BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Biblical Contradictions, Part II

Thank you, Con. It was hard to choose, but I've settled on the following three contradictions for this debate:27th or 25th Day?2 Kings 25:27 - In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the year Awel-Marduk became king of Babylon, he released Jehoiachin king of Judah from prison. He did this on the twenty-seventh day of the twelfth month.Jeremiah 52:31 - In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the year Awel-Marduk became king of Babylon, on the twenty-fifth day of the twelfth month, he released Jehoiachin king of Judah and freed him from prison.This one's pretty simple. Kings and Jeremiah disagree on which day of the twelfth month Jehoiachin was freed.Jesus' Last WordsMatthew 27:46,50 - About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”)...And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.Luke 23:45-46 - Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.”[a] When he had said this, he breathed his last.John 19:30 - When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.This one is self-explanatory. Three of the gospel writers can't agree on Jesus' final words before his death.Who Bought the Field?Acts 1:18-19 - (With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)Matthew 27:3,5-8 - When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders...So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day.In Acts, Peter says that Judas bought the field with the money paid to him by the Pharisees, but Matthew states that Judas gave the money back and the Pharisees bought the field. Who is mistaken, Peter or Matthew? Either way, this is certainly a Biblical contradiction.All three of these contradictions seem easy to understand to me, so I will let my opponent respond before I go into any more depth. Similar to what Con has stated, I am arguing from a scholarly POV. I would ask voters of a religious persuasion to please check their bias at the door and vote according to the strength of the arguments presented. Thank you.----------All Bible verses are from the NIV, and can be reference here: https://www.biblegateway.com...
Biblical Contradictions, Part II

In this debate we will examine, validate and debunk, alleged contradictions in the so-called Christian Bible.To ensure the readers & judges have utmost clarity, I will highlight an issue that might become confusing during the argument phase if not laid out before hand. Most of us know what the word "Bible" means. This word is commonly used to refer to "all authoritative books based upon the Christian concept of a Divine God." In a scholarly debate, correct terminology should be used to avoid misinterpretation. First, there are three types of texts people interchangeably use to mean "Bible." Let us put them in proper perspective. We have the most commonly called "Bible(s)" which are KJV, Gideon, NIV, NASB, Young's Literal Translation, etc. For clarity, I will call them "the English translations of the Bible". The second, Bible are the Dead Sea Scrolls & the countless manuscripts used to create an English translation of the Bible. I will refer to them as the "Hebrew [and/or] Greek manuscripts of the Bible.The third Bible, which only Biblical scholars of mindful of is the Hebrew [and/or] Greek Text of the Bible. The latter is read similar to the format & style of an English translation except in original Hebrew or Greek languages. There are many credible websites that offer a pdf-type format to read the transliterated versions of Hebrew & Greek. My opponent can choose to adhere to these references if desired; I will: English translations (ETs); Heb. and/or Greek manuscripts (HMs, GMs, HGMs); and Hebrew and/or Greek Text (HT, GT, HGT). The latter I will also refer to as "the Scriptures" since both the Hebrew Text & Greek Text are the original languages the Scriptures were transcribed into.In addition;the ET bears the words you only read in English translations (KJV, RSV, NIV, NASB, etc.) not foreign words.HGM bear the original words of Hebrew, Greek, and some Aramaic (Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.).HGT or the Scriptures bear the Heb. & Gk. words taken from almost all the HGMs to compile one completed source.Finally, I state that my position as the contradiction debunker should not be perceived as a formal advocacy of Christianity and it's concept of the Bible or God. I will argue from a pure scholarly POV. Not as a preacher, a wannabe theologian, a Christian enthusiast, a Bible-thumper, etc. I'm not attempting to convince you Jesus is real, hell is real, etc. This is a textual & context debate, not a theological & spiritual seminar.
Biblical Contradictions, Part II

Definition:Contradiction: "the statement of a position opposite to one already made"Scholar: "a learned person" (either renowned w/o official academic training or an academic degree-holderSources:1. Holy Bible(s) of the Christianity religion2. Religious Texts (Denominational Dictionaries/Glossaries)3. Scholarly Texts (Lexicons, Concordances, Dissertations, Treatises) 4. Direct Quotes from Respectable Scholars(R1) Con's Debate Guidelines & Pro's Acceptance(R2) Con's Opening Statements (R2) Pro will present contradictions & argue why they are such. (R3) Con will rebut Pro's contradictions & argue why they are not. (R3) Pro will rebut Con's rebuttals of why they are not contradictions with Pro's Secondary Evidence. (R4) Con will present Closing Statements of why they are not Contradictions (limit of 1 Opening Sentence; 3 Five Sentence Paragraphs; 1 Closing Sentence). (R4) Pro will present a Closing Argument of why these are Contradictions (up to maximum 6,000 character limit). Rules for (Opponents):1. Follow all the guidelines above.2. Sources are permitted each round & are not prohibited by Con's R4 Closing.3. Intelligent Debating Only4. NO DIRECT INQUIRIES between Opponents (Indirect Questions to the world at large are permitted. Ex. "Is this type of logic really suppose to be true? "5. Present ALL arguments as concisely as possible (we should not bore the readers with heavy technical-laden language, drawn out explanations and examples, etc. ) ONLY UP TO THREE (3) Contradictions permitted.6. Be mindful of textual formatting.7. In the Voting Period, opponents should refrain from commenting on the Judges' rulings, unless a Judge specifically ask a question to a particular opponent. Suggested Rules for (Judges):1. NO TIES unless you absolutely cannot distinguish a victor for a specific category.2. Award points on S&G but NOT against obvious foreign language words3. Who did you agree with before the debate? This is a bias question PLEASE answer it. 4. Who did you agree with after the debate? Choose the opponent you awarded points for Most Convincing Argument. Clicking the later obviously means you agreed with that opponent (to a degree).5. Understand reliable isn't equivalent to credible--not in certain contexts. (SEE: . http://www.debate.org......). Choose an opponent.
There is no gravity.

"Gravity" does not exist. Gravity, first and foremost, is simply a natural phenomenon. A phenomenon is an extraordinary event that can be taken how we, as humans, perceive it. It has been proved that accelerated motion and the idea of being at rest in a "gravitational field" are physically identical. Even in a perfect vacuum, accelerated motion will give the illusion that an object has weight. While it is not the large presence of Earth itself that is causing the attraction of objects, it is the field of force experienced from the acceleration of earth.
There is no gravity.

I will now be addressing ALL of my opponent's statements and providing some scientific proof of my own. In Round 1 my opponent makes no argument to the issue at hand. He goes to great lengths to redefine the topic of gravity, but actually made no points, thus I didn't attack it because it didn't further his case. In Round 2 my opponent addresses the fact that Sir Isaac Newton could not explain all of gravity. To this argument I say that while Newton discovered gravity, recent science has been able to purge the study of gravity from all of its anomalies. My opponent also brings up the fact that golf balls don't just fly at bowling balls so the force of gravity doesn't exist there. This is idiotic. Any physicist could tell you that while there is a gravitational force it is negated by the forces of friction with the air and ground or any other surface it touches. My opponent then states that gravity is the warped space that brings smaller objects toward larger objects. This is also wrong. The gravitational field will accelerate both objects toward each other. Not just one. Kristi Adams, a professor with a PHD in both Physics and Education stated, by word of mouth, to me, that gravity exist and is the force that brings objects together in order to fill the gap of lesser density between them. Thus I have provided cold, hard evidence to accurately negate the following 'There is no gravity.' My opponent hasn't provided evidence of the opposite nor has he actually provided an argument to support his case. Thus I am the only logical winner of this debate. For the necessary equations of proof for his case ask me on the comments page. I will be happy to supply them. Vote for me because if you don't you are not agreeing with truth. Thank You all.
There is no gravity.

Con, thank you very much for accepting my challenge. Only a simple-minded being would consider such an idea proposterous. Sir Isaac Newton himself would not even find this concept hard to believe considering he had to make-up a unit of measure to demonstrate his theory (the fluxion). I see that in your preceding argument that you did not deny any of the facts that I have previously stated. The theory behind gravity is that smaller objects are attracted to larger objects by a mysterious force. If this were the case, wouldn't a golf ball be attracted to a bowling ball by the same force? The fact is that smaller objects travel through space that is warped by the larger objects, hence bringing the smaller objects towards the larger objects. As for cold, hard evidence, I believe that does not exist on either side of the argument. If gravity is such an explainable natural happening, will you please explain it?
There is no evidence for god, god does not exist. (And by extension, religion is a lie.)

Con says, "... but this in no way negates its validity..." Whilst I never claimed such a thing. Let me clarify something on con's point about my understanding of natural selection: Gross simplification does not equal "fundamental misunderstanding". On to the main issue at hand here, the SLIs. Please note the "... at best." part of my argument. If we imagine a hierarchy of fact, that goes from claim to law of nature. "Thesis" would be very close to claim. "... a thesis at best." would mean it is nothing more than "a statement or theory that is put forward as a premise to be maintained or proved."[1]. These claims he has put forth have, as I see you have misunderstood, "a lack of evidence". He has put fourth these claims without specifying how they came about, only asking for them to be proven wrong. They are augments from ignorance. Which as I have already tried to explain, is a logical fallacy. It being a thesis at best does not refute its validity, but it being unsupported by proof does. The big bang theory is not invalid as it is supported by proof. In addition, the main proof against it, such as proof of how information can be created by means of natural selection and mutation (among others) are thrown out the window by Gitt saying it is impossible - it is against the laws of nature! Meaning the correctness of the SLIs is dependent upon the correctness of the SLIs. Circular reasoning. Which, again, is a logical fallacy. Because of it not being disprovable through its fallacious nature, it is against the very fundamentals of a science. It is not falsifiable because we live in a universe of information-based systems, and his claim is that all universal information is created by an intelligent "sender" aka. god. So the burden of proof remains on Con. Another one of the errors in his argument is that all information with which a computer scientist has professional experience, has been created by humans. So he extrapolates from one sort of information (created by humans) to another sort (biological information, not created by humans). Needless to say, this is not a very sound way to reason. Thank you for the debate. It has been a good one. On to Con's finishing words... Sources: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... http://creation.com...
There is no evidence for god, god does not exist. (And by extension, religion is a lie.)

Pro says, "I have to say I enjoyed Con's rather large copy-pasta explanation of DNA."Indeed my argument was copy and pasted from my own previous debate, but this in no way negates its validity and is certainly not a case of plagiarism. Pro says, "That is simply incorrect and a fallacy. As learned from 'On the Origin of Species', order happens. Without an intelligence controlling it, but though the fundamental logic known as natural selection."Merely asserting that Darwin's antiquated book demonstrates biological order via natural selection does not negate my argument. In order to refute my case, Pro must demonstrate an example of the creation of universal information, as seen in the genome of living organisms, from naturalistic processes. Pro says "order happens" through natural selection. While this is not only a fundamental misunderstanding of the process of natural selection, order itself is vague, potentially arbitrary in its quantification, and unhelpful regarding my argument. Order can be seen in the structure of atoms, rocks, etc., but true universal information which is seen in the genome is beyond mere order: genomes contain specified digital code which, by all observations to date, not to mention by all logical estimation, only comes from an intelligent mind.Pro says, " I was eventually able to find the page I assume Con was sourcing from, and found a lack of evidence supporting Dr. Werner Gitt's SLI-4. Thereby, through what I can find, SLI-4 is only a thesis at best."I am sorry about that, I will provide the correct article source below. For Pro to claim a lack of evidence supporting Gitt's SLI-4 without explaining his reasoning is unhelpful. Pro claims that SLI-4 is only a thesis, as though this refutes its validity. Evolution by means of genetic mutations guided by natural selection is also only a thesis, or hypothesis, which by Pro's logic would negate its validity as well. Pro has not addressed my case whatsoever, and certainly has not refuted my claims.I have explained why genetic information meets the criteria of universal information: "In the function of the genome within living cells we find statistics in the form of four letters which are syntactically organized to give the semantic meaning for transcription and translation. The semantic meaning encoded in the genome is pragmatically utilized in the formation of proteins and thus integral to the process of replication which is a part of the apobetic, or intended goal of the digital code." Pro has not refuted this.The SLIs are very easy to refute; all one must do is demonstrate a single observed example where universal information is created by natural, statistical processes. Pro has not done this. Therefore my case stands.On to Pro...http://creation.com...
There is no evidence for god, god does not exist. (And by extension, religion is a lie.)

I have to say I enjoyed Con's rather large copy-pasta explanation of DNA. [1]It all seems well and good, but that ends at:"Information intrinsically depends upon an original act of intelligence to construct it". That is simply incorrect and a fallacy. As learned from “On the Origin of Species”, order happens. Without an intelligence controlling it, but though the fundamental logic known as natural selection. I notice Con listed the entirety of creation. com as a source without specifying an article. I was eventually able to find the page I assume Con was sourcing from, and found a lack of evidence supporting Dr. Werner Gitt's SLI-4. Thereby, through what I can find, SLI-4 is only a thesis at best. Refuted. Your go, Con. .. Sources: List of copied uses: . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org...
There is no evidence for god, god does not exist. (And by extension, religion is a lie.)

Pro claims lack of evidence, yet I have demonstrated how the function and processes of the genome exemplify universal information. My opponent has not refuted my claims with any supported arguments or evidence. My case stands uncontested. Pro's claim of informatic extrapolation is erroneous as the definition domain for universal information is not contingent upon the location of the system in question but upon the function and processes observed within the system. Genetic information meets the criteria for UI. Thanks for your time.
Kobe v. LeBron

1)Alpha Dog factor: With Bosh and D Wade on the Heat with James, James is still the elected leader for the team is on. He has the higher paycheck, he gets the most minutes and his stats excel over the other players stats on the team. He still averages 25 points, 7 rebounds, and 7 assists per game. 2) Kobe does not react well to criticism: This is a commentary- "So with the Lakers down 15 points at halftime, the most dominant player in the NBA, the guy who dropped 81 on the Raptors earlier this season, refused to shoot in the second half. Kobe took three shots total in the last 24 minutes - what he gets up in some single minutes - and the Lakers got humiliated. Anyone who has followed Kobe knows this isn't exactly new behavior. He did the same thing against the Kings in a game a year ago. But this was GAME 7 of the playoffs." Everyone who follows Kobe knows this moment. This game was GAME 7 between the Lakers and Suns when Jackson and critics criticised Kobe Bryant for not passing the ball enough during games. So Kobe went on one of his infamous shooting boycotts. He tried to prove a point by passing the ball to the point his team lost miserably. He basically quit in the middle of the game. Allowing a team to come back from a 3-1 deficit is not clutch. 3)Kobe Bryant continues to have performance lapses in GAME 7's: Just like in GAME 7 of the Playoffs between the Lakers and the Suns, the GAME 7 between the Lakers and the Celtics in the 2010 looked very similar. Kobe Bryant could not hit water if he had fell out of a boat in that game. The success on the boards due to the absence of Perkins helped to secure a win for the Lakers who probably would have lost otherwise. 4)James reacts well to GAME 7's: 3:30 PM ET, May 18, 2008 TD Garden, Boston, MA 1 2 3 4 T CLE 13 27 28 24 92 BOS 18 32 23 24 97 Top Performers Cleveland: L. James 45 Pts, 5 Reb, 6 Ast, 2 Stl Boston: P. Pierce 41 Pts, 4 Reb, 5 Ast, 2 Stl Even though James lost, he comes to play on GAME 7 while Kobe tends to shy away or perform terribly on GAME 7. 5)Fundamentals: James is a better passer... his passing matches that of a point guard, his rebounding is like that of a forward, people say that Kobe's IQ is better but he does not know how to use his teammates as well as James does. James does rely on his athleticism to get points. His ability to get points through his athleticism and strength is unmatched by players of his position in the NBA today. 6)Longevity James has never been injured to the point where he has had to miss many games due to his durability. James would only miss four to six games a season. Kobe has had less luck in this department. During the beginning of Kobe's career, he would miss around 15-30 games a season due to injury. As people are seeing this year, Kobe is off to a slow start less minutes lower shooting percentages... he is only 32 and he is starting to slow down. I'm not worried about James' knees giving out, if James is able to stay healthy... and compared to Bryant at this moment he is, I don't see him slowing down anytime soon. http://www.worldgolf.com... http://sports.espn.go.com...
Kobe v. LeBron

LeBron James is better than Kobe Bryant. When LeBron came into the league, LeBron James, was named Rookie of the Year he had more of an impact on his team than Kobe did for his team in his first years. LeBron James leads Kobe in every major category. more points per game, more rebounds per game, more steals, more blocks, better shot percentage. Voting committees feel the same way about James voting him to two MVP's to Kobe's one in Kobe's long career People say that well Bryant has won titles and James hasn't. Kobe proves that in order for one like him to win, Kobe needed a support cast. That is just what one needs and seeing and James has never had that kind of support cast, it is not fair to say that James has never won a title for he never got a proper shot. James made the NBA FINALS without a support system even close to Kobe's. Example from my last point... Kobe won his first three titles with Shaq. Shaq was the greatest contributor and was recognized for this by getting an MVP Award and 3 out of 3 NBA FINALS MVP Awards to Kobe's none. The other two were with players such as Gasol, Artest, and Odom who were stars for their past teams before joining the Lakers. Kobe Bryant wanted out of Los Angeles before they landed Gasol, because Kobe did not have the help he needed. Now LeBron James is being called a traitor because he ventured to Miami to better his chances of winning.
Salazzle for OU

I thank kgbisafterme for accepting. I'll go into why I believe Salazzle should be listed in OU tier.Salazzle is a Poison/Fire type, giving it a number of resistances, such as Grass, Fire, Fighting, Fairy, Bug, and Poison type attacks. Its Same Type Attack Bonus (STAB for short) Fire and Poison type attacks are Super Effective [doing x2 damage] against Grass, Steel, Bug, and Ice with Flamethrower, and Sludge Wave is effective against Fairy and Grass types. This type advantage combined with its high Special Attack and Speed make it a pretty good sweeper (a sweeper is a pokemon that can 1 or 2 shot the opponent's pokemon).It's also a really good support pokemon. Its ability is Corrosion, which allows it to poison Steel and Poison types, whereas other pokemon can't. If you give it Toxic, Substitute, and Disable, it becomes one of the best Toxic users on Pokemon Showdown (other than Prankster pokemon like Klefki). Substitute creates a barrier out of 25% of the user's HP, allowing it to survive a super effective hit. Then, use Disable to stop that super effective attack from being used again. Create another Substitute, and Toxic.Its ability to poison any pokemon makes it a very good candidate for OU. So what do you think? I'll respond to your Round 1 and 2 in my next round.