BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible Presents Contradictory Creation Accounts

The Jewish Rabbis Understood a ContradictionIf the documet my opponent was citing was dated within a reasonable amount of time of the original document, he may have a point. However, the document does not appear for 3000 years fter the time of Moses. So if we assume Mosaic authorship, we have 3000 years of Jews not seeing a contradiction. Even Genesis was written in the Exile, we haev 1900 years of Jews not seeing a contradiction. Furthermore, many Jews believe that the Zohar was composed fraudulently by Moses de Leon in the 13th century and not by the person he proposed.My opponent is asking you to believe that after 3000 (or 1900) years of understanding Genesis 1 and 2 to be completely harmonious, suddenly a lone individual gasped and said "these stories don't fit!" That is not only an audacious claim, it is flat out ridiculous.Does not Explain the Contradiction Between Man and BeastMy opponent still does not understand the issue. He says "in one story, man was created before the beasts and in another beasts was created before." However, he is refusing to acknowledge the point that the Hebrew word "adam" means "humanity" rather than just a male human being. Thayer's lexicon notes that mankind is the "much more frequently intended sense in OT" [A]Simply put, HUMANITY was created on the 6th day. A single Male Human Being was created on day three after the creation of dry land, before the creation of vegitatation.The dictionary defines humanity as "all human beings collectively; the human race; humankind." [B] Simply put, a single male human being cannot constitue humanity. This is why when there was a single human male the creation was not complete (denoted by the phrase "not good"). Once the human female was created (after the animals), the creation was complete and could properly be considered humanity and declared very good. Yet again, my opponent has failed to address this in any meaningful way.Thank you.[A] http://www.blueletterbible.org...[B] http://dictionary.reference.com...
The Bible Presents Contradictory Creation Accounts

"The Jewish Rabbis Understood a ContradictionI believe this point is very relevant to this debate. My opponent asked me a similar question in a previous debate so I wish to ask him a question:Why should we accept your response when the Jews, who understand the texts a lot better than you, understood it to be a contradiction and had to invent Lilith? Does not explain the contradiction between man and beast. My opponent has still failed to understand that in one story, man was created before the beasts and in another beasts was created before. And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds. ” And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image. .. "It becomes quite clear that in these verses the living creatures was created, THEN God created man. HOWEVER, we come to a similar issue in the other verse:Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man. "He stated this because earlier, the beasts were created for humans:Then the LORD GOD said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him. " Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man caleld every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam, there was not a helper fit for him. Genesis 2:18-20Not only is there a contradiction as to who came first, man or the animal; there is also a contradiction between the role animals play and to why they were created.
The Bible Presents Contradictory Creation Accounts

Thank you to Kohai for continuing this debate and for his contribution.My opponent has not answered any of my responses, nor has he done anything to discredit the harmonization I have proposed.I shall respond to his points presently.The Jewish Rabbis/Scribes Understood a ContradictionThis point is completely irrelevant to this debate. We are not debating about if later rabbis saw a contradiction, we are debating on if a contradiction is actually present. For this reason, the only text that is significant is that of the Bible itself.However, I would like to point something about the Zohar. Simply put, the Zohar is not an early rabbinical source. The first know appearace of the Zohar is in the 13th century of the Common Era. This is 1200 years after the time of Christ, 1900 years after the Babylonian Exile, 2400 years after the time of King David, and nearly 3000 years after the time of Moses. It is not only inaccurate to present this as an early source, it is down right irresponsible. Even if we take the supposed date of the 2nd century CE we still have a very late source. [A]An Exercise in Missing the PointMy opponent has failed to addess my argument in any meaningful way. My argument is that Genesis 1 records completed acts of creation and denotes this by declaring them "good" or "very good." However, in Genesis 2 when the male was created it is declared "not good." We therefore know that at that point of the story, the act of creation was not complete. Genesis 1 does not talk about this stage in the process of human creation as it is not talking about the process, only the finished product.Simply put, a male was created on Day 3, but a single male does not constitute a completed humanity. Humanity was not complete until day 6, in which it was declared very good.Unless my opponent can disprove this harmonization, he has not fulfilled his burden of proof to "sucesfully prove that there are contradictions in the Genesis creation story." nor to "show why CON's 'rebuttals' fail."[A] http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...
The Bible Presents Contradictory Creation Accounts

I accept the rules as they are posted with the following addition. Any forfeiture of a round shall result in an automatic loss regardless of the prior argumentation. I would also ask that my opponent use the ESV translation of the Bible, but also permit usage of the original Hebrew text and other ancient translations (Talmud, Septuagint, etc. )Finally, my opponent has requested a brief synopsis of my position. My position is that the Genesis 1 account and Genesis 2 account are not contradictory, and rather represent different view points on the same event. I shall demonstrate this further throughout my rebuttal and positive argument. Thank you.
On balance, Animals should not be killed for human consumption

Ah, Well, I would say not to bother voting on this debate, Was nothing debated. 2 3 4 And now, On to the reposting of subpar poetry. -Before Dawn Comes- Falling moon in the ink blue sky Silver streaks of stars guide your way This moment enjoy before day breaks And we night owls sleep to reawake Once morrows passed over those nocturnal When again vanity hangs framed on black Shining once more suns reflection, Mans mirror.
Are Weeaboos Better than Koreaboos? I Say Yes!

If you didn't care about it from the start you wouldn't have responded to the opening statement to begin with. lol So I don't believe that lie for two seconds. lol There are plenty of arguments on debate.org you can get into besides this one. If you weren't interested, why this one? Yeah, you're giving yourself away... I'm allowed to debate whatever I want to debate. Get over it. If you don't like it, you see the other sections? They are yours for the choosing. If you're trolling, then there is a place for you on debate.org. Do you see the little side button that says "Report This Argument"? That is for people who are spamming and trolling. So before you respond, you'd better think about what it is you're saying and (if you are trolling) you'd best just withdraw/forfeit, or accept your loss to this debate. BTW, yes...I source my stuff. I don't care what it is. You'd be wise to do the same. And my experiences with both communities goes back to my years in high school, which is about 15 years ago. So, I've seen the groups evolve and grow even to this day. The groups have soft power in regards to relations with other countries. In your mind all you see is "a bunch of obsessive little teens" but these groups are actually moving and shaping the systems. The government in China has even stated how Kpop is a soft power over China's communities and vice versa (the Koreaboos are influencing Knetizens). It is through these cultural mediums and communities that the world is becoming interconnected and developing brand new ideas. But again, if you're one of those surface dudes/dudettes, I can see why you miss this...
Are Weeaboos Better than Koreaboos? I Say Yes!

What was I even doing to get on this website and join this argument, honestly? I mean, being totally honest I don't even remember reading this, posting this, arguing this, challenging this. I just have one question, how many Weeaboos and/or Koreaboos did it take for you to finally go, "Well, might as well ask the internet on some random 'debate' site."? And I guess I'm obligated to read your round 2 argument cause that's formal, right? After I stopped giving a damn on the opening statement? Ok Yep Sure I mean, your sources check out. That's good. A+. Wait just lemme hold that thought and look back at my opening statement cause that was a fun one, you know? See, sarcasm stated when I intricately placed the word 'Propaganda'. Oh, see. My bad. But, yet, round 2 is so great. It's honestly just perfect. Your argument was very well thought out. But I have one question, you sourced this? Like fam, you sourced it. (Sidenote: This may or may not have been for suffrage)
Are Weeaboos Better than Koreaboos? I Say Yes!

I accept your challenge, but I will not attribute to this nonsense. In my experience, life is too short to waste on arts that consist of propaganda used to incite cheap comic/cartoon/manga characters into publicized and over-inflated industries that don't benefit the rest of the world. Argument: Neither is really all that great, in my opinion. I wish I could say I respect your opinion or your decision but to fantasize over an art limits yourself to the WHOLE of arts. See, if I listened to just KPop, and ONLY KPop, I could potentially miss the opportunity to appreciate JPop. It goes in the other direction as well. And in both life and the arts. If I only appreciated Modern Eastern culture simply because of my surrounding in Modern Western culture or because of some other reason, I'd still undervalue Modern Western culture. As an artist, or a fan, or a lover of entertainment, I appreciate all styles of music, drama, sports, etc. This argument in general decapitates one style of entertainment for a public raid that has no significance in society. Even your argument, "And then the way Koreaboos talk to the Knetizens....they are ten times more aggressive and judgmental towards their way of life", assumes that all 'Koreaboos' are these mongrels that aren't cute and lovable. That's a very horrible assumption and offensive to the Korean people in-general. I'm Filipino. If I just simply looked at Japan and went, "You know what, I'm better because I'm not like them.", would that be right? And I know that's not the true case in-point... But my point stands, that was very disrespectful and this argument is very unnecessary.
Are Weeaboos Better than Koreaboos? I Say Yes!

First of all, Weeaboos, while they are annoyingly obsessed with Japan sometimes, they usually have good intentions. They usually feel like outcasts by their own societies or may feel that they connect better with the lifestyle found in a Japanese anime or Japanese drama. But despite how ignorant they may seem about Japanese culture, at least they are willing to understand that other people have varying interests and even within the community they can accept that not everyone likes the same animes, Jpop songs, japanese dramas, and cultural aspects as each other. For example, they don't compare Utada Hikaru to Ayumi Hamasaki aggressively....and when they do they generally respect each other's opinions within the Weeaboo community. The weeaboo community is more united in their love for Japanese anime or Japanese culture. They usually try to stick together because obviously they are different. Weeaboos don't insult Japanese people or their way of life intentionally, and when they are corrected by a Japanese person, they usually take it in because they genuinely want to respect Japanese people. Even some Japanese people who are obsessed with anime tend to be easy to talk to. Jnetizens are polite, despite how ignorant Weeaboos can be. It makes it a lot easier for them to learn from one another. Koreaboos on the other hand tend to be major Kpop followers and when you say one thing about their "bias" stan they go on an all out attack on you. They are generally divided by kpop fandoms and only like groups because they look better. They may not feel like outcasts necessarily, but they insist that Kpop music is better. They go online spamming and trolling people just so they can get followers for their "biases". The only ones that are bearable are the ones that are interested in Kdramas because at least they are reasonable to talk to. The other part of the Kpop community is aggressively so. Also, there is no unification under koreaboos. When people go to the Kcon events its to see the music artists, not to check out the literature, latest Korean movies, or anything else. Its all a big show for them! And then the way Koreaboos talk to the Knetizens....they are ten times more aggressive and judgmental towards their way of life. And the Knetizens are just as snarky towards Koreaboos. They are both intolerant and disrespectful to each other's countries and ideas. There is no unity between Koreaboos and Knetizens. This is my experience being around both, and in my opinion Weeaboos are WAAAYYYY better than Koreaboos.
Atheists can go to heaven

You have failed to demonstrate that anyone, much less an atheist, can go to heaven. The burden of proof is always on the proponent, you made a positive assertion and failed to support it. The assertion was that atheists can go to heaven, regardless of the religious doctrine examined. Which I responded to by providing a test case, an example of a religious doctrine that contradicts your proposition, a fatal inconsistency. I thank you for replying to my posts in a timely manner.
Atheists can go to heaven

You did not limit your argument to any Christian idea, nor specify if that idea is textual, or derived from an oral tradition. You said, "Okay, now as for my opening statement, i say that a man who admits to not knowing about a specific god, or even having a completely different belief, can make his/her way to "heaven", or any religious equivalent, regardless which religion is correct, be it Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, or any of the other religions that exist." Your argument assumes the existence of "heaven" because it does not demonstrate the existence of heaven. Your argument also excludes the religions that do not have a construct equivalent to the Christian idea of heaven, do you simply assume those religions cannot exist? If you want to limit this discussion to Christianity, what if fundamentalist baptists are correct? Their belief system dictates that it is physically impossible for any human to live morally, that our sins are inherited, and that the only way for any human to get into heaven is through Christ. I never went off topic, please re-read your first post, you never said you were Christian, and still haven't specified the related text/translation, nor other sources of doctrine.
Atheists can go to heaven

>>>First off, you say "I challenge your assumption that heaven exists, and your implied assumption that there is a correct religion" >>>I did not assume any existence of heaven, or any correct religion, i merely stated certain hypothetical situations which related to Christianity versus Atheism. Also, the statement of me assuming a correct religion exists is not necessarily false, because there are almost infinite views on how the world works and what gods do what, if there are any gods, and any existence of heaven. Note that when i first refer to heaven, i also include any religious equivalent, which includes all forms of ultimate peace which are generally contained in each religion in one way or another. For example, Buddhists believe in nirvana, which is an enlightened state of being, the religious equivalent to the Christian "heaven". Clearly not heaven in the sense one would assume, but it amounts to the same thing. I apologize for not making this more clear in my opening statement. >>>Secondly, you bring up the question "Have you ever met an atheist that has been to heaven, is there any evidence of this? " >>>This is a very good question, but i find it irrelevant due to the fact that i was referring to Christianity as a hypothetical truth and a sinless man as a hypothetical Atheist. This situation i conceived was created as such to show that if in particular the Christian god exists, then believing in him is irrelevant to one's being allowed into heaven, but merely that they have led a "proper" life. >>>As for the last part of your opening statement, you state " Your argument would have been better off if you actually defined, or at least described this "heaven". " >>>Again, a decent point. But as i refer to heaven in the Christian sense of the word, the definition seemed to me to be very strongly implied, but if you wish to have a definition to have more bearing on the subject, i will go back to dictionary. com for their definition, which is:"the place or state of existence of the blessed after the mortal life. " And again, I apologize for not going into as great of detail as you would have liked on this. >>>But on the whole, friend, you fail to actually defend the topic at hand. You seemed to have attempted to punch a whole in my beliefs in Christianity, which I don't have oddly enough, but you seem to have failed to defend your side of the argument, which is not challenging my so-called "assumptions" but instead arguing the point that Atheists do not deserve to go to heaven because they don't believe or at least admit they do not know that a God exists. >>>And come to think of it, you really didn't challenge my standpoint in that, if Christianity was truth, an Atheist who lived a proper life would be able to go to heaven. Please stay on the topic, and good luck with round 2.
Atheists can go to heaven

With religion being such a shaky topic I just want to come outright and say yes, i do believe in a God. Dictionary.com defines God as "The one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe." Just to express my religious standpoint, i honestly admit to not knowing if there is an intelligent designer, or if everything happens by chance, but my personal beliefs consist of this: Everything is made up of energy at its lowest level. Energy flows in and out of everything, including the universes(Yes, i do believe in a multiverse), and I believe that energy creates and rules the activities inside every universe. By the definition of Dictionary.com, i do believe in god, yes. Now that I have established my standpoint, I will try my best to approach this topic without offending any person of a specific religion >>>Also, i will refer to Mankind as "man" from now on in this debate, just to clear up any more possible confusion. Okay, now as for my opening statement, i say that a man who admits to not knowing about a specific god, or even having a completely different belief, can make his/her way to "heaven", or any religious equivalent, regardless which religion is correct, be it Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, or any of the other religions that exist. >>>For example, say we make a man for the sake of this argument. For the sake of the argument, I will also make a hypothetical world, in which one religion is true. I will compare him between two big aspects of American religion: Atheism and Christianity. This man lives a life of complete Atheism, never once considers the existence of a God. But this man is very morally attuned, and leads a very healthy lifestyle. He never stole, never committed adultery, never committed any of the sins proclaimed in the Bible, and therefore, led a "perfect" life, in the view of any devout Christian. Then, as fate would have it, Christianity turned out to be the absolute truth, and when our man dies, he faces his judgement before God himself. I believe whole-heartedly that our man should be allowed into the kingdom of heaven, for he did everything that the bible wished of him, and he did nothing that the bible advised against. I don't think that a just being such as god would send our man to hell for leading a life exactly the way that he wanted, therefore he has no place to go but heaven. >>>Good luck to whoever may accept this challenge
Who would have made the best president, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney

First of all being pro Israeli has its faults like what you ask? Well for instance every country in the Middle East resents Israel. Second Obama had nothing to do with job equality. Third I will say Obama did okay with jobs but definitely not good enough. Barrack Obama spent 90 billion dollars on green jobs and as mitt stated half of them no longer exist. You have stated that " you blame him for the dept (which should be debt) yet he gave billions of dollars to the auto industry and banks to keep them solvent". So what that contributes to debt. America's people shouldn't be paying for rich people to fail any way. Also no numbers again how much money to how many banks. Thank you and I turn my debate to my opponent.
Who would have made the best president, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney

You have stated that Obama is at fault for causing the country into this amount of dept, yet he gave billions of dollars to the auto industry and to banks to keep them solvent. Maintaining solvency will keep us out of an economic crisis. Doing this, the banks continue doing well and are repaying the loans at a considerable profit to the government. Another point is that Obama is pro-Israeli. Being Pro Israel is important for many reasons. The central reasons is that Israel is our friend and ally in the middle east. Other middle eastern countries are against both United States and Israel and we need to continue this relationship. Israel is now the only place we can land a plane in the middle east, and that is important in war. Obama is working towards job security and the equality of women. Before Obama, women had a lower pay with the same job as men. He is also helping to reduce the unemployment by introducing job security.
Who would have made the best president, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney

When your post I see your post..... I don't see any facts only opinions. I think Mitt Romney would've done a much better job then Obama second term. First of all Mitt Romney did not wanna cut Medicare but lower the medicare tax rates for all income Americans. Barrack Obama has not been a good president because of his adding to debt. Obama managed to borrow 3 Trillon more dollars from china. It took america 214 years to borrow that much from china 1776-1990 !He raised nation wide debt by 4.7 trillion dollars. When obamas term started we owed 10.5 trillion and after his first term we owe 15.2 trillion dollars in debt. President Obama has not helped our debt crisis what so ever. While adding to our debt he's managed to raise taxes in the beginning of his seconded term. Sorry I know I don't have any sources but I will post them by the end of the debate.