BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible is not inerrant

Thank you for your response.The number of fighting men in IsraelI will grant you that "different things are important to different people." However, a key tenet of inerrancy is plenary verbal inspiration, which can be defined as the belief that God inspired the entire canon and that this inspiration extends to the words chosen by the writers.[1] With this in mind, the question of why the two accounts are different poses a serious problem to inerrancy.The Strong's Concordance reference I provided lists the meanings and the nuances of said meanings for the Hebrew word we translate as "valiant" in our modern English Bibles. The claim that it implies that a man is a veteran is not borne out by this authoritative concordance.I would agree, in a sense, that the Bible is true as a whole. However, that is not what we are debating. The doctrine of inerrancy states that there are absolutely no errors within Holy Writ and that it is perfect in every way.The place of Josiah's deathActually, I am saying that you should take the Scriptures as they are written. The problem is that any natural reading of the two accounts of Josiah's death has it occurring at different times, while you are forcing the accounts to fit your view of inerrancy. If someone read either account in isolation of the other they would have two different ideas about what happened. This lack of clarity poses a challenge to the doctrine of inerrancy because of its tenet that the Bible is perfect in every way.Notice that I did not claim that one account says he died on the way to Jerusalem: "Also, 2 Chronicles says that Josiah died after stating that he was taken to Jerusalem, implying that the death occurred after the arrival rather than on the way."In contrast, 2 Kings says that he was carried dead in the chariot from the battle: "And his servants carried him dead in a chariot from Megiddo." This does not leave room for the claim that he was merely mortally wounded at the battle and then died on his way to Jerusalem or at Jerusalem.The angelic appearance before the womenEven if I concede that the accounts of Matthew and John do not contradict (which would then mean that, as my opponent explains it, there were actually three angels at the tomb instead of the traditional three), this still does not explain the inconsistency between Mark and Luke. Was there "a young men dressed in a white robe" and sitting as they entered, or were there "two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning" that suddenly appeared standing next to the women after they had already entered and were standing about confused?Thank you for a good debate, Con. Best of luck.Sources1. http://www.theopedia.com...
The Bible is not inerrant

Thank you for the compliment. The same goes for you. The Number Of Fighting Men In IsraelThere were two different authors for these books, the King's chronicler (1 Chronicles) and the author of Samuel is unkown. Different things are important to different people. What may be important for you may not be as important to me.I tried to look at your concordance reference to strengthen your argument but I could not find an explanation in the link as to why it negates my current argument that valiant men are veterans when referring to the bible. Pointless or no it is included. Though I do not see in any of the versions that I'm reading that this census was for the purpose of the might of David's kingdom (Might, I'm going to assume, meaning men capable of fighting) but merely a counting of the men in his kingdom.But the point of this debate is to find errors in the Bible. I have provided a solution (thus far) as to why this isn't true in this case. Finding out why it's different or why the numbers aren't exactly the same in both books is invalid since the question in this debate is: "Is the Bible not completely true?"So far I have held that even with the differing numbers the Bible is still true as a complete whole. The Place Of Josiah's Death If I am not to take the scriptures as they are written how then must I debate on a matter of the Bible? If you are to mean that I am taking this argument in this instance out of context please enlighten me, as I do not see how. And we shall say that I agree with Josiah dying on the way to Jerusalem since I have no other argument that would negate that other than the one that I've written above (That doesn't state for or against Josiah dying in Jerusalem) I do not see how this would be against my current argument that the Pharaoh did indeed inflict the killing blow in Josiah.The Angelic Appearance Before The Women In Matthew 28:2 even if they witnessed the angel and the earthquake it would just mean they saw that one as well as the other two angels. Though this same journalist could say that they talked to three people at the party without mentioning that there were 300 people there and they would not be wrong. Which is what we are faced with. Two angels were present inside the tomb though only one book of the Bible mentioned it and the other one mentioned two John 20:12 is still only mentioning Mary Magdalene and her account of this encounter.
The Bible is not inerrant

Thank you for providing one of the most thoughtful responses to these points that I have received.The number of fighting men in IsraelIf, as you say, the criteria for the numbers Joab presented were different in the two accounts, there are several resulting problems for the view of biblical inerrancy.First of all, why are the accounts different? The standard inerrantist rebuttal would be to say that a lack of inclusion does not mean a lack of happening, but we must question why one biblical author would include a different statistic than the other. If one considered one to be important enough to include, we would assume that the other would also.Secondly, there is no real reason to think that there is a difference between "men who drew the sword and" and "valiant men who drew the sword." The word valiant simply refers to a man who is a warrior in biblical Hebrew.[1] It carries no implication of being a veteran.Thirdly, David's purpose in numbering Israel was clearly to determine the might of his kingdom.[2] Including men incapable of battle would, therefore, have been pointless.The place of Josiah's deathThe reading my opponent offers is extremely tortured. While it is indeed true that "killed" may mean "mortally wounded" in certain contexts, it is far from the natural reading in this instance. This alone raises challenges to the inerrantist view that the Bible is perfect as literary work.Also, 2 Chronicles says that Josiah died after stating that he was taken to Jerusalem, implying that the death occurred after the arrival rather than on the way.The angelic appearance before the womenMatthew 28:2 relates that the women go the tomb before relating the incident with the angel, implying that they came to the tomb before the angel did.As for the standard inerrantist claim that mentioning only one when two were present, etc., clearly stating that there was one angel present is not the same as saying that there were one or more or that an angel was present. If a journalist said that there were three people present at a Tea Party rally, we would accuse him of dishonesty and bias when it turned out there were 300, no matter how much he protested that he did not state that there were only three.As for your point about John, no angelic encounter is mentioned in their first visit to the tomb and they go away thinking that Christ's body has been stolen, not that he has been resurrected. Clearly it is not until the next visit, the visit that I referenced, when they encounter the angel(s).Sources1. http://www.abibleconcordance.com...2. http://www.ucg.org...
Driving age should be raised to 21!!!!

In the United States, there are ways for people who are poor to have access to cars. It is often times a necessity, due to the layout of many cities in this country. There is government assistance to help individuals who need cars get access to them, and many gas stations accept money from welfare assistance, while busses do not. As for those who are disabled, in order to gain access to public transportation assistance they must go through the government, which is not always possible. But that is a debate for another time. I concede that the brain is maturing until long past the age of 18, but it also maturing past the age of 21. If you want to wait for the brain to be mature before granting driving privileges, why not wait until 25, when scientists agree the brain is almost done developing? And why not raise the drinking age to 25 as well, because alcohol can damage the brain? If you move the driving age, what makes you pick the age 21? I believe I have clearly stated my reasoning that the driving age should stay as it is - it improves the safety of the public by introducing graduated licensing, helps develop much needed life skills and maturity for young adults, can be essential for those who are have financial issues or are disabled, and simply does not make sense to change at this time. Thank you for this debate! I'm from the United States and am looking forward to the voting portion of this process.
Driving age should be raised to 21!!!!

As you mentioned, there are huge amount of people who are poor to use public transport. If that people are poor to use public, how they can buy a car? Moreover, it is quiet good for people who are physically disabled because it is more better than public transport as you mentioned. But there are numerous number of public transports, bus, taxi too for such kind of people. As you mentioned that people cannot read a map, but they can use these type of transports because it is more easier to reach to any place wherever you want to. In addition, I have one more contention. Third contention is a responsibility. All parents are afraid from his daughter or son while their children in the highway. Because nobody want to lose from a familiar people. Maturity comes to everybody by time to time. 18 year old drivers crash at a higher rate than those that are older. According to scientists until the of 25 no one will be a mature. It means the teenagers brain is not mature enough to being a responsible. In addition, it may end with a crash. Thus, I never recommend teenagers to getting a car until being a mature also more responsible and never try to get own driving license since other teenagers have. Because teenagers may be able a cause of somebody"s death. For instance, in Australia young generation are main reason of many crashes. Moreover, amount of crashes are rapidly increasing by time to time. As we know death rates are within the 16 -25 age group. Of course, if the government will raise the driving age, the overall percentage of crashes and the number of death will decrease. Thus, the road becomes more safer than ever before. Moreover, in many countries government want to raise the driving age. It means more people will get a driving license at 21 years old . Of course, I support them, because safety of people is important for me. In conclusion, I want to say that young drivers, especially male drivers are likely to overestimate their ability to drive at faster speed. Even it is hard to adults. In addition, at the mature age 21, the brain is much more settled than the 16 age old. In my opinion, teenagers may use a public transport until they become more mature. Moreover, this strategy is quiet good because it is for the safety of young drivers and in order to avoid from any death. Despite many adolescences are disagree with me , I support this idea that the driving license must be given at the age of 21 . Because safety of people is important for me. Moreover, raising a driving age to 21 is good in a corruption side. Because many people who have a power, they sale a driving license to teenagers. I mean this strategy also reduce the number of corruptions. But IT IS ANOTHER ISSUE. THANK YOU, I am glad for you. I am from Kazakhstan( Central Asia) .Please do not forget to write name of your country at the end of Round 3.
Driving age should be raised to 21!!!!

You argue that peer pressure negatively effects teenagers, making them want to get a license because their friends have one. It is my belief that this pressure from peers is positive, encouraging other teenagers and young adults to enhance their quality of life by seeking out more life skills, as I mentioned in Round 1. These life skills are important for adulthood. I concede that walking and public transportation are excellent alternatives to driving. However, they are not always available for people who are physically and mentally disabled, financially unable to use public transit, who live in areas with poor public transit (if any at all), or who live too far away from things to walk. - People who are physically disabled sometimes have automobiles customized to work with them and their disabilities, making driving possible and easier than walking or public transit. Some people with mental disabilities cannot use public transit due to anxiety, or cannot read maps to walk where they need to be. - Public transit can be very expensive, at $1.50 a ride. That is at least $3.00 round trip, which is not possible for those who are financially disadvantaged. - In New York it may be perfectly reasonable to take the subway and walk a few blocks to get to where you need to be because it is close enough, but in Los Angeles it can sometimes take upward of an hour in traffic to get where you need to go and there are no public transit options. I would like for you to cite a source saying that crashes would decrease if the driving age were raised, as I have not been able to find any studies that prove this. I can only find studies that prove that graduated licensing decreases accidents.
Driving age should be raised to 21!!!!

I have comprehended your point of view. I have several arguments. In my opiniont, first contention is a peer pressure. Many teenagers buy a car at eighteen years old. I"m sure that this pressure made them getting a car too. I mean when somebody shows a driving license for everyone to see and those who do not have a permits for driving a car will want to get a permit. At eighteen you may be able to get your driving license, but it does not mean that you can not get your driving license at 21 years old. Thus, changing the driving age to 21 will not be a dramatic change. As I said peer pressure really effects to other students because a part of them do not pay attention to getting their driving license until they see that other students already have a permit for driving a car. Moreover, cecond contention is that walking is a good for your health. In many countries such as Germany, Mexico and France you see that people use a car. Instead you can see that people are walking, taking their bike, etc. There is no argue that walking is exercise and this exercise is very important to everyone"s health. On a beautiful sunny days you can take a bike wherever you are going or you may use a bus if it is so far. As you see these are examples of getting a healthy life. In addition, I want to emphasize that changing a driving age to 21 will not be dramatic change. I claim that if driving age is going to be 21, the number of crashes will decrease and the number of people who suffer from crash accidents will reduce and the road will become more safer than nowadays. Therefore, teenagers who can not obtain a driving lisence before 21, the can use bike or bus in oreder to reduce the number of poeple who suffer from crash accidents. Even in Tokyo and in a several European countries approximately 14% of crash accidents because of teenagers who are about 18-22 years old.
Driving age should be raised to 21!!!!

Thanks to my opponent for the opportunity to experience my first debate on this site. I take the stance in this debate that the current driving age in the United States (age 18 without an adult present) is better for the safety of our roads than increasing the driving age to 21. As my opponent has done, I will present my main arguments in this initial round with hopes of rebutting their claims in Round 2. -Allowing an extended period of time to learn to drive, including graduated liscencing, is safer than giving an 18 year old a liscence and letting them drive away. Teen accidents have dropped by 62% since 1975, due to the introduction of graduated liscencing. Graduated licensing allows teens to gain driving experience in a controlled environment while working to get their full driver"s license. Laws vary by state, but they generally mandate a minimum number of hours of supervised driving with parents and place restrictions on night driving and the number of passengers. (1) -If teens and young adults are unable to drive until they are 21 and can legally drink, the inexperience of drivers mixed with alcohol may cause fatality rates of this age group to rise. California drivers ages 21-24 had the highest recorded percentage of DUIs than any other age group. (2) -If teens and young adults are unable to drive until they are 21, we are putting added pressure on parents and decreasing the importance of learning the life skills needed for a successful adulthood. Teenagers and young adults need to develop life skills such as cooking, cleaning, and the ability to get from point A to point B in order to gain confidence and learn to live independently, which is an important part of adolescent development. (3) (1) http://www.consumerreports.org... (2) http://www.adp.ca.gov... (3) http://catalog.flatworldknowledge.com... I look forward to our debate and hope to hear back from you soon.
Women should not be able to play in the NFL

Thank you for accepting! Honesty, I thought a girl would accept this, but it makes no difference. This is American football. Not soccer. Case 1: Women aren't built for football! As state in my link, a doctor admits females are more likely for injury (1) Many injuries such as knee, shoulder and ACL injuries. They are also more likely to have disorders such as anemia, eating disorders, and lack of bone mass. Also, women should not be able to play football because they would be at much higher risk for breast cancer! When trauma is dealt to the breast, it increases the risk of breast cancer. Here, we have proven that women just aren't built for football the way men are. My opponent's arguments he might post: " Men still get hurt!" Ah, but you forget! They are less likely to get hurt than women. They are built for football. Other than that, I don't think he could have any rebuttal to it. 1. http://www.bidmc.org... Case 2: It is a man thing! Despite popular belief, no women has ever played in the NFL (1) I would like to keep it that way. Men only have so many things women have not taken over. Even violent video games women are starting to play! When men play with girl things, we are called gay. When woman play with man things, they are just a tom boy. Men only have so many things. One of them is football! I would plead with all the women to keep it that way. Opponent's possible rebuttals: "There are women fans!" Yes, but men were always the first fans and the first players. A woman in the NFL as a starter would mean you would take away one of the few things men hold dear. I can not think of any possible rebuttals besides that. Thank you for reading. 1. http://wiki.answers.com...
Women should not be able to play in the NFL

Rebuttal 1: The opponent concedes to my point. He does not deny women would be more likely to get hurt, but instead gives other activities that women would most likely be hurt in. he also mentions about the risk of drinking with women. I call this irrelevant because that is a substance that you take into your body. That is totally different! Rebuttal 2: Where are your facts? Come back when you have some facts. I have a link that proves men have 50% more brute strength than women. In football, you need strength. This means the average man is physically stronger than the average women. Thanks for conceding your point their. Average women are not capable of playing in the pro's as stated by con. My link states that men are stronger, and overall more likely to make it into the pro's Rebuttal 3: Because the coach has a choice to choose his players. He denys men that are not as capable of playing football as his players. He has every right to deny a women. You are basically saying that everyone who wants to play should join the team. The coach has a right to deny anyone! Rebuttal 4: Women have been doing that sport for many years. Football has been played by men only. There are also more risks when playing football than swimming. Your logic is irrelevant! Cycling? Is that really what we are resorting to? Men and women have been cycling even in their neighborhood. There is more risks in football. Skiing? Really? Men and women have been doing this for many years! Women players are the more popular than men! Again, injury is different in football. Canoeing is a recreational activity too! Your argument is irrelevant! Again, a substance you put into your body! Not an activity! Smoking is a habit that your body becomes near dependant. Are people near dependant on football? Rebuttal 5: Football started in the 1892 (1) Times were different back then. Men go to the games A LOT! Where are your links proving it is not a man's sport? Again, you can not disprove it. 1. http://www.profootballhof.com... I have proved: 1. Women are more likely to get hurt in football than men 2. Men are more likely than women to succeed in the NFL 3. It is a man's sport Remember, the BOP is on me. If my opponent can not disprove my points, then convincing arguments goes to me. Good luck con!