BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Contradictions in the Bible are reasons to doubt its validity.

I accept this challenge and welcome a debate with my opponent. --- OPENING ARGUMENTS --- --Burden of Proof-- When a party asserts a disputable claim, the burden of proof is upon the party making the assertion to substantiate their claim (1). Therefore, since the Bible is presenting claims, the Bible must justify those claims. The Bible puts forth claims that are extraordinary (humans living hundreds of years prior to modern medicine, resurrection, water being turned into wine, the red sea being parted, etc). These fly in the face of all scientific explanations and common sense, and require significant substantiating evidence to support them. The internal consistency of the Bible is a clear metric by which to determine the credibility of the source material making these assertions. Many claims in the Bible are inherently suspect and require substantial evidence to justify. Not only is no external evidence provided to justify Biblical claims, but internal contradictions cast further doubt upon the source material itself. --The Bible Purports to be the Infallible Word of God-- According to a popular Christian website, "in hundreds of passages, in both the Old and New Testaments, the Bible plainly declares to be the very Word of the living God (2)." For example, in 2 Peter 1:20-21, it is stated that "knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (3)." --The Bible Contains Numerous Contradictions-- This appears to be a point that is already conceded for the purpose of this debate, but just to be clear, the Bible contains dozens of internal contradictions (4). --Argument Re: Sufficiency of Evidence-- Premise 1 - Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Premise 2 - The Bible contains extraordinary claims, and the "evidence" provided are mere assertions which are themselves internally contradictory. Conclusion - The Bible does not provide sufficient evidence to justify its claims. (In other words, it's validity can be doubted) --Argument Re: Biblical Inerrancy-- Premise 1 - The Bible claims to be the infallible word of God. Premise 2 - The Bible contains numerous internal contradictions. Conclusion - There are reasons to doubt the validity of claims of the Bible. --Summary-- From both a logical perspective and based on the Bible's own declaration of infallibility, internal contradictions provide reason to doubt the validity of the Bible. (1) http://www.qcc.cuny.edu... (2) https://www.blueletterbible.org... (3) http://biblia.com... (4) http://infidels.org...
Contradictions in the Bible are reasons to doubt its validity.

I am on the CON side of this debate. I am looking to debate someone who agrees with the thesis topic. I have made this debate impossible to accept. If interested, please express so in the comments, and I will choose someone myself. The format is as follows, any failure to comply results in an automatic loss. Rd. 1- Con: Intro/Rules Pro: Acceptance/ Opening Arguments Rd. 2- Con: Opening Arguments (No Rebuttals) Pro: Rebuttals Rd. 3- Con: Rebuttals to Rd. 1 Pro: Defense Rd. 4- Con: Defense/ Conclusion Rd. 4- Pro: Conclusion Only I look forward to this debate.
There is Nothing Inherently Wrong with Being Gay

The faith of the Bible proved itself to be authentic by the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, namely, his burial by Joseph of Arimethea, his empty tomb, his post-mortem appearences, and the origin of the disciples belief in his resurrection. Attempts to explain away these four facts have been rejected by contemporary New Testament scholarship. No naturalistic explanation of these facts stands up to scrutiny. Jesus therefore was who he cliamed to be and spoke from God. The Scripture upon which he relied condemn homosexuality as a sin, hence, in God's eyes, it is wrong. Any attempt to establish morality apart from God leads to moral relativism, which cannot be true because we all know deep inside that absolute moral values and duties do exist. Some things are indeed really wrong, such as rape, child abuse, racism, even if the ones committing these acts believe there are ok. God created us in his image, which is why we all have certain basic moral standards. This explains why most cultures and religions view homosexuality as taboo. Gay people are rebelling against this natural order which God created by having sex with the same sex. What's more, homosexuality is wrong inherently because it involves the unclean practice of anal sex. Placing one's male testicle into a hole meant for excrement is no more a clean than sticking one's finger in a pile of stool. I would be interested in hearing how my opponent determines right and wrong morally. Sorry I took so long to post this argument; I was very busy and this computer needs fixing.
should the united mermaid and People's front of america take america by force or peacefully

My opponent has referred to the Earth as a woman, almost as it is human, and a woman cannot be a master, they must be a mistress. My opponents lack of this knowledge leads me to believe that they are unfamiliar with human terms and must be educated on the subject.They have referred to humans as a virus to the Earth, how will we be any different, and if we eradicate the Americans, what my opponent has not addressed is that there are more nations of humans that just America, if we attack America, however nations while become involved and wipe us out, as my opponent stated, that to stop/kill a virus you must wipe it out completely. Wouldn't the humans do this if they knew our intention. From previous species we have seen that humans are very good at destruction. Let sleeping dogs lie, we have the whole ocean and can move to another region away from America if we really wanted, but no we choose to stay there.
should the united mermaid and People's front of america take america by force or peacefully

"This is the first demand we must raise An army that has the ability to make it that our people be set free, that these chains be burst asunder, that Earth be once again captain of her soul and master of her destinies, together with all those who want to join OUR CAUSE And the fulfillment of this first demand will then open up the way for all the other reforms. And here is one thing that perhaps distinguishes us from you (mermaids) as far as our programme is concerned, although it is very much in the spirit of things: our attitude to the Human problem. For us, this is not a problem you can turn a blind eye to-one to be solved by small concessions. For us, it is a problem of whether our nation can ever recover its health, whether the human spirit can ever really be eradicated. Don't be misled into thinking you can fight a disease without killing the carrier, without destroying the bacillus. Don't think you can fight racial tuberculosis without taking care to rid the nation of the carrier of that racial tuberculosis. This Human contamination will not subside, this poisoning of the nation will not end, until the carrier himself, the Human, has been banished from our midst.
should the united mermaid and People's front of america take america by force or peacefully

Yes, I agree united we stand as a mighty race, however violence is not the way. You gain more flies with honey than vinegar and we must show these humans that our race is not a tyrannious one like theirs, we need them on our side, they have chemical and nuclear arms whereas we only have hydro-ballistic arms. We can take them in the sea, but not the land or air, we have a huge disadvantage, which is why I implore the Mermaid population to accept the human domain so that we may live in harmony. Setanim fan Sessmuna!
should the united mermaid and People's front of america take america by force or peacefully

people racially treat our mermaid populous badly and it prevents us from running for office. We must FIGHT THE POWER STORM EVERY STATE CAPITAL WE MUST RISE UP AGAINST THIS TYRANNY!!!!!!!! VIVA ViVA ViVa Joyina asilwi nasemhlabeni wonke YMUNO "'N YMLADD AR DRAWS Y BYD REGISTRACE n" boj po cel"m světě פאַרבינדן אונדזער קאַמף אַריבער די וועלט JOIN ons stryd DIE W"RELD Kujiunga na mapambano wetu duniani kote h4;n1;l3;m3;l0;l1; k6;k2;n3;k2;l8; h1;h8;h4;i3;h8;h9; m0;n1;l4;m4;n1;l3;k6; l5;n1;k5;k6;n1;m3;
war

for my first point i do compleatly agree with you in the point that my argument was week and most of it didn't make sense it was 1:00 am i think when i wrote it up and was mainly just pissed off about what i had heard on the news. also the statement two wrongs make a right makes sense as it just makes things worse for both sides but if someone were to approach you and punch you in the jaw would you just stand there and do nothing or would you punch them right back and make it equal. this is just my opinion you might just stand there and take it as yes it would make things better for one of you but why would you want to make things better for your enemy. this entire paragraph might just be be cos i base stuff on revenge if some one does something to me i want to make it equal like one time in year 5 a kid scared my face when he used to bully me 3 years later in 8 i saw him on the field and he started on me so i knocked the %$"&% outa him and scared his face in the same place as he scared mine thus making things equal but in my deference i wasn't saying that two wrongs make a right i was saying that if we cant do that to them why should they be aloud to do that to us. my second statement is that you said it your self war crimes are to stop opposing sides being cruel of unfair there the word's i have been looking for cruel and unfair is being aloud to do what ever you want in a war unfair YES and why should we be at the disadvantage to them. in your defense though i compleay agree that innocent civilians should not have to pay with there lives ore any thing alse for that matter but since when do terrorists care about the civilians so why should we have to pay with our lives when we cant take theirs. and what if the people are not civilians what if they are oposition the people trying to kill us why should we show mercy to them why cant we strap them to a char and kick the "%$&* outa them till they tell us what we want to here. when they can do that to us. in my oppinion if you have the power to do something and not have any reprocutions from it do it its only your gain and again this was written at about one in the morning and sorry about me being quite nasty and brutal about what i have typed up but it just really peves me off when i hear about stuff like this oh and the spellings yea im not to good with them =)
war

I actually strongly agree with pro but I will be accepting the position of Con. I feel that Pro's argument is too weak to make the claim he has proposed. As Con I will be arguing that war crimes should exist and be enforced by the law. First let us define what a war crime is. War crime-"an act committed during a war that violates international law usually because it is cruel, unfair, etc. " . http://www.merriam-webster.com... "one example would be the man sentenced to life in prison for shooting a captured member of the Taliban in the head. when for a fact if they did that to one of our men they would suffer no consequences as they hold to no laws or regulations" My opponent asserts that the we should not follow the "rules of war" because the Taliban doesn't. This is the "Two Wrongs Make a Right" fallacy. . http://www.nizkor.org... To compare the US and Taliban is not adequate. We cannot compare to entities that play different roles entirely. I would say the United States is an actual state that follows the rule of law. The Taliban are an armed political movement in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. War crimes apply to states, not individuals or organizations. The Taliban are an organization. War crimes relates to how a war is fought. In particular, war crimes were made into being to stop the slaughter of innocent civilians and cruel punishment to the opposing side in a war. Innocent civilians should not have to pay with their lives for their leaders' incompetence. Why should one pay for something that was not asked for? Innocent people pay with their lives and livelihood in wars.
Should the U.S. public school system get rid of standardized learning plans? (Common Core)

Once again I'm not quite sure you understand the idea of telling a 5th grade to make lasting life choices on what he will do as a adult. This decision is sometimes not even answered by the time they enter the workforce or college. Also ow exactly to to envision children getting a broad knowledge for all their academic subjects by 5th grade. For instance l loved history in 5th grade and I though I wanted to be a historian when I grew up. However, as I learned about the work of a historian and as I took CAD drawing classes I realized that I wanted to become engineer. How would I completely change my courses when the decisions that I made in 5th grade decided the rest of my life. In your relation to the common core being to broad broadness is exactly what students in elementary and secondary education need in order to provide as many doors as possible to the American youth. Also to imagine that our education system should be based on a few geniuses that were the exception o the rule. However, even they need cross disciplinary skills, for imagine if Einstein had the writing skill of a 5th grader do you really think his discovery of he Photoelectric effect would have won him Nobel prize. No it wouldn't have because he wouldn't of been able to because presentation is almost as important as substance. Thus to base our entire school system based on the experiences of the super geniuses wouldn't make sense Also socialism has never worked but thats a debate for another time
Should the U.S. public school system get rid of standardized learning plans? (Common Core)

Okay, I see were your coming from, and FYI, I do belive in socalism. I'm sorry I didn't explain my first argument so clearly. Elementry school would have all classes. But then in middle and high school, students would take surveys of which would test them on strengths in each class and what sort of classes they are interested in. Then, most of the time kids are interested in what they are good at, but if not, the schools can give a heavier emphasis on the classes they are skilled at but still have an emphasis on the classes they are interested in. That way they can go out into the world knowing with training for a good job. I do get what you mean about common core, but it's too broad. See, some of the most smart scientists, artists, philosophers, and writers did terrible in school and absolutely hated it. Why? Because it didn't focus on what they are good at. I know it's why I hate school, and I know that's why a lot of kids hate school. If you have and F in math at the end of high school and you have good grades in all of your classes, you will fail.
Should the U.S. public school system get rid of standardized learning plans? (Common Core)

Hello I'll be glad to debate this issue with you First of all I want to say that my background in education has been a excellent one. I live in Massachusetts where we have the best education system in the entire country with our test scores barley behind and in some cases above countries such as Sweden, China, and Norway countries that have consistently beat the United States. This state was the first state to introduce the common core (under a Republican Governor Mitt Romney I might add) this is not as scary as it might seem on Fox News and other bias sources. In reality the common core is a set of standards in education that must be met by the end of the year. this does not mean their is a scary regime telling teachers how to teach things bu is instead a framework to show what the students must learn. The teacher can be trained on ways to teach but they do not necessarily need to follow them to the letter instead these training sessions are a melting pot of different teaching styles that help teachers by allowing them to accept ideas that they like and reject ones they don't. In fact I feel this type of framework is desperately needed because America at the state level is often failing to invest in their education systems. By instituting this frame work we would force schools to adopt a set of objectives that must be reached. These objectives can then be assessed through a variety of formats such as tests, projects, and any other type of formal or informal assessment. Thus I feel that this hype over the "socialist" threat of common core has been over hyped to the extreme. I also find your plan for teaching as almost distopian for who would decide what a child had training in their parents their teachers a test. In my opinion elementary and secondary education fills the vastly important role of allowing a child to explore all his options and realize what he wants to be when he grows up. This decision that you are speaking of is often made before or even during college or entering the work force. Would you force that decision early on any child for in my opinion that is a cruel decision to make for anyone. For what if that child changed his mind on what he wanted to become, what if that "kid that would be a very skilled engineer and that is interested in math in science would drop social studies/humanities and Language Arts classes completely and do Math and Science and engineering classes full time" ended up not liking math and is now several years behind on his other subjects. For as my math teacher says "the only job you have in High School is to keep all your doors open". To take away options from a child who may not know better is a horrible thing to do and could rip out of any hope of crating a dynamic and creative work force. Thus, with all do respect, I pray that your plan is not accepted by America
Creation vs Evolution: Origin of Life and Modern Man.

I have found NUMEROUS articles and scientific study that our evolution of man, homo sapien, has been around for around 200,000 years. Scientific fact has completely botched your first argument that, "everything was created by the Judeo-Christian God about 7,000 years ago". In conclusion, I have already defeated PRO's argument that he said he will be debating. http://www.npr.org... www.universetoday.com/38125/how-long-have-humans-been-on-earth/https://en.wikipedia.org... www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-13874671 www.earthmagazine.org/.../comment-how-long-have-humans-been-altering-earths-cli...
Creation vs Evolution: Origin of Life and Modern Man.

I will be arguing that everything was created by the Judeo-Christian God about 7,000 years ago. Con will be arguing for the theory of evolution and for the origin of life without God. The burden of proof is on both Pro and Con. Whoever can make the most logical and scientific argument will win. Definitions: Micro-Evolution: evolutionary change within a species or small group of organisms, especially over a short period. Theory of Evolution: 'The theory has two main points, said Brian Richmond, curator of human origins at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. "All life on Earth is connected and related to each other," and this diversity of life is a product of "modifications of populations by natural selection, where some traits were favored in and environment over others," he said.' [1] Sources: [1]http://www.livescience.com...
Religion should be taught in schools.

look i am trying to make my point short and simple i fully understand your system but the only people willing to teach this would most likley be religious ones as they would also most likely be the only ones with those qualifications to become that kind of teacher. What we have to remeber is a religous person normally feels strongly about their religion and will oppose any opposition to it most of the time and often be biased. I learn this not from assuming this fact but knowing this as i have exprinced this and for example out of around 20 teachers at my school who taught religous studys all of them were storngly biased for there religion and against others. You cant change that in a person but the only way to get around this would be to have teachers who are non-religious but are intrested in religion and are willing to teach it which means there would never be enough. as for religion does kill i feel its off the subject but why not debate that to ? religion does kill , imagine it if there was no religion there would be no murders or wars assioctied with religion in the first and place. saying it is not an actually object religion is in a way not true sure it physically doesnt kill the other person but if religion wasnt invovled in the first place, this misguided indivdual would never have commited this act. thats like me saying the person firing the gun didnt commit the murder the gun did and this person was simply misguided. the jews would of been saved if they were not religious because think logically , sure they were targeted by the goverment , but if they never had this religion in the first place then the goverment never would of targeted them . also like to apologise for spelling and grammer .
Religion should be taught in schools.

if the example of a teacher you gave me before is common then of course it is unsuccessful because the model that is currently in place doesn't reflect what i proposed. i proposed a purely academic study of the basic tenets, history and practices of the major religions NOT indoctrination. if a school is offering religious indoctrination they are in fact NOT implementing a system of religious education such as the one i am commending. too much so-called religious education at the moment focuses on an attempt to indoctrinate a student into a particular religion by the teacher so of course they resent it but that isn't what i'm recommending and so isn't the topic of debate. as to your assertion that there were fewer racially motivated assaults... race and religion are not the same thing. there are muslims of european descent just like there are christians of arab descent so yet again the problem is revealed to be ignorance, misunderstanding and the fear that results from that... all of which it is the place of a strong education system to combat. i would also suggest that perhaps there is simply more recording of assaults in recent times? the percentage of attacks and crimes actually being reported is higher nowadays so what you put forward as an increase in assault may just be a statistical anomaly. without actual numbers or evidence that point is hard to debate though. religion is not the biggest killer... by definition it cannot be as a religion is not a tangible object with the capacity to kill. killings that are committed by misguided individuals in the name of religion are not killings BY religion. it just means that someone decided to misapply and pervert a belief for their own ends. a christian who murders does so in violation of their faith and their act is the fault of them not the faith that they have fallen short of. those jews you mention weren't killed by their religion they were killed by nationalist socialists on a quest of ethnic (not religious) genocide. the jews weren't the only ethnicity to feel the nazis' ire either... i understand that gypsies were also targeted.