BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is the bible a reliable source

You stated that we act either in faith or fear. So what happens if i stand in front of my computer and type? Did i put faith into my legs? Did I fear my legs would be paralized all of a sudden? Answer is none. You stated that there were no cameras back then so they wrote on stuff like hemp and animal skin. we do know there is the quran written on such material. Yet, you did not chose to believe in it ( by your definition you didnt put your faith in it or perhaps scared of it? ). So this prooves that not everything written on an animal skin because there are cameras or not makes them a reliable source. Given in the bible, "god gives life" is not entirely true as well. Humans can give life. The best proof of that is Dolly the cloned sheep. You may say "but again, who first created that cell which was used in the process? ". Yet, can you say the "life" of that cell and life of Dolly are the same? We do know that is exactly when the church used everything in its power to stop cloning studies (. http://www.genome.gov...). What were they so afraid of? Of course, human clones. Taking a cell and giving it the real life as we know conflicts with everything in the bible, making the bible nothing but some old book that noone would read again. now, bring that new testament on! ;))
Is the bible a reliable source

So, since you said let the games begin, let us begin. You are probably sitting in a chair either computer, or couch, or even the bed. When you approached the chair or bed did worry and think about possible falling into the chair because is could not lift you? You either act in fear or faith. None other you act in faith, faith of a chair. If you could then always believe a student desk or office chair you can believe. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy were written by a man name Moses. Given to Him by God upon Mt.Sinai in the most southern point to the Promised land given to by God to Abraham. God spoke these words to Moses and either if it is true it is true, fabricated by God to set up systems like the Seven Day Week, proper sanitation, and eventually the Gregorian Calendar. Maybe God just couldn't explain science at that time. Real thing is it doesn't matter, we are like ants trying to figure human philosophies. The Bible and all books cannot be either proven false nor true because of theories and assessments and the everlasting word of God. Most of thee Old Testament is basic Israel history. Think of contexts; when you have no way possible to record video, take photos, send snap chats, record the ex, people had to write. Two ways to have paper throughout the Bible Old & New: 1. Hemp 2. Animal Skin People of spoke and wrote, The 1st Kingdom and beyond were amazing record keepers (along with Romans that also recorded Jesus' crucifixion) for their own personal history. * For the record I am not Jewish at all, but they were God's Chosen People, but you could Race. He loved them though and wanted them to be rich and from being loyal and not sinning prophets will come out of them. ex. Jeremiah, Isiah, King Solomon, Ezekiel, Joel, Daniel, Malachi. He was going to send great converters and other great men but the Jews failed so quickly they had to go to Egypt be enslaved then forgiven leaded out by a good man name Moses. The issue is that I can see God created the way he said and any other theories because it doesn't matter. Scientists just try to figure out the way he did it. They can tell you how but not who did it. Albert Einstein once said to describe his job " ...to try and figure Gods' thoughts, the rest are details...". This entail he shows his fear in God that he always maintained through life. Science can also only give us theory of Evolution, Big Bang Theory. One of the closest disciples of Darwin once also said I paraphrase"...I believe in this(Theory of Evolution) only because there is simply nothing else to believe in besides believing in a God, which is ludicrous...". So basically Evolution is only popular because it was the first idea besides God in Europe? It cannot be tested and never will be proven. The Bible is not worth much in the Old for sources unless you wanted to debate some Old Jewish history that will be true to be honest. The New Testament I'll save it for next round ;)
Is the bible a reliable source

Well there you have it folks, guess not all are written in the book. I pay thanks to you and wish you the best of peace and mercy be bestowed upon you. You just simply do not believe, you have no faith. While I do have faith. The Bible as we know as today, did not exist in the physical lifetime of Jesus. The only thing is I have faith in science and God. I have faith science can find cures, put safety first, oh and of course lower costs. Science either does or does not find these things I ask for. Science can find things and then change. The mass of debris that created and exploded resulting in the big bang was billions of miles, to hundreds of miles, to hundreds of feet, to a minute piece, to a size of the period at the end of this sentence. Science discovers something, worked and figured by MAN. Corrupt, evil, not perfect MAN. The facts is you cannot misinterpret the basic key points: Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary. Baptized at 30 in the River Jordan by John the Baptist. Tempted and defeated the Devil in the Dessert. Preached to thousands, feed thousands, healed hundreds, guided billions. Pleased be art thou those who believe without seeing. We have the proof, if the Catholics did some weird things like 800-1100 before succession broke open but it does not detour the basics. He was Hid only son, and He suffered for you and loves you, and you have nothing else to be salved by but the original christian scientist to lab coat idiots to just all but not they just try to figure out HOW God created not who. Science does not fulfill anything but facts and the things you trust are theory's and hypothesis's. Fact is 212 degrees Fahrenheit boils water, theory is water came from gas/dust 10,000,000,000,000,000 years ago exploded beyond imaginable enacted where things that has to happen because they happen. And yeah stuff happens here because it just basically made itself perfectly. Oh yeah we also all came from a single single celled organism that just somehow appeared in water after billions of years. A central statement in traditional Christian creeds is that Jesus was crucified "under Pontius Pilate." But the majority of Christians have only the vaguest sense what the phrase represents, and most non-Christians probably can't imagine why it's such an integral part of Christian faith. "Crucified under Pontius Pilate" provides the Jesus story with its most obvious link to larger human history. Pilate was a historical figure, the Roman procurator of Judea; he was referred to in other sources of the time and even mentioned in an inscription found at the site of ancient Caesarea in Israel. Linking Jesus' death with Pilate represents the insistence that Jesus was a real person, not merely a figure of myth or legend. There are Roman records along with Jewish to show his existence in that case the Bible is a reliable source!
Is the bible a reliable source

Nice words. Now let me give you mine: 1 My knees bend for nothing, my free will is so strong, it can make the creator inside your mind, who you fear, disappear, 2 Even if there was an evil it is just as scared as the creator since they refuse to appear, 3 If the creator has all this power to heal, then why is there so much violence, so much tear, 4 Creator has no power, it cant stop people who are selling kids bad drugs and beer, 5 His mysterious ways never work, just like his "words" are useless which were written on a skin of a deer. For the record i improvised. Anyways, however my own words may make no sense for you ( i admit i am not as popular as jesus was ), yet they do not cross the boundaries with logic, bible telling: some all mighty "creature" who can exist everywhere and nowhere at the same time, has no shape and all the shapes at the same time and who can exist within and outside of time at once would sound much more ridiculous to those who have some sufficient amount logic. Again, if there were no religious books written by some people in the history, who demanded control of everything, you would be locked up deep inside an asylum.
On balance, the benefits of GMO's outweigh the harms.

I forfeit conduct points for this debate and would ask the voters vote based on their interpretation of the debate up until R3, even if that may be a full 7 point concession by me.This debate was totally and utterly messed up, and if Liz still even wants to debate me, we could re-try another time and I'd promise not to FF. Again, Debatability is PRO and I am CON.Thanks for the patience, and sorry for the trouble, Liz. I apologize for any inconvenience on my part.
Liberalism in its modern form is a mental disorder* * must credit Dr Michael Savage

Solarman1969: All you proved by your response was you are suffering from a mental disorder, not liberals. Granted there are a few nut jobs but the same goes for the other side. Most of your responses don't really need responses...I said exactly what liberals believe, and nobody who read it could seriously think someone with those beliefs is insane. They may have a different opinion but that is not insanity.
Liberalism in its modern form is a mental disorder* * must credit Dr Michael Savage

This is simple One of you brilliant verbose lib kids come and prove me wrong here is review to tempt you In this Book Savage set's out to show and to prove that Liberalism is a mental disorder and I must say he proves his case by a long shot. Savage accomplishes this feat by laying out extremely important issues and problems facing The USA (Such as the War On terror, the War in Iraq, Border security and the alien invasion in our country; And the Attack on our businesses especially small businesses by the radical lawyers, courts, environmentalists, etc.,) And he shows how liberal solutions are absolutely insane. He also provides the solutions (read the book). Savage also shows how these Ideal and ideas of liberalism have taken complete control of the democrat party and are in much control of the republican party as well. Savage outlines how we can take back our country. besides the fact this series of Books by Savage are very important if we are to survive as a nation, and they are an engaging and entertaining read; So you will enjoy reading them and more so in learning from them. love, your favorite conservative you love to hate (unless you have heard Dr Savage) now note: I will personally come up with at least 10 reasons and DSM type disorders to show , without a doubt , that hard core leftists, known in todays parlance as liberals, which IS A MISNOMER from the TRUE LIBERALS, like my wife, are INSANE I LOVE how the liberals on this site have called ME insane I think its hillarious without end! ha ha ha ha ha! Happy New Year
yu-gi-oh Vs. pokemon (card games)

My opponent provides no counter for my argument of balancing. Summation of balance: Obelisk, Ra and Slifer all have base damages that are higher than those of my available pokemon, therefore it only makes sense to view things on balance. Therefore his highest ratio is matched to my highest attack value is matched to my highest attack value. There are also normally illegal pokemon cards that are legal for use in this whose base damages are 5 times the normal value and thus pokemon wins. He also forgets that due to the rules of yu-gi-oh and summoning monsters, he cannot summon Red Nova Dragon because he has none of the prerequisite cards for it's sacrifice special summon. Each god card requires 3 other cards to summon it and none of them can attack in the turn they are summoned. This means he can only summon 1 god card and by the time it can even attack, my powerful pokemon card will have already destroyed it along with about 15k lifepoints of damage. My opponent also stated that he doesn't have to sacrifice for his summons (something he never specified in the rules of the debate). Although he says sacrificial requirements are null he can still use the effects of his cards, effects that pokemon cards don't have. He says Ra is invincible but the reality is that Ra's effect is that he can pay lifepoints to give it attack and defense points as well as pay 1000 lifepoints to destroy any monster on the field. Since pokemon aren't monsters, he can't even use that effect on my cards. He says Obelisk absorbs power from my cards but he can't absorb in the turn he is summoned. Slifer reduces the power of my cards as they attack but 18k attack is still going to wipe Slifer and my opponent's life points. Thus, on balance, pokemon cards would beat yu-gi-oh cards because there are jumbo (normally-illegal cards) that I am able to use that have 5 times the normal power level of balanced pokemon and yu-gi-oh cards.
yu-gi-oh Vs. pokemon (card games)

The debate was about who would win in a battle. Facts are facts my cards have better attack and Denfense and how am I suppose to refute this in just one speech. according to his last statement his cards have a 20, 000 attack range however. He keeps disregarding the efffects of my cards Red Nova Dragon won't let an attack through and the other are gods. Ra is invinsible so he wins. Oblesk is a god and can obsorb enemy strenght win Slyther. same as Oblesk win Red Nova can't be affected by effects and can negate enemy attacks so he wins with the result 4-0 I can see nothing but a Con ballot Pro thankyou for your time.
yu-gi-oh Vs. pokemon (card games)

My oppent arguements aren't making any sense right now he is saying his rares equal the gods. Well lets simply do the math. 4 is greater than 1. Am I correct? He has also dropped the agruement saying that nothing could affect my cards. So therefore my cards are still immune to there effects. I would love to contune this debate, but tomorrow is my last day possible to post therefore if you see I forefit a round it's simply I can't get to a computer. So I ask to vote tie.
yu-gi-oh Vs. pokemon (card games)

This is not a tournament. This is a comparison between the two card-games and therefore my chosen Pokemon are legal for use. Of course the base values of Yu-gi-oh cards are different in terms of scaling, I've already acknowledged this during my rebuttal. Frankly, if the scale of power on the god-cards (being the most powerful of all legal Yu-gi-oh cards) were set to match the highest scaling on the most powerful legal Pokemon Card, Pokemon would win. God Cards are the most powerful legal cards for tournament play but as this is not a tournament, I can use the Reshiram, Kyurem and Zekrom cards with 5 times the power level. This means that my opponent has lost the debate because his cards, on balance, are not stronger than my choices. If you don't accept that, then my opponent could have just made this debate with the title 4000 is a greater value than 1000 and it would have been much simpler. Things must be on balance because without balance it would be a pointless argument. My opponent spent no time rebutting my points apart from the first argument against the legality of my chosen cards. While they are not normally legal, this is a friendly battle, not a tournament or official pokemon event, and thus I can use them. Since my opponent cannot prove that on balance the power of the egyptian god cards is greater than the power of my blatantly overpowered yet legal choices.
yu-gi-oh Vs. pokemon (card games)

1. Pro admitts his pokemon are illegal for tournements. THat means he can't use his in this debate therefore he has none remaining. So with my monsters left for a direct attack I would win the match.] Ra- invinsable ATK and DEF and infinaty and no effects can work on god cards Slyther- ATK usally from 2000-7000 therefore he could easily destroy the pokemon Obolisk- ATK 4000 god card Red Nova- ATK 5000, can't de destroyed by monster effect, can be removed from play to negate an attack and brought back next turn. You tell me how 1000 is stronger than these attacks
yu-gi-oh Vs. pokemon (card games)

"Sorry I'll take out Exodia." Now my opponent only has the option of summoning Slifer, Obelisk or Winged Dragon of Ra. "The Con states that I need to sacrifice cards to bring them out. Well this is true, but on the flip side you can't have evolved pokemon without training them. So therefore sacrifice equals leveling up." Sacrifices may equal leveling up and evolving but the cards I put in play don't require sacrifice to summon. Zekrom, Arceus, Reshiram and Kyurem all start at this power-level when you acquire them as a card and when you acquire them in the actual game. They have no pre-evolved forms and are permanently this strong. "Kuriboh can kill them. It has 300 ATK while a strong pokemon has 200. So therefore with cards in the high thousands can easily beat cards in the hundreds." The Jumbo Promo cards of Zekrom, Reshiram and Kyurem all have 1000 attack damage. While those Jumbo cards are not legal for tournaments or official events, they are still legal for this online debate challenge. "Effects won't work My monsters if you read the effects." I don't know what this means. My opponent's perspective on the duel is inherently abusive because he expects that I should play cards that can only reach a cap of 1000 attack damage while his can be summoned easily with well over that amount. If the power levels of our chosen cards were balanced, Pokemon would win. Pokemon are able to level up and continue growing in power forever, as evidenced by Ash's Pikachu becoming stronger and stronger as the series progresses so it's only a matter of how powerful a Pokemon becomes until the point that it just has more power than my opponent's god cards.
yu-gi-oh Vs. pokemon (card games)

Sorry I'll take out Exodia. The Con states that I need to sacrifice cards to bring them out. Well this is true, but on the flip side you can't have evolved pokemon without training them. So therefore sacrifice equals leveling up. Kuriboh can kill them. It has 300 ATK while a strong pokemon has 200. So therefore with cards in the high thousands can easily beat cards in the hundreds. Effects won't work My monsters if you read the effects.
yu-gi-oh Vs. pokemon (card games)

I accept the challenge and look forward to a fun battle. There are a few discrepancies with my opponent's description of the battle, though. My opponent says that I must choose 4 monsters total while he has chosen 5. I will also clarify, by the yu-gi-oh card game wiki, the conditions by which my opponent can put his monsters into play. Winged Dragon of Ra, Slifer the Sky Dragon and Obelisk the Tormentor all require 3 cards to be sacrificed in order to play them. This means that my opponent will only be able to summon one of these monsters and either Exodia to the field. Red Nova Dragon requires two tuner cards and a Red Dragon Archfiend. My opponent does not have either of those so Red Nova Dragon is useless to him. Finally, Exodia is actually a set of 5 cards so my opponent gains nothing from having the base Exodia card, Exodia The Forbidden One. Not being in possession of the Right arm of the Forbidden One, Left arm of the Forbidden One, Right leg of the Forbidden One or Left leg of the Forbidden One, my opponent can only use the base stats of Exodia the Forbidden One, which are 1000 ATK and 1000 DEF So by the terms of my opponents card choice he has already broken his own parameters and limited himself to only summoning 1 of the 3 god cards or to only summoning Exodia the Forbidden One which has meager base stats. Now that that's out of the way, I present my choice of Pokemon. Zekrom http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...(JR_Pok%C3%A9mon_Survey_Team_promo) EX Reshiram http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...(Reshiram_EX_Strength_Deck_4) Kyurem http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...(Noble_Victories_34) Arceus LV.X http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...(Arceus_95) I'll assume that my Pokemon need not adhere to the resource system of the standard Pokemon TCG as my opponent has not provided grounds for me to present those cards so I have chosen Pokemon whose attacks' special effects don't concern the energy cards attached to them. With that, I await his opening argument.
abortion should be legal in every state

After analysing my oppenent's point of view i realised that he looked at this matter from one angle.That is ,abortion because of medical reasons,i cant say to you that the correct thing to do in a situation like that is to save the baby and leave the mother to die because the mother may have a husband who loves her and have already attached to her,so in a situation like this where it is strictly for medical purposes and abortion seems to be the only way to save the motherls life then i agree that it should be allowed. On the other hand abortion to prevent shame and other troubles that would come with teenage pregnancy,in some cases pregnacy outside of marriage and even pregnacy where the wife has been unfaithful and is now having a baby for her partner outside of marriage should be illegal altogether. If abortion is legallised without boundaries then this will just be an easy way out for women to become sexually active even more than before and not have to worry about giving birth. Some people would even ask the question 'what if a woman was raped and is now expecting?' and i say to that question even if rape is the case abortion should not be the victim's only alternative because arrangements can be made for the baby to be adopted at birth . Saying that the baby would serve as an emotional reminder of what happened in the past is not the way out ,although i sympathise with victims of rape who have conceived babies for their attacker i say to you please keep in mind that there are happy couples out there who have tried for years to get pregnant but simply cant because on infertility so for you to have that ability to bring a precious soul into this world and give it up is saddening. I close by saying that abortion strictly for medical purposes is not wrong and if anyform of abortion is to be allowed then this should be it but abortion for self purposes other than health is disgraceful .Think of what that child could have become in the future , think of if you were aboerted.
The Christian God is Real

this has been quite enriching, and I would like to close with saying that this is my first debate, and though I feel I am right and just haven't expressed my evidence or views thoroughly enough, I would be proud to concede a loss to such a worthy opponent, in hopes that we can keep up in this spirited debate and perhaps start another, slightly longer debate on god creating the universe and the evidence for and against gods seven day calendar? if you would like to I would gladly send an invite to continue this. cheers!
The Christian God is Real

2 peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation this passage states that the bible is the literal word of god, meaning there is no interpretation involved. the choice is up to you as to whether you wish to listen to the literal word of god and follow all of the included tenets, including anti-homosexual relations, praising Abraham for being willing to sacrifice his son for a voice in his head, feeling extreme guilt and sorrow for the crime Adam and eve first committed, aka obtaining knowledge of good and evil, etc. Or you may choose to reject this narrow minded view of the world, where your god denounces basic human right such as choosing who you love, and lest we forget one of the most evil acts in the bible, non resistance against evil. preached by nonetheless, Jesus Christ. "but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil... love your enemies.