BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible contains conclusive examples of modern scientific knowledge

I will now address my opponent’s arguments from last round. First, all I really have left to say about circumcision that my opponent questions my source simply because it is from an apologetics website and that it is therefore biased, but almost any source you find will have some sort of bias and I will even show later why peer review can have its own bias. In terms of the clotting factor, yes there are different reasons for it but Prothrombin is a major factor as my opponent admits and it should not be overlooked. In terms of the Continents to the people of the time, the Mediterranean would have seemed like quite a divider especially when we also think of how the Red Sea almost connect to it. So the landmasses weren’t exactly one. My opponent contests my assertion that methods for determining age are unreliable but the fact is one of the primary methods, radiometric dating, makes a lot of assumptions, it assumes decay rate has remained constant throughout the lifetime of specimen it also assumes how much there was to start with. This is something that cannot be observed as we cannot observe the past. It is also assumed it has remained in a closed system. [1] There are some in the scientific community that have tried to dispute the age or evolution but their peers find it inconvenient and refuse to listen. [2] My opponent brings up how the Earth would have been inhospitable during the flood and that is the point according to the Bible. In terms of how so much water came, remember the water of the deep that I mentioned as support for Continental drift. As for the evidence of the flood, look at the Grand Canyon for one thing, the erosion is not consistent with what happens over a long period of time. [3] There are a number of other findings throughout the years that suggest a great flood in particular recently an archaeologist Robert Ballard, the one who discovered the Titanic. [4] [5] However, I have gotten a bit off track as I am supposed to be showing how the Bible proves scientific knowledge not refuting certain theories. My opponent asserts that washing was merely ceremonial, yet they seemed to have an understanding of it washing away bad things. Just think about the whole premise of baptism, yes it is ceremonial in nature but if water doesn’t clean then what is the significance in using water to baptize and “wash away sin”. I bring up my next point, that of the Earth free floating in space as it says in Job 26:7. Many ancient civilizations had their theories but they usually involved it being held up by an animal or one of many gods, sometimes even believing the Earth was flat. In Job 38:14 it actually describes the Earth’s rotation something that was not well understood at the time and the common belief was that the sun went around the Earth. [6] I thank my opponent for debating this and await his rebuttals. 1 http://www.earthage.org...2 http://www.washingtonpost.com...3 http://www.grandcanyonflood.com...4 http://www.foxnews.com...5 http://www.huffingtonpost.com...6 http://www.icr.org...
The Bible contains conclusive examples of modern scientific knowledge

By my opponent’s own admission there are conflicting studies on circumcision however they all seem to agree on around a week. The most decisive one I found said 8 days. [1] Here it affirms what my opponent says about t rising to normal levels by 5-7 days however, it peaks at day 8 making it higher than any other time in his life, making t the deal time. [2] My opponent attributes this knowledge to trial and error, but why would they risk circumcision in the first place if they were so uncertain? As for the flood, the fact that there are so many ancient civilizations with a flood story is corroborating evidence especially when you consider many of these civilizations didn’t have contact with each other. Now is this definitive proof? Not on its own but it is one criteria of evidence. My opponent says they were unaware of the concept of continents at the time, and although they didn’t fully understand the different Continents like we do today they were certainly aware that there was large amounts of water between land as they were aware o Northern Africa, the Middle East and even going as far east as Greece. As for my opponent’s assertion about the age of the Continents, that is a theory that is constantly changing and the same goes for how long humans have lived on earth as they have found certain methods of dating to be unreliable. He then cites a source bringing up problems with the flood story. Some of these are explained n the Bible such as God having the animals come to Noah. Also the question of kind is quite easy to answer, it is any animal that can breed with another. One other thing the Bible understands is hygiene, something that the medical community didn’t even fully understand until about 100 years ago as they would perform surgery without even washing their hands or their instruments and we have Louise Pasteur to thank for the discovery of germs. [3] [4]I thank my opponent and await the next round. 1 . http://www.apologeticspress.org...2 . http://theplaintruth.websitetoolbox.com...3 . http://www.answersingenesis.org...4 . http://talem.hubpages.com...
The Bible contains conclusive examples of modern scientific knowledge

My opponent wants Biblical proof of now known scientific fact before it was known at the time the Bible was written. He never specified how many I had to definitively prove, just that I couldn’t give more than eight examples. Eight should be sufficient. I will be using the Protestant Cannon and the NIV translation specifically unless otherwise noted. Let me start from the beginning literally. The Bible acknowledges the idea of a Supercontinent and subsequent Continental drift. In Genesis 1:9 it says “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear”. [1]This implies that the land was gathered in one place. Later, in Genesis 7:11 it talks about water springing up from the deep this could be seen as the point at which the Continents shifted apart. [2] In fact a global flood would explain many of the problems associated with the tectonic theory. [3] God ordained circumcision of an infant on his 8th day. Modern science now recognizes this as the ideal time for a safe circumcision. Despite this however, many Doctors still circumcise before this. Debates on the ethicality of circumcision aside this does show that if you are going to circumcise it is much safer at that point due to the way it clots. [4] Again I thank my opponent and await his rebuttle. 1 . http://www.biblegateway.com... 2 . http://www.biblegateway.com... 3 . http://www.icr.org... 4 . http://www.icr.org...
The Bible contains conclusive examples of modern scientific knowledge

As evidence that the Bible is divinely inspired, some Christians point to purported examples of things that the writers could not possibly have known unless they were inspired by God.I will take CON in this debate. We will take modern scientific knowledge to mean any scientific theory or fact that is accepted by scientific consensus at this current time. The theory or fact must be something that Earthbound observers could not reasonably have known at the time the Biblical passage was written.For the sake of convenience we will stick to the Western tradition: either the Protestant or Catholic canon.The burden of proof to establish that any theory or fact is accepted by consensus will be on PRO, but I will not press for proof unless the theory or fact is in my opinion obscure, contested, or fringe. PRO can begin to post arguments in Round 1, and I will proceed to refute them. PRO will forfeit round 5.To avoid the case where there are too many examples posted for me to be able to refute in the space allowed, PRO will be limited to a maximum of eight examples, with no more than two examples per round.Thank you and good luck to whoever accepts the debate.
Gun Rights

"Yes I agreed with you about gun laws, but that does not weaken my claim or position. I stated we have rights to guns and that should not be infringed" -Agreeing with background checks and the like will deny certain peoples' right to guns. So it absolutely weakens your position. "During Hitler's reign, he took all the guns away from citizens. " - No. The Nazi's actually weakened gun laws. And, many Jews had guns during the Holocaust. This claim is false. It also proves that more guns won't stop a tyrannical government. [1] " I do not care if it is illogical to think that I can fight off a corrupt government with my "little hunting rifle" but I would want to protect myself no matter what. " -So you are ok with tens of thousands of your fellow citizens dieing each year, just so you can have it if the U. S. decides to enslave its' citizens? That won't happen. Why? Because Canada, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Australia, Britain, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Poland, Greece, South Korea, Taiwan, and many more won't be ok with the U. S. becoming Nazi Germany. The U. S. has a powerful military, but it can't beat the other 194 countries (Minus NK) who wouldn't be ok with the U. S. becoming tyrannical. "A militia is made of ordinary citizens, it is not the same as the military. " -And? I never claimed that. I said the constitution only give the right to bear arms to members of a milita, like the National Guard. As I stated before, we don't need a militia, because we have a military. "In the end, the constitution gives us the right to bear arms. Claiming otherwise is wrong. " -Nope. It gives the right to bear arms, not firearms, but arms, to members of a militia, like the National Guard. I will repost some of my arguments that you ignored. Only .02% of guns are used for defense. That is insignificant. Plus, for every 32 gun deaths, there is one justifiable murder. Are you ok with that? Finally, for every one justifyable murder, 896 guns end up in the hand of criminals (They're stolen). [2] From 2004-2015, there have been over 325,000 gun deaths. This means that there have been less then 11,000 justifiable homicides by guns in the past decade. Would you rather have those 11,000 stay alive, or really less then that, look at cases like George Zimmerman, or have over 325,000 Americans alive? [3] The second amendment was written in a time where guns were one shot, inaccurate muskets which took at least 30 seconds to reload. Our guns include long range, high accuracy, fast RoF, and with 100 round clips. As the technology changes, the laws regarding tech need to change too. I have shown that more gun laws wik work and will reduce gun violence, by using real world data. I have also rebutted my opponent's argument that the constitution gives us the right to own guns. Vote Con! Links: [1] . http://www.politifact.com... [2] . http://www.latimes.com... [3] . http://www.politifact.com...
Gun Rights

Yes I agreed with you about gun laws, but that does not weaken my claim or position. I stated we have rights to guns and that should not be infringed. During Hitler's reign, he took all the guns away from citizens. Do you know what happened next? Aryan soldiers raped whoever they wanted and they took whatever they wanted. I do not care if it is illogical to think that I can fight off a corrupt government with my "little hunting rifle" but I would want to protect myself no matter what. A militia is made of ordinary citizens, it is not the same as the military. In the end, the constitution gives us the right to bear arms. Claiming otherwise is wrong.
Gun Rights

Well, I guess you concede the first part of my argument. "Criminals will always find a way to get guns. If they do not, then they will just kill people with knives or other weapons" - Yes, if you restrict guns, criminals will still get them, but it will be harder and the amount of gun violence will go down. Just look at Australia. [1] "Taking away guns only makes sure that good citizens can not protect themselves." - Only .02% of guns are used for this purpose. That is insignificant. Plus, for every 32 gun deaths, tuhere is one justifyable murder. Finally, for every one justifyable murder, 896 guns end up in the hand of criminals (They're stolen). So your point is misleading. [2] "It clearly says that the right of the people to bare arms can not be infringed." - In the context of a militia. "The whole reason it says this in the constitution is so that we can form a militia and protect ourselves." -From what? This was written when the government would rely on militiamen to protect their towns and national borders. We have police and a stronger military now. This is just outdated. "This includes protecting ourselves from the government and the military in the event that they take away our unalienable rights." - If the government decided to take over, your little hunting rifle will do absolutely nothing against tanks, bombers, and helicopters, even if you are in a militia. "How can we protect ourselves from people with guns if we only have knives, bats, and crossbows? We would not be able too." - As I pointed out before, 1 justifiable homicide for every 32 gun deaths. From 2004-2015, there have been over 325,000 gun deaths. This means that there have been less then 11,000 justifiable homicides by guns in the past decade. Would you rather have those 11,000 stay alive, or really less then that, look at cases like George Zimmerman, or have over 325,000 Americans alive? [3] My opponent conceded the first part of my argument, and agrees that we need gun laws. I also have rebutted all his points. Good luck! [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com... [2] http://www.latimes.com... [3] http://www.politifact.com...-/
Gun Rights

I look forward to it. I will start off by agreeing with you, to some point. Background checks and restrictions are completely necessary and should be forced. But guns should not be and can not be taken away from law-abiding citizens according to the constitution. It is true that with more guns, gun related crimes would be more common. That is obvious. It does not mean that taking away guns prevents crimes. Criminals will always find a way to get guns. If they do not, then they will just kill people with knives or other weapons. Taking away guns only makes sure that good citizens can not protect themselves. Let us look at the constitution again. It clearly says that the right of the people to bare arms can not be infringed. This states that we have the rights to guns. Now, the militia. A militia is a non-military force comprised of normal citizens. The whole reason it says this in the constitution is so that we can form a militia and protect ourselves. This includes protecting ourselves from the government and the military in the event that they take away our unalienable rights. How can we protect ourselves from people with guns if we only have knives, bats, and crossbows? We would not be able to.
Gun Rights

First, I will start with the fact that more gun laws lowers gun violence. First, I will start in the US. States that have more fun laws, like background checks, difficulties in getting concealed carry permits and the like, have lower gun laws then states with loose gun laws. [1] Now let's look at other countries. First, look at Japan. They have extremely strict gun laws, and they banned all guns minus air rifles and shotguns. Their gun murder rate is 0.0 for every 100,000 people. They only had 11 gun murders in 2011; the most recent data. [2] Now let's look at Canada. They have strict gun laws. Their gun gun murder rate is .38 per 100,000 people, which is quite low. Now let's look at the US. The U. S. has some of the weakest gun laws in the developed world. Their gun murder rate is 3.43 per 100,000 people. [4] So this is strong evidence that more gun control equals less gun crime. Now I will address your argument. Here is the full second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " Notice the, ". .. Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state. .. " Part. This only gives the right to bear arms to part of a militia needed to defend the country. We don't need militias to defend our country, because we have a military. So not everyone gets the right to bear arms. Also, the second amendment says, "Arms. " Arms doesn't only refer to firearms. If you restrict firearms, people can still have knifes, bats, crossbows and so on. Even if we interpret the second amendment to say, "Everyone can bear arms", you don't need a firearm, you can bear different arms. Finally, the second amendment was written in a time where guns were one shot, inaccurate muskets which took at least 30 seconds to reload. Our guns include long range, high accuracy, fast RoF, and with 100 round clips. As the technology changes, the laws regarding tech need to change too. Finally, even if the second amendment of the constitution was, "We the people have the right to keep and bear arms", restrictions like background checks, mental health checks, bans on certain guns, and so on will not hurt law- abiding citizens' chances to get a gun, only potentially bad people's chances, which is good. Do we really want convicted felons to get guns? No. I have shown that gun laws are complely legal and help reduce gun crimes. I await my opponent's response. [1] . https://img.njdc.com... [2] . http://www.gunpolicy.org... [3] . http://www.gunpolicy.org... [4] . http://www.gunpolicy.org...
WWIII what would happen

Krypton, the home planet of Superman, was destroyed before Superman ever arrived here on Earth. So you're a little late to get any help from them. (. http://en.wikipedia.org......(comics)) This is true, but there are survivors from the planet and 2 city's fully populated escaped its destruction. . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... Israel, after being in many wars with its enemies, has nuclear shelters and bomb shelters. Also, it has nuclear bombs that will take out high value targets, like China, U. S. A. , Russian, and France military and political leadership. As it has been proven many times in these kind of debates, Russia will take forever to get its military mobile to launch any kind of attack. I mean, look at how much trouble Georgia gave them. Mexico has an great military. Ever since they started fighting the drug lords, they have been been getting success after success. They also have Nukes. The U. K. has the best trained special forces in the world. The U. S. sends IT'S special force to train with the S. A. S. So they would put up a fight and push all invaders out. Sadly, in a nuclear winter, EVERYTHING gets infected. That means the oceans 2. with no humans on earth, All ships, planes, and bombs degrade until they all ether explode or turn to dust. Your Abyssia is no more.
WWIII what would happen

What are "worlds famous for being destroyed". I'll take the "Potent Potables" category for 500 Alex---oh, sorry, I thought this was an episode of Jeopardy for a second. Ok, let's get this over with. 1) Time MachineThe first weapon I will use against you is my time machine. By that I don't mean a thing that goes through time like in "Back to the Future". I mean a clock. Preferably a digital one with the date on it. Time is your worst enemy because it destroys two of your selections before the first shot is even fired in this war. Krypton, the home planet of Superman, was destroyed before Superman ever arrived here on Earth. So you're a little late to get any help from them. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...(comics))Reach, the human colony decimated by the Covenant in the video game series Halo, won't be colonized until the 25th century, so you're about 400 years too early to get any help there. (. http://halo.wikia.com...)So, this leaves you with Israel, Mexico, and the United Kingdom to fight with. 2) IsraelIsrael is your second strongest nation, but it's the first that will be destroyed. Why? Because it's also the smallest. I'll grant that before I smash Israel by detonating Chinese nuclear bombs over Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, Israel manages to launch a few themselves. That's fine, because China has nearly a billion people scattered across a landmass the size of Europe. We'll take our hit and live on to fight with minimal losses. Israel however is now a smoldering ash heap. Shalom. 3) United KingdomThe UK is your most powerful nation, and they will likely put up a valiant effort as they are being invaded from every side of their tiny Island. French, Russian, and U. S. war planes are bombarding Britain from every angle, the unmatchable U. S. Navy has pulverized Britain's coastal defenses and will soon mount a land invasion of marines. The U. K. is helpless against the three pronged attack, and if Britain utilizes Nukes as a last resort, they will be carpet bombed between the combined nuclear might of Russia and America, who when through, will still have enough nuclear power to create a new Sun. Cheerio! 4) MexicoMexico's armed forces are so weak they cannot stand against the drug cartels and kidnapping gangs. So, in response to the Mexican threat, America passes a national policy of immigration amnesty to any Mexican nationals who stand against their expatriated home and fight for the U. S. . Mexico is annihilated in a week. America nukes them again for good measure. Adios! 5) Nuclear HolocaustIn the aftermath of global nuclear war, nuclear winter ensues and humanity is eradicated by poisonous radioactive fallout. The Abyssians, deep beneath hundreds of miles of Oceanic protection, are unaffected by the annihilation of their contintental neighbors and continue to exist without incident. Abyssia, as the last nation standing, wins the world war.
WWIII what would happen

I intend to demonstrate why failing to set paradigms is probably a bad idea. My Countries:Standing at 300 million people, sporting the worlds largest economy and most expanisve military, weighing in at a youthful 236 years old, the New World Nightmare, the Democratic Demon, the one, the only YOUUUU. .. NIGHTED STATES OF AMERRRRRRRICAAAA. U. S. A. Our second ally, holding in its reserves half of the worlds nuclear arms, sporting the largest and most environmentally treacherous territory on Earth, the Red Bear, the Socking Sputnik, the abominable RUSSSSIAAAAAHHHH. RussiaOur third ally presently has the world's fastest growing economy, a storehouse of nuclear arms and over a billion people ready to lock and load and conquer the planet, the Kung Fu Fighting, Communist Titan, CHYNNNNNAHHHChinaOur fourth ally is hoity toity, snobbish and self satisfied, smelly and heavily armed, the Furious Francois, the Electric Escargot, the Birthplace of the Baguette, FRANNNNNNNNCEFranceFinally, our fifth ally, the terrifying, the magnificent, the mysterious, the Squids from the Placids, the Commotion beneath the Ocean, the aquatic worldwide civilization from the movie Abyss, AHHHH BISSSSS EEEEE AHHHHHAbyssia
Gum chewing should be allowed in school.

Counter Argument 4: At my school, there are Closed-Circuit Monitoring, and teachers walking down the halls everyday, therefore invalidating your Counter Argument. Argument 5: Chewing gum (surprisingly) helps with respiration by producing Oxygen and disposes Carbon Dioxide. Closing: You shouldn't have to be required to suffer mental, respiratory, and/or digestive problems. You should be allowed to chew gum in school.
Gum chewing should be allowed in school.

Counter Argument 1:This can easily be avoided by not allowing people to stick it anywhere and make them clean after themselves. Argument 2:I have Autism (High-functioning) and suffer from Anxiety disorder (linked to Hyperventilation Syndrome), ADHD, and OCD at the same time and chew gum. When I chew gum, I don't suffer these conditions. Why force someone to suffer these diseases when gum can solve these problems?