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

Happy to think with you today. The number of contradictions in the bible is in the hundreds. Many of them are small things. Differing numbers, Different accounts of the same situation, Et cetera. Often they clash directly with each other. As a matter of respect for the debate, We'll assume the existence of God. We'll also try to stay with examples strictly from the Bible itself, And not an imposition of human morality on it. Here are three that strike me as major ones: 1. Genocide versus "Thou Shalt Not Kill" There are many places in the Bible where people claim that God has commanded them to genocide populations. (1) The Amalekites are one example of this. God commands that you exterminate them from the planet. Man, Infant, And child. Also to take the females as sex slaves, But that's another matter. God commands you not to kill, Then commands you to kill. A direct contradiction. God has shown himself fully capable of spreading plagues or storms to kill people in the past. Why command against your own command? If the commandment stated "thou shalt not kill unless I permit it. " This would not be a contradiction. As it stands, It is. There are numerous examples of this. 2. Free WIll versus Hardening the Heart of the Pharaoh In the Bible, Many verses are said to support the idea that God gave us free will, Or the ability to choose. It also states that "The Lord hardened the Pharaoh's Heart. " Meaning that the Pharaoh may have given in to Moses and let his people go far sooner, Before all the plagues had come to be. God directly counters the free will of the Pharaoh, And says so in no uncertain terms. He then punishes all of Egypt, Including killing all their firstborn sons because of the Pharaoh's refusal to obey, Even when he couldn't! This is by far one of the worst examples of contradictions in the Bible. It should frighten every Christian out there. Free will isn't so free if it can be taken away at God's convenience. 3. Who is the child of God? In the Bible it is said we are all the children of god. Then it is said Jesus is the son of god. Then it says Jesus is the son of God because he was resurrected. Unfortunately, There are numerous resurrections in the Bible. This isn't uncommon. Lazarus was raised, Matthew says the graves were emptied and the bodies of the saints arose. These things can't all be true. If we are all the children of god, Why is Jesus special? It certainly can't be for his resurrection in this case. You have asked for three and I have supplied three. There are hundreds left, If you can answer these. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht (sources for this debate will all be The Bible, More or less)
There are no Contradictions in the Bible

Pharaoh clearly didn't harden his own heart. There is no way to interpret the words written in the bible which clearly say "god hardened the pharaoh's heart" to mean the exact reverse. You are simply trying to win a debate instead of conceding the truth. My own heart is none of your concern. I happen to love everyone and consider everyone my brothers. Even those who have forged manacles for themselves with imaginary Gods. I seek to free people like you from their prisons. God is not just simply because you define him to be so. You have no logical argument to attribute omnibenevolence to God. Genocide is mentioned at our killing of Japanese, Particularly the bombings all the time. War casualties are not defined as genocides, But the atomic bombs are very close if not 100% genocides. "The children who died went to heaven. " So there's nothing wrong with infanticide now? It's curious to hear religious people justify the murder of children and infants with this but be so against abortion when it spares the child decades of human suffering and shoots them straight to heaven. Odd, Isn't it, How this logic could be used to justify the murder and genocide of all humans, Not just the ones you justify killing in your God's name. Heaven doesn't exist. It logically cannot. It is a nightmare realm. I'm happy to debate you on the omnibenevolence of god or the logical problems with the existence of heaven or infant killing as far as your religion goes any day. Your religion has no answers for these questions and problems, But that is not this debate. My opponent has failed to answer the contradictions I have put forward. He attempts to reword his own holy book for his own convenience. I hope the contradictions I presented were more interesting than the hundreds of simpler ones in the Bible. Please remember that in order to win this debate I only needed to prove that one contradiction exists. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht
There are no Contradictions in the Bible

Pharoh hardened his own heart and if he was going to repent he would have, But he didnt just like you haven't. God is just and can punish a people anyway He wants, Using whoever He wants. Just like in WWII he used the allies to take down Hitler. Genocide wasn't mentioned when we killed many Germans and Japenese. God avenges because only His vengence is perfect. Humans are not perfect in their vengence. The children who died went to heaven. Sorry I could not be more clear, But I have a lot of grading for last month. I might respond in the comments.
There are no Contradictions in the Bible

I can drop Contradiction #3. It's unnecessary. I've won this debate already on point #2. You've given no answer to this. God hardened the Pharaoh's heart. You can't say that the Pharaoh did it himself. No interpretation of this denies that god has suspended free will. I can't let you weasel your way out of #1 either. The rape and sex slave claim may have been false. It seems The Amalekites did this to the Israelis. Either way, This has no effect on the claim. God could have written the Ten Commandments to allow revenge killing if he intended it. To say he couldn't would mean he isn't God. He could've written it, Were he god, In a way that would be unmistakable to acknowledge this. As far as the Amalekite infants and children go, Here's another contradiction for you. Deuteronomy 24:16 "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, Nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin. " You may concede the debate at any point. I'm more than willing to leave it to the judges at this point. You have no defense. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht
There are no Contradictions in the Bible

I actually believe you are putting things in God's mouth. Let me know where in the Bible it says the Amalekite women were raped or used as sex slaves. This is something you claim without providing evidence. Therfore you are assuming. God says, Only He can revenge for he does it in justice. Man only does it in anger. As for the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" you must have forgotten that I said in the Hebrew (FYI te language it was written in) it means murder. In other words "Thou shalt not murder. " You should also look into the history of the Amalekites, They were a band of nomads who attacked travelers between Egypt and Israel these people literally raped women, Killed infants all the way up until Saul destroyed them. So please look into history before you debate. The point about Pharaoh is that he was't going to soften his heart. Just like you will not accept Jesus as your Savior. Yeah, I understand why you feel it is hard to take Christianity seriously when many "Christians don't know the Bible and make interpretations to make other religions feel good, But he Bible verses I showed you can tell you that not everyone is a child of God. Since Jesus id God He can raise anyone He wants from the dead without anyone's permission to do so. Jesus had to exist to pay for your sin so you could have eternal life. However, That discussion is for another debate. I thought this was about contradictions, Not about why Jesus is God. I am debating someone on that very topic if you want to look for it. Or we can go through that in another debate because it is very long. In another debate on why biblical christianity is the only true Christianity I go further into the subject on why the Catholic church is no the true church. It is another long debate with a lot of information. If these answers don't satify you. Let me know and post some more contradictions.
Guns should be universally banned

Hello to all my readers. I have just one point to make:My opponent plagiarized his entire round from Hayd's opening argument in this debate: http://www.debate.org...While he won't get an F in the class for this, he still does not deserve to even have his last round considered. Since that argument is not made by him, yet is presented by him, he automaticall forfeits that last round. Because he foreits that last round, as con I win simply by disagreeing with him.Plagiarism is not tolerated in debates, and this was just a blatant violation of that rule.Thank you for reading.
should religious symbols and phrases be banned in public areas

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right under the united states constitution but does that freedom extend to the right to not be forced to see and be exposed to symbols from other differing religions. In the U.S. Christianity is engraved into our culture, every president has been a christian, the currency which is an compulsory part of living in this country had in god we trust scribbled on every bill and coin, the pledge of allegiance which is required in many governments and schools has the words under god. Many people who belong to a different religion or belong to no religion at all may feel pressure or separation from mainstream society because of the religious symbols they do not believe in being showcased in some of the most basic things an individual is required to use on a daily basis. If you are a christian who believes that the currency and plead of allegiance should continue to bear the references to god, how would you feel if the money bore the words there is no god or in Allah we trust or the plead had the line one nation with no god?
should religious symbols and phrases be banned in public areas

The thing I don't like about my province right now Yana, is that I can witness a rise of intolerance and xenophobia since the prime minister Pauline Marois proposed this new Charter of Qu"bec values. Many people here are afraid to see us fall under the Sharia rules, which is totally stupid. I mean, people are now bashing freely at muslim women (and not other religious people like Jews or Christians). There is a selective hatred that I truly despise. They want to keep religious symbols like a cross at the Parliament though. I mean, what wrong with nurses wearing scarves in the hospitals? I've never felt attacked by that. Religious symbols are an important thing for these people and they would feel naked to be without. It's only a political game here. They are too incompetent to deal about real stuff like employment and economy, so they try to stir some bad stuff saying we are being threatened by foreigners. In Qu"bec's history, we have been belittled for many years by the anglophones after France lost this land to England.
Men are more exploited than women

This argument is a debate which I believe will help foster an understanding of both sides of the gender equality debate. It is often reported that Women are treated less equal than men and should receive more support and assistance to balance their roles in society. This debate will undoubtedly talk about other issues, but the main topic must be consistent throughout the debate (no tangents, or heavy side arguments). The first round is acceptance. Any data used must be factual, and referenced in some way shape or form. Common knowledge is only a basis for general statements. Any exact/fact statements must be cited, not implied.
Men are more exploited than women

Before I continue, I must say that this topic is not the one I intended to talk about which is very much a failure of mine to establish more precise parameters on the discussion. I didn't want to discuss exploitation because as clearly it is an issue that can't be argued against in terms of quantity. I wanted to argue that men are less valuable than woman concerning gender inequality. Which I had geared my whole initial argument before realizing that I made an error in what I actually wanted to debate about. I am new to this format, so now I understand for future reference to be more clear and precise on the intentions for the debate, and have learned a great much on the subject matter presented. However I agreed to the debate so I must still offer a counter argument and conclusion. My counter argument I don't really have one concerning exploitation. My conclusion, I need to understand the dynamics of debating on this forum for future reference. Since this debate is pretty much irrelevant to the topic I proposed, I would just like to say to Con, I do believe that Human Trafficking is very wrong for all gender's. I do believe that forcing persons in to Sexual slavery is not something I remotely agree with, or believe from a quantitative stand point that men have it "worse" contextually speaking. Sorry I flopped this debate hard, but I will hopefully get another chance on a different topic maybe? I was not really prepared to argue for the topic, since I had geared my focus evidently on something else entirely. Thank you for this learning experience.
Men are more exploited than women

I think that we really need to focus down what exploitation is, and this is a fine definition: the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work. It is the same as the common understanding, just a bit more refined so we can really know what we are talking about. Pro's first and second paragraphs are worthless in both content and relevancy to this debate. Some women may be deities in religions; that doesn't mean that they aren't exploited more than men. Just because men love things about women doesn't mean that women aren't exploited. Disregard all of the sources and "arguments" from these paragraphs since they aren't even topical to the resolution; they just say that women are valued. So what? I can value oil but still exploit wells of it in order to make a profit. Again, this is a resolution that is global in scope: arguments from the US or very specific regions are not relevant. We are talking about a worldwide scope of exploitation; not just what happens in the US. This means that we can disregard pro's argument that men are exploited in that they have to sign up for selective service (the reasoning for this is because men are simply stronger than women physiologically - paying for less work, as my opponent says is illogical, doesn't make sense). Male children are exploited just as much as female children - that doesn't mean that male children are exploited more, just that they are exploited the same; thus, this argument can actually turn to my side of the flow in that you can negate the resolution saying that the two are equally exploited. Male children are recruited for war in the Middle East, I agree that this is a bad thing, but women are exploited for sexual trafficking in the exact same scenario - focusing solely on the ones that go to war is a warped understanding of the dynamics of war. Men getting higher sentences isn't exploitation in the most broad sense of the term, so you can disregard this argument. Going to college less is NOT exploitation of any sort - I don't even know how this could possibly be relevant to the debate. Father child custody rights is NOT exploitation - it's irrelevant. Suicide rates is NOT exploitation. All of pro's arguments are irrelevant except for: male recruitment in the Middle East. But this has easily been refuted in that women in the same scenario are exploited just the same if not more than men. (Source spamming vs. content: pick one)
Men are more exploited than women

Observation 1: The resolution does not call for a certain location in the world, so it must be assumed that we are talking on a worldwide scale; talking about only one country or area is ethnocentric and does not apply to the resolution at hand. Thus, my arguments will focus on a world-wide scale instead of a US or Western one. Contention 1. Technology increases the exploitation of women. In the hunter-gathering days of human civilisation, women made the key staple of human diet - they gathered foods from around where they lived at the time, and some estimates even say that they may have made up 70% of the human staple of diet; the men of these societies viewed women as their equals in their band of people [1][2]. But today, it is well known that women are not viewed as the equals of men, making only 78 cents to the dollar that a man makes in the US, 80% of all trafficked people in the world are women, and women are seen as disposable toys that can be discarded when people feel as though they should be [3][4]. So, what happened between now and the hunter-gathering days? What made us see women as inferior and men as the dominant sex? Lenski contends that the reason that over the last 12000 or so years, we have had a huge increase in the amount of technology that we have access to. He says that having technology widens that gap of inequality, because it makes women a less important factor of the workforce [5]. He says that the trend that we are seeing right now of inequality is simply because we are in an industrial and post-industrial world. Consider the graph below of a hunter-gatherer society and an agricultural society; less than 40% of those in the hunting and gathering society thought that men were dominant to women - and over 70% in the agricultural society thought that men were more important. http://www.peoi.net... This means that there is a direct correlation between the amount of technology a society possesses and the amount of inequality between men and women in the world. "How does this relate to exploitation?" you may be asking yourself. The answer is: women are more expendable under technologically advanced groups because they are less of a staple in the diet and culture in these societies. They simply are not as important (according to the society itself), and they are easily exploitable: making them work meager wages is okay because they are the submissive sex, making them your slave is okay because they are only here to appease the dominant sex. This is exactly what technology is making us think. Women are more exploited world-wide because of the notion that we are in an industrial and post-industrial world; all linked together by globalisation, worsening the effect in honesty. [1]. https://www.psychologytoday.com... [2]. http://www.nationalgeographic.com... [3]. https://www.whitehouse.gov... [4]. https://www.dosomething.org... [5]. http://www.peoi.org...
If Jesus is not god, then you are committing idolatry.

Thank you for taking the time to read this debate. I"ll keep my closing arguments brief because I feel I have already said all that needs to be said in the body of the debate. 1)I have shown time and time again that PROS argument is completely invalid and PRO has done absolutely nothing to rebuttal my arguments. The definition for Idolatry is to worship a physical object as a GOD (1). No Christian I know does this so his entire argument is invalid. 2)I believe what PRO is trying to argue is that when GOD says "thou shalt worship no other GODS before me." People who believe in the Godhead, or the belief that Jesus Christ is not GOD, are breaking that commandment. This is also a very simple argument to disproof because I do not worship Jesus Christ above GOD. I recognize the importance of the savior and his atonement and I have a debt of gratitude I will probably never be able to repay, however I give all the glory unto GOD the Father, just as Jesus Christ did, and commands us to do. I do not put any other god or gods before GOD the father, so I am not breaking this commandment, easy. 3)I"m afraid this debate was just poorly thought out, however I appreciate the opportunity to partake in it and I hope I was able to educate in some way. Thanks for reading! (1)http://www.merriam-webster.com..., 2016
If Jesus is not god, then you are committing idolatry.

And they remembered that God was their rock, And the Most High God their Redeemer. Psalm 78:35 "I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols. Isaiah 42:8 If Jesus is not G-d, then the L-rd would share his glory with Jesus. But he said he would not! I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior. Isaiah 43:11 If Jesus is not G-d and G-d is the only savior, why the New testament say that Jesus is the saviour of the word? If Jesus is not God, how could you put Jesus in the face of G-d and not breaking the first commandment? And God spoke all these words: 2 "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 3 "You shall have no other gods before[a] me. Explain me how Jesus could not fall into the category of New gods? "But Jeshurun grew fat and kicked; You grew fat, you grew thick, You are obese! Then he forsook God who made him, And scornfully esteemed the Rock of his salvation. 16 They provoked Him to jealousy with foreign gods; With abominations they provoked Him to anger. 17 They sacrificed to demons, not to God, To gods they did not know, To new gods, new arrivals That your fathers did not fear. 18 Of the Rock who begot you, you are unmindful, And have forgotten the God who fathered you. Deut 32 And the LORD shall scatter you among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other; and there you shall serve other gods, which neither you nor your fathers have known, even wood and stone. Deut 28 Thus if Jesus is not G-d, nor part thereof, you are committing idolatry.
If Jesus is not god, then you are committing idolatry.

*** "This is the doctrine of the trinity : The fact that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons means, in other words, that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. Jesus is God, but He is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God, but He is not the Son or the Father. They are different Persons, not three different ways of looking at God." *** No. The doctrine of the trinity is that Jesus Christ IS God the Father. If you look at that exact diagram you showed me earlier (1), Jesus IS God the Father. The diagram in (1) shows this perfectly and was made sometime around the 12th century when religious leaders tried to make sense of the doctrine of the Trinity because they realized it was unbiblical. For more history or information on this please visit (2). The doctrine I believe in is called the Godhead and it means that Jesus is NOT God the Father. I unfortunately don"t know how to make this any simpler. *** "If Jesus in not G-d, then that person worship another god and breaks the first commandment. Because you fall into the definition of a trinitarian (at least for most trinitarian) any further argument go beyond the scope of this debate." As I"ve mentioned a number of times I do not believe in the trinity. "Do you believe Jesus is god?" *** As I"ve already mentioned multiple times no I do not. *** "If so, I clearly stated in the title "IF JESUS IS NOT god" Thus my argument stand, if Jesus is not god, then you are breaking the first commandment by putting a god before the L-rd!" *** Your argument is completely invalid and makes absolutely no sense. You have literally done nothing to rebuttal my arguments and honestly I don"t even think you are reading them lol. I"ve shown multiple times in my previous arguments that your argument is invalid and makes no sense. (1)http://study.com..., 2016 (2)http://www.trinitytruth.org..., 2016 *** "__________" *** = Draws attention to what was written directly by PRO.