BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There are no contradictions in the Bible

Cordial greeting, First it is necessary to remember what is a contradiction: ' the fact of something being the complete opposite of something else or very different from something else, So that one of them must be wrong ' according to the dictionary of Cambridge In addition to the above, It should be clarified that the issue to be discussed is "There are no contradictions in the Bible" and therefore, It includes the entire bible. This is how even if there were contradictions between the different books that compose it, They would be equally valid. I limit myself then to enunciate only three contradictions that the bible has in this round, By your request. 1. Genesis 1:25-26. And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, And the cattle after their kind, And everything that creepeth upon the ground after its kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, After our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, And over the birds of the heavens, And over the cattle, And over all the earth, And over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. Genesis 2: 18-19. And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him. And out of the ground Jehovah God formed every beast of the field, And every bird of the heavens; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them: and whatsoever the man called every living creature, That was the name thereof. Man could not be created before and after the animals, A clear contradiction. 2. Genesis 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time. Genesis 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, Woman sometime later. 3. AC 10:34, RO 2:11 God shows no partiality. He treats all alike. RO 9:18 God has mercy on whoever he chooses.
There are no contradictions in the Bible

My bold claim is there are no contradictions in the Bible. There might be many things that may seem like a contradiction, But there is not. Give me some verses and I will try my best to explain why they are not contradictions. Please keep it limited to 2 or 3 contradictions at a time please, So that way I do not run out of space. Some may take more explaining than others. Wretched: No, The Bible doesn't have mistakes. https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=nXSCwf9F6BI&t=3s Wretched The Bible proves itself https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=lUOMXL_tmPI
There are no contradictions in the Bible

I look forward to this. I want to clarify the definition you used for contradiction. The law of non contradiction states that, Something cannot be both true and not true at the same time when dealing with the same context. For example, Statements like "I walked my dog at 2" and "I did not walk my dog at 2" may seem like a contradiction, But it may not be a contradiction because one was talking about 2pm while the other was talking about 2am. Something important to realize between Genesis 1 and 2 is, That Genesis 1 through Genesis 2:4 is giving an order things were created, While after Genesis 2:4 it starts going into more detail about what happened on the 6th day after the animals were created. 1. The word that is translated "formed" the original Hebrew verb can actually be translated as a pluperfect. A better translation would be "had formed" which is what the NIV translation actually reads. Also like I said, Genesis 2: 18-19 is after 2:4 so God is not creating the animals, He is dealing with the animals he had already created. Sometimes the surrounding context helps determine what the verse is actually saying, Because it does not say that God created the animals right then and there, Or that animals were created after man. 2. Genesis 1:26-27 and Genesis 2:7, 21-22 is also another example of the differences between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Genesis 1:26-27 Does not say man and woman were created at the same time. It says they were created on the same day. Genesis 2:7, 21-22 Says man was created first, And then later woman was created that day. 3. The context of Romans 2:11 is talking about how God is going to judge everyone who does evil acts. He is not going to favorite someone over the other. The Bible teaches that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Therefore unless we repent and put our faith in Jesus we will all face Gods judgement and wrath. This includes jew and gentile. The context of Acts 10:34 is, That it doesn't matter to God what nation you were born into or call your own. He is not interested in whether you are one of the circumcision or one of the Gentiles. What matters is your attitude and actions, Do you worship and fear God and do his will. Romans 9:18 is true, He will show mercy on who he wants, And he will harden whosever heart he wants to harden. Basically meaning we have no right to tell God what to do. He made us so he has power to do what ever he wants with us. That does not mean he is unfair, Or favorites. For specific purposes that are unknown to us God may have hardened someone's heart, Also don't forget he is omniscient. So he knows whether or not someone would follow him, Regardless of if he hardened their heart. Sometimes he just gives you what you want. Some people want there hearts to be hardened.
Pet snakes shouldn't be illegal

There are other reasons to be afraid of snakes than that one of them could be Satan in disguise, although that would be a great reason if it were actually possible. There are pet owners who are too irresponsible to keep even a gaping-mouthed, lethal, possibly-poisonous, speedy, creepy and durable reptiles that have even more vertebrae than they do in tightly closed cages. Some are boa constrictors and will choke you, some are poisonous, such as vipers or rattlesnakes, and some will just plain eat you. According to www.Bbc.Co.Uk/2/hi/south_asia/5314104.Stm, More people have died of snakebites in India than in any other country in the world. If they escape from their cages, there's no telling what hey could do besides kill their owners. After eating someone, they can infect groups of people with the bacteria that were all over their bodies by spreading them by hissing. If they become road kill, their fangs may damage car tires or even become stuck in the tires. Also, when kids are climbing trees, they may stumble upon a branch that's actually a camouflaged snake. These children are also likely to be very, very young and impressionable, so they will probably attack the snakes instead of heading in the opposite direction. This would give the snake enough time to kill them. Some of these snakes may also have once been pet snakes. The bottom line is, I think pet snakes were a bad idea from the start
Pet snakes shouldn't be illegal

Pet snakes should NOT be illegal. For one, out of 3,000 species of snakes, only 300 are venomous, and only a very small portion of those are even harmful to humans. Keeping a pet snake is no different than a dog or a cat. Snakes rarely even bite unless provoked, and common pet snakes (like Corn Snakes or Ball Pythons) don't even hurt you when you get bitten. Sources: https://www.arkive.org...
A World Government is fundamentally not a good idea.

I sincerely apologize, but, due to a significant increase in business, I shall likely be unable to participate in any debates. Since it is more sporting for me to concede than forfeit, and because I legitimately do wish to continue this debate, I simply request that we continue the debate at a later time, with the arguments of this one transplanted, so as to continue from this point. I left this late, in the hopes that my schedule would somewhat clear up, but have been unable to do anything about this schedule. My reiterated sincere apologies.
A World Government is fundamentally not a good idea.

I reciprocally thank Danielle for making this challenge. I hope for a pleasant and thought-provoking debate. I agree to your explanation of a world government. Is it understood that later in the debate either of us might, if necessary, have leave expound upon and add specificity to said definition? I only wish to add, since this is an acceptance and formality round, that I will support moderate world government. Far right-wing anything is dangerous, in my opinion, thus I will be arguing for world government in moderation. I naturally fully accept my opponent's request for no use of cheating to circumnavigate the 8K character limit, and would never be so dishonorable as to purposefully do such a thing (I say purposefully because I have, in the past, accidentally stumbled upon a glitch that allows one to exceed the character limit). A very good luck to you as well!
A World Government is fundamentally not a good idea.

For all intents and purposes, a world government is self-explanatory: a single, unified government that everyone in the world is expected to abide by. I will be arguing that such an institution would be impractical, inefficient, implausible and immoral. As such, it would not be a good idea to (attempt to) implement. My opponent will be arguing that a world government is a good idea and would be beneficial to people throughout the globe. Con can use the first round for acceptance and to make any notes or outlines of his case if he so chooses. I will begin the discussion in Round 2. While it's okay for us to put our links for sources in additional space if need-be, using any special cheat codes to override the character limit will be considered an automatic forfeit. There is an 8K character max per round for this debate. Thanks again, and good luck!
Modern Science - An unprecedented scam

Pro claims that since stars are spheres, and planets are spheres, then anything subject to gravity should also be a sphere. This a very shallow and ignorant contention. Let's take a look at gravity to see what it really is. Gravity is a "force pulling together all matter (which is anything you can physically touch). The more matter, the more gravity, so things that have a lot of matter such as planets and moons and stars pull more strongly." So ever price of matter has a gravitational pull. Everything is pulling against everything else, and the closer two objects are together, the stronger the gravitational pull. The reason everything isn't sticking together is because it simply doesn't have enough matter to create a strong pull. Planets and stars are immensely huge objects the create massive gravitational forces the keep each other in orbit and everything from floating off to one another. All the objects In your room aren't creating enough gravity on themselves to even out the matter they are composed of. So in conclusion, stars and planets crest much larger gravitational pulls, which explains why they are different compared to minuscule objects and pieces of matter that it keeps on its surface.
Modern Science - An unprecedented scam

So if you are in space, you'll notice that things tend to take a spherical form - stars, planets, etc. However, look around your room. How many naturally spherical objects do you see? Not many if any I suspect. For God's sake, the Earth is a sphere! The logic follows that if stars are spheres and planets are spheres, then since we are subjec to the same gravity they are, we should be spheres.
Rights and Freedoms Are Officially Unalienable

I have already won this debate since the second round. Please vote for me instead of opponent. Opponent has failed to refute any of my arguments and has even been successfully convinced to join my side. The purpose of a debate is to determine which side of a topic is better; as both myself and the opponent has agreed that rights and freedoms are indeed alienable by the government, there is no use in debating any further. Opponent was supposed to do their best to make strong arguments to refute min in order to convince their opponent that the arguments are invalid. However, that is not the case- without a further ado, please vote for me and good luck in future debates.
Rights and Freedoms Are Officially Unalienable

Okay, so I think that freedoms and rights are guaranteed to the common citizen. As you stated, it cannot be taken away or violated by the government. I think that freedoms and rights can't be taken away by governments in any way as you can always have freedom...but I'll elaborate next round. Of course, I want this to be true so much of my reasoning for accepting this debate is because I genuinely think so. Also, can I re-tell past events?
Rights and Freedoms Are Officially Unalienable

Rules For This Debate: 1. First round is for acceptance, stance, position, and thesis only. 2. Cannot exceed small paragraph for first round. 3. All other rounds are for debating, rebuttals, and so on. 4. Informal language (i.e., slang, personal pronouns, contractions) are allowed. 5. No sources allowed - only logic and reasoning, as this is philosophical. 6. Direct quotes isn't allowed but paraphrasing is but do not reference it. 7. Only a small amount of "finger pointing" is allowed; do not abuse it. 8. Failure to follow the above rules will result in the discontinuation of this debate. I challenge anybody that thinks freedoms and rights are guaranteed to the common citizen, and that it cannot be taken away and/or violated by the government, to debate with me on this issue. I believe that freedoms and rights are all superficial because they were completely made up and given to us by the government; they are being violated daily by other people whether we know it or not; satisfying certain conditions can alienate us from our freedoms and rights; and there are laws to protect such rights even though they are guaranteed to be not taken away by anyone. I, of course, am against the belief that rights and freedoms are guaranteed to the common person and that they cannot be taken away by anybody else; I am going for con (against) and my opponent will obviously choose pro (for).
The United States Is A Christian Nation

Thesis: The United States was heavily influenced by Christianity and its basic tenets and are thus a Christian Nation. As Pro, I will defend the resolution by making it clear that the Founders explicitly state that they and the United States were molded by Christianity. First Round Is For Acceptance What I Mean By Christian Nation: Contrary to what critics imply, a Christian Nation is not a Theocracy, or the laws require everyone to adhere to Christianity, or all leaders are Christians, or any other such superficial measurement. As Supreme Court Justice David Brewer (1837-1910) explained: "[I]n what sense can [America] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world. " [1] According to Justice Brewer, America was “of all the nations in the world . . . most justly called a Christian nation” because Christianity “has so largely shaped and molded it.” [1] Sources: [1] David J. Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation (Philadelphia: John C. Winston Company, 1905), p. 13
Resolved: Debate.org should feature a catagory of debate called 'debate.org'

First, my opponent attacks my definition of technology, claiming that debate.org does not fit under its umbrella. As far as the definition problem goes, my opponent did in fact list a definition where debate.org fits perfectly. "2. Electronic or digital products and systems considered as a group." He then states "Debate.org is not an electronic or digital tool." I'm wondering what line of reasoning made him come to this conclusion. It is very much a digital product. It is very much a tool, even. I'm unsure where there's any room for doubt. Therefore, debate.org already has a category under which it fits. Just in case, though, I will be making a new, independent argument later in this round. I feared my opponent would actually go use the search feature. Yes, it's not as good as I made it out to be. Also, my opponent seems to have no idea what I meant by the 'comment box'. It's the link at the bottom of the page that says 'comment box'. This directly sends suggestions to the staff. It's literally the very bottom of the page. Here is a quote from one of the debate.org official announcements: "As we began developing the V3.0, your suggestions continued to flood our mailboxes, and we did our best to take the feature requests the community was seeking, and add them to the development schedule." After reading that, it should be obvious that the main method of suggesting new features is in fact by emailing the team via the 'comment box.' (or via another direct email method, it's irrelevant.) Therefore, there is no new functionality added when it comes to suggesting things to the staff. In fact, a debate would be a much bulkier and less straightforward way to suggest things to the staff. Also, things like tournament updates should not be made debates. The webmaster even said in a comment on the last tourney update debate, "Hi Debaters, I will likely be moving this announcement to the main page and then deleting this debate. -Webmaster" This is of course because an announcement should be an announcement, not a debate. And now, since I've addressed all my opponent's points, I will make another, independent argument. A new category called "debate.org" should not be made, since the staff needs to work on implementing the next version of the site, not changing the code for the current one. Not only that, but the advantages of the new category would be gone once the next version of the site is out, since there would now be a forum structure, etc. Therefore, adding a new category would be a foolish endeavor. They would have to mess with the layout of the top bar (it wouldn't fit right now), they'd have to mess with the database structure, they'd have to mess with debate creation pages, searching, etc. They do not need to waste their time with this when a much more important update is currently being implemented. They need to focus on implementing 3.0, not on some insignificant project that helps little to none.
Resolved: Debate.org should feature a catagory of debate called 'debate.org'

Greetings and good luck to my opponent. I will attempt to show you and the other voters why a Debate.org category should not be added to the list as it stands. I will first address my opponent's numbered points, which you can reference by scrolling up to his first round argument. 1. There is a clear place to put these. This is the Technology category. Some people make the mistake of thinking of technology simply as breakthroughs in science and medicine or new types of machinery, but Technology refers to a much wider range of topics. Technology can be defined as anything that helps us complete tasks in new or better way. Email, for example, is a technology that helps us communicate in a new way. Debate.org allows us to debate things in a new way - by using an effective proprietary online debating system. This site is a piece of technology, and therefore any debates about it should be put in that category. 2. This sounds good at first, until we consider what the webmaster can already do. First, there is a comment box down south (at the bottom of the screen). If you click that, you can send a direct suggestion to the webmaster and other debate.org staff. Second, there is a search function. This would reveal all the debates about debate.org, regardless of whether they were put in the wrong category or not. Third, the webmaster and the coders are doing a fantastic job already planning what features to implement, and I find it unlikely that my opponent's plan will make them any more capable in this field. 3. There is already a much more reasonable place for the staff to post critical information. A debate is not the preferred way for a normal member to make an announcement, it is simply how it must be done right now, until 3.0 is released. Any official announcements the site has can and are put on the front page. To be frank, my opponent's advocacy does not make it any easier for us to get the information we seek. The status quo is just as good as far as this point is concerned. Seeing that debates about Debate.org fit under the category "Technology," it would be absurd and would cause confusion if the staff added a Debate.org category. Also, my opponent's reasoning for advocating this is that "a lot of debates are made about it." This reason could be used to advocate a "President Bush" category, a "Games" category, or any other number of ridiculous, unneeded categories. I now wait for my opponent to disagree with my definition of technology, claiming that Debate.org does not fall under that umbrella.
Resolved: Debate.org should feature a catagory of debate called 'debate.org'

To make this perfectly clear, the catagories I am talking about are under the 'debate' tab at the top of your screen. The catagories currently are: All Arts Business Education Entertainment Health News Politics Regional Science Sports Technology There are few reasons why this should be added. 1. There are numerous amounts of debates on this site, about this site, but there is no clear place to put these debates. It would be clear where to put it, and would not create any confusion. 2. The debate.org webmaster, as well as ordinary members, could go to this catagory and see how the website could be improved. Many debates, as I assume, are wiped off the opening screen in a day or two, and the moderators of this site do not get to see it. Especially with the new website launching, it would be very helpful in deciding what should be improved. 3. This could get the word out about things that people would normally not see. Debates like the information about the tournament and updates on the update, would be better suited and more eficent to be in a certain catagory where people can see it. Thank you, I look forward to my opponent's response.