaiah 54:9; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5; Hebrews 11:7) ""This is like the days of Noah to me: as I swore that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so I have sworn that I will not be angry with you, and will not rebuke you. "because they formerly did not obey, when God"s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. "5 if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;" "7 By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
is football better than basketball

Definition of football “Unqualified, the word football applies to whichever form of football is the most popular in the regional context in which the word appears, including association football, as well as American football, Australian rules football, Canadian football, Gaelic football, rugby league, rugby union” [1] As my opponent has failed to define which specific code of football she meant, I will argue that the combined excitement of all the sports, varied and addressing different tastes, exceeds that of merely one code: basketball. http://www.youtube.com... Why football is better than basketball “Football boring” I’m going to assume here that specifically, my opponent meant one of the most popular forms of football: soccer. The English Premier League, for example, broadcasts in 212 territories to 643 million homes and a potential TV audience of 4.7 billion people. [2] Clearly, football cannot be “boring”, at least in an intersubjective sense, as an incredible amount of people watch it. My opponent has not provided any evidence to support her claim, therefore it is unfounded. My evidence outweighs her lack of evidence, therefore I conclude that football is better than basketball, at least relative to what is providin this debate. http://www.youtube.com... Conclusion 1) The combined excitement of all the different brands of football exceed that of basketball 2) If we assume that my opponent meant soccer, for example, then just the English Premier League alone brings an incredible amount of excitement, as is indicated by the amount of people who watch it 3) My opponent has provided no evidence to support her claims, whereas I have Therefore, football is not boring, and is superior in comparison to basketball. References/Sources [1] Reilly, Thomas; Gilbourne, D. (2003). "Science and football: a review of applied research in the football code". Journal of Sports Science 21: 693–705. [2] "The World's Most Watched League". Premier League (PremierLeague.com). 16 November 2011. Retrieved 11 April 2012.
Abortion is wrong.

""From answers.com: Human: noun A member of the human race: being, body, creature, homo, human being, individual, life, man, mortal, party, person, personage, soul. See beings."" Note some of the words used above like life. It's a living thing, and my opponent fails to realize that it's alive. It feels pain, and if given the chance will grow into something beautiful. A new addition to our world. Children are the future, give them a chance to live.
Abortion is wrong.

----Counterarguments---- My opponent has only provided one single argument this whole entire debate. That argument is that: "Fetuses are human, and killing humans is wrong. Therefore, abortion is wrong." However, this round she finally provides several examples to support her claim: 1) "Fetuses actually exist." I agree. However, again, fetuses are NOT human. In given a second chance to provide a definition that says so, my opponent has still yet to prove that fetuses are human. She has not met the burden of proof, and so this argument is void. 2) She correctly sates that fetuses may have "heart, hands, feet, brain and other organs" I agree. But they are NOT human. I mean, monkeys are more in common with humans than fetuses. Are monkeys human? No! You have still not met the burden of proof. 3) "As it says above, "having the form of a human" can anyone not deny this is a human, or something similar?" Okay, I agree that a fetus is similar to a human just as monkeys are similar to humans. As for your definition, the adjective form does not count. Obviously, "That human-like monkey" and "That monkey is human" are two totally different things. ----A Reminder---- I'd like to remind my opponent that by the rules of debate, she may not introduce anything new to her closing argument. If she does so however, the audience must ignore it. Thank you. ----Arguments---- 1) My argument that if you are not reproducing every second of your life, then that you are killing potential life still stands because my argument was twisted by my opponent and not truly addressed. She moved my argument from killing potential life to killing actual life. 2) My argument that the rights of the mother are more important than "the rights of the fetus" still stands because it was never addressed. 3) My argument that disallowing abortions would lead to the death of many innocent women still stands because it was never addressed. 4) My argument of imposing values still stands because it was never addressed. ----Conclusion---- My opponent has made only one single fallacious argument. In contrast, I have provided MANY undisputed arguments as to why abortion is not wrong. The winner of this debate is clear. Vote for me!!!
Abortion is wrong.

From answers.com: Human: noun A member of the human race: being, body, creature, homo, human being, individual, life, man, mortal, party, person, personage, soul. See beings. adj. Having the form of a human, Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans: the course of human events; the human race. ----- In my opinion, it is proposterous to suggest that every second we are not "creating" life, we are killing it. It does not exist, therfore you cannot kill it. This fetus, this miracle, is already here, living, breathing. More a human every day. Soon after 11 weeks of age, (the fetal stage begins at week 11) the fetus can breathe. The heart, hands, feet, brain and other organs are present as well. How can one say any of these are not charecteristics of humans? Defining traits and body parts. Eyebrows, eyelashes, fingernails, and toenails appear. Mucles, a nervous system. All in the second trimester. Though it is in a womb, does it not think and feel pain? It has a small beating heart. http://en.wikipedia.org... As it says above, "having the form of a human" can anyone not deny this is a human, or something similar? All life has value, yes too those of fish and animals. Just because "killing happens every day" as my opponent suggests, does not make it justified.
Abortion is wrong.

----She broke the rules of debate---- My opponent introduced a new argument in her closing argument despite my warning her that it was against the rules of debate. However, to be completely efficient, I will counter it. My opponent's new argument is non sequiter. She asserts that because humans are alive, and that fetuses are supposedly alive as well, that a human is a fetus. That is preposterous! Using her logic, I (PoeJoe) could equal her (indianajones644) because we are both debaters. Her logic does not follow. ----Closing arguments---- This is how the debate went: 1) I successfully countered her one single fallacious argument. 2) I posed three arguments that were completely unchallenged in the whole debate, along with another argument that we unsuccessfully rebutted. I believe the winner of this debate is fairly clear.
Macro Evolution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt

I saw your previous debate with Alexander_The_Great (Here: http://www.debate.org...) and must admit, that even though I accept evolution, I think you won the debate because of his lack of convincing argument and data on Pro's side. I also felt that the title and some of the other things wasn't properly set up. For example, I wont argue that macro evolution is a scientific fact. While in colloquial use, the word "fact" might describe the evolutionary theory well, doesn't change that the evolutionary theory is a theory[1] in the scientific community. Also, since you seem to agree with micro-evolution, I excluded this from the challenge. I will therefore take the burden of proof myself, and argue, that Macro-evolution has been proved/supported beyond reasonable doubt. I will ask, before making my case, you to give me a proper and clear-cut definition of macro-evolution and if you have anything you want to change regarding the challenge. Also, I will ask to permission, that if my post gets too long, to post my sources in the comment section(of course also accepted that you do so :) ). [1] Scientific theory being a very well supported and thoroughly tested hypothesis which is widely accepted due to its resistance to scrutiny.
Macro Evolution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt

I thank my opponent for responding and giving well thought out arguments In regard to Baraminology he states “Meaning, humans, in the family hominidae is related to orangutans and everything in between.” No not necessarily, it is not family or order in all cases this being one such case where it is more like species than order. It must be assessed on a case by case basis, in some cases it is indeed closer to species while in others it is closer to order. My opponent challenged my use of cum hoc as a valid description of how evolution is understood. As far as causation is concerned, it appears you would need something to compare it to. Also it appears as if causation can be observed in controlled groups, something not possible with macro-evolution. However, is your point that causation can never be known with 100% certainty? “You have to understand the difference between facts and theories.” Certainly, the fact is that we have many different types of animals. The theory is that they had a common ancestor. “We already agreed that it all was in the DNA, in point 1-2-3. So the hindrance should be found there.” It can be observed that DNA breaks down over time. Also, the fact that from the moment we are born we start to die it shows our bodies are in a constant state of decay. How this would affect evolution is that according to evolution each newer species seems to be more complex or at least more intelligent for the most part than previous and that the mutations have been beneficial on each successive form. As for what you have listed, they are negative mutations or at the very least benign and actually demonstrate my point. Some of them are quite damaging. Just because there some whales can have mutations that appear to be legs does not mean that it is vestigial from them evolving from land mammals. Humans can have an extra finger, does that mean we evolved from an animal with six digits on each hand? There is an old Chinese woman with a horn on her head, does this mean that she is evolved from a horned animal? [1] Also, a similarity to something else does not automatically show a connection. Also, your sources mention a link between whales and Hippopotami via an extinct mammal. Yet it even the articles admit that since it has been extinct for a long time and there is no access to its DNA this cannot be known for certain. “Elaboration would be nice.” I think environment plays a more indirect role. Yes there are certain adaptations such a snowshoe hare for example has a winter coat that it sheds in the summer. [2] It can have even more long term effects than this. However, if an animal is presented with an environment where it cannot survive at all there is no chance for it to adapt, for instance a fish out of water. “Regarding the mule, actually, mules have been observed to be fertile.” While it is true that a mule can reproduce in rare circumstances, it would be even more unlikely for the offspring to reproduce so the line would end eventually.Thanks again to my opponent and I wish him luck in the next round. 1 http://www.odditycentral.com... 2 http://www.enature.com...
Christians do not follow Christ, The Bible or the God of bible. Christ was NOT a Christian.

My opponent said "Christ was not a Christian" this does not make any sense at all as according to Wikipedea Christianity means the anointed one and the Latin suffix lan and ltas a Religion based on the life and oral teachings of Jesus Christ as presented in the New Testament. So as for Christ Being a Christian he was not a Christian because he was God he made Christianity. My opponent quoted Mathew 15:6 but that verse is out of context. This is 15 :3-9. Jesus replied "why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said 'Honor your father and Mother' and anyone who curses their father and mother should be put to death; but you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help your father and mother is 'devoted to God: they are not to Honor their 'father and mother' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied a out you : These people of honor me with there lips but there heart are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teaching are merely human rules. So if my opponent takes Mathew 15:16 out of context then what other things will he take out of place?
Christians do not follow Christ, The Bible or the God of bible. Christ was NOT a Christian.

I am clearly saying that the practice of Christianity as it is done today is simply not in the bible. 99.9% of the current christian churches follow the traditions of man and not God. Mat_15:6, And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Mar_7:9, And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. Mar_7:13, Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Christians do not follow Christ, The Bible or the God of bible. Christ was NOT a Christian.

I will attempt again to educate my speechless opponent. I agree that earth was created by the sixth day, AGREED! Try to understand that the bible say's clearly that God planted Eden, and formed Adam, after The Spirit of God had rested on the seventh day. Is the point missed for years, yet they preach, preach, preach. While dictating what is correct context when the church is wrong about the beginning. Tells me they are simply not representing the God of the bible. The christian religion began in Rome where the Pope is. Christ was telling the Jews of His day that they where of Satan then, in that day, so it is today. I say 99.9% of all religions are false. I say no disciple or Paul started the church of Rome. However some met there end there. Even wrote letters from captivity while in Rome. The true truth was started from peoples homes not a church building which is just a small business, created for profit and to assist the King/Government control the people. Joh_8:42, Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Joh_8:43, Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Joh_8:44, Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. Joh_8:45, And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Joh_8:46, Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? Joh_8:47, He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. Joh_8:48, Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? Joh_8:49, Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me. Joh_8:50, And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth. Joh_8:51, Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death. Joh_8:52, Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death. Joh_8:53, Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself? Joh_8:54, Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: I appeal to the reader that my witness is true. I defend and stand alone on the word of God.
Christians do not follow Christ, The Bible or the God of bible. Christ was NOT a Christian.

Con just does not get it God created the world in six days and on the seventh day he rested. Time could of been created on Tuesday or Wednesday or even Sunday we don't know. The Monday -Sunday system was not created yet. So its not a specific day God is tell us to keep holy but rather the fact that we acknowledge that God made the seventh day holy. So what ever seventh day means to us let it be Sunday or Wednesday its okay because we acknowledge that on a seventh day God rested. We should always observe the sabbath but we are no longer breaking Gods law when we work on the sabbath. Even Jesus Christ who created the sabbath worked on the sabbath. You see all the Jewish laws the Ten Commandments and rules about what to and what not to eat were created by God to show that we as humans could never reach the standered of God. Basically we could not reach Gods holyness by are self's but Jesus started a NEW COVENANT one were all the rules of the old covenant (Old Testament) were not required to enter the kingdom of God anymore all are sins are breaking of rules were paid for we now have the chance to become completely holy join a new covernent which is complete trust in Jesus Christ that he will forgive you for your sins and make you holy. All those traditions are no longer necessary to become holy put your trust in Jesus and you will be holy in the eyes of the Lord. Hebrews 8:14 In that He saith a new covenant He hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away
Christians do not follow Christ, The Bible or the God of bible. Christ was NOT a Christian.

First off when I said my opponent Took Mathew 15:6 out of context I ment he didn't thquote the whole verse and he did not say the verses leading up to that verse. In short we should honor are father and mother but it is wrong when we say Gods authority is grater than are parents which is true but its wrong when you say that just so you can do wicked things to your parent. Second thing Christ is the creator of Christianity (Christ)-ianity. Third thing about the sabbath it dosnt matter what day it is as much as it matters that Christians acknowledge that God rested on the seventh (which day we do not know) and made is holy. Also Jesus and hid disciples worked on the sabbath to. Mathew 12: 11-12 KJB and he said unto them what man shall there be among you that shall have one sheep and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day will he not lay hold on it and lift it out? As for modern Sunday service as long as the Bible permits it its okay. Note to Con I don't quite get what your saying anymore please explane Source The Holy Bible