BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The 'new' bibles recently created, belong to Satan.

Burden of proofI hope you came prepared, because your proposition is as hard as hell to prove. You, as both instigator and Pro have to prove that:a)Modern Bible versions are inspired (? ) by Satan. b)By extension, that Satan exists. c)By extension, that God is either not powerful enough to not to let Satan to spread his ideas or he simply doesn't care. Is God arbitrary? Your first paragraph (to start with) doesn't help you a lot at this, since as you yourself state, God is quite a whimsical character: "Any unauthorized changes to the scriptures, based on human vanity, reaps 'spiritual death'. We see that Aaron's two sons were killed by God, when they 'added' incense to an offering. The reason for their deaths, was because GOD had not told them to do this. (Book of Leviticus)". However, you claim that modern Bible versions, such as KJV, are unauthorized changes of God's word. If this is so, why didn't he bother to punish anyone? Remember: God killed two little kids for adding incense to an offering. However King James lived many years after he aproved his version, and the KJV Bible's author did also live many years until he was sent to prison. Did God (a supposedly eternal character, owner of all the truth, both physical and moral) change his ethics? Why did he take so different decisions in such an arbitrary way? Satan's fallacy"God uses Numbers 12:6, in order to prove that a person is 'anointed'. This is a 'personal' proof to the anointed person, that he/she is receiving the truth from God. Satan CANNOT 'reproduce' Numbers 12:6. If he could, then Numbers 12:6, is USELESS. "This is an argumentum ad consequentiam, which is considered a fallacy. According to Wikipedia: "[it's] an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. "We can easily spot the same structure in your text: 'Satan can't anoint, because If he could, Numbers 12:6 wouldn't make sense'. For the sake of curiosity, let's check Numbers 12:6 too. Anointing's fallacyNumbers 12:6 says: "he said, “Listen to my words: “When there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, reveal myself to them in visions, I speak to them in dreams. "Pro considers Bible's original authors had in possesion of an ultimate truth because, according to Bible, God anointed them - this is, God himself revealed it. This is a fallacy of converse, which follows the next structure: If P happens, then Q is true. I think Q is true, therefore, P is too. Let's check it again:If God anoints Bible's authors, what the Bible says is true. Pro thinks what the Bible says is true, therefore, its authors were antoined by God. This is an important mistake in Pro's position, as he thinks the old, original versions of the Bible because its authors were anointed by God. But how does he know this? Because Bible says so. While this is not a truly important thing in this debate's topic (If recent Bible's versions were inspired by Satan or not), it staggers the beliefs system in which Pro is based to defend his position, so I think it's something worth being mentioned.
The 'new' bibles recently created, belong to Satan.

The KJV Bible was created through the decree of a KING (King James). It has been adjusted over a period of time, and has become a 'standard' for believers. Any unauthorized changes to the scriptures, based on human vanity, reaps 'spiritual death'. We see that Aaron's two sons were killed by God, when they 'added' incense to an offering. The reason for their deaths, was because GOD had not told them to do this. (Book of Leviticus) In the Old Testament, we find that The Children of Israel, Kings, Priests, and Prophets, were anointed. Who 'anointed' the authors of the 'new bibles'? The Word of God came by way of anointed kings/priests/prophets from within the anointed Israelites. The scriptures tell us, that those who received The Word of God from God, were called 'gods'. God IS NOT the master of CONFUSION. Today, we have to deal not only with the problem of understanding the KJV Bible, but now also with the differences between the KJV Bible and all of the other 'bibles'. Common sense should tell everyone, that there can only be ONE Word of God. We all know, that there are 'contradictions' found in the KJV Bible. These are due to 'errors' based on misunderstandings on the part of the anointed 'authors'. It does not matter, therefore, how many different 'translations' are created, if these errors are not first corrected. There is only ONE way to correct the errors. The person who corrects the errors, must be anointed by God. This person must be an Israelite. This person must ASK GOD for the 'corrections' that need to be made. There is no other way. Use of VANITY will lead a person to their own 'spiritual death'. You run the risk of 'putting words into The Mouth Of God'. By doing so, you become a FALSE PROPHET, and will lead many to their spiritual death. Talebearers are just as vulnerable, and are judged the same. God uses Numbers 12:6, in order to prove that a person is 'anointed'. This is a 'personal' proof to the anointed person, that he/she is receiving the truth from God. Satan CANNOT 'reproduce' Numbers 12:6. If he could, then Numbers 12:6, is USELESS.
The Ontological Argument as Proof of God

I've spent the last few hours typing out my response... but have now lost the first half of my argument (which I had only had saved in the Debate Review section... and won't be able to re-write it in the next 2 hours.. as I have other things I've got to do to now... PCP's agreed to the idea that we copy and paste this first round into a new window.. and continue this debate as it stands now... right here: http://www.debate.org... I'll be able to re-do the portion of this round that I've accidentally deleted and submit my round two by tomorrow... sorry for the ridiculousness...
The churches should expand their gambling operations

The gambling industry is immoral. "Gambling has a bad effect on society. It promotes crime, as those who lose their money steal to get more, or get drunk to drown out their sorrow. It contributes to greater poverty, as those who cannot afford to gamble do so anyway. It leads to addiction, for some are so obsessed by the hope of winning the jackpot that they gamble compulsively. And all these, in turn, put great stress on families, which results in more broken homes. Studies have demonstrated the truth of these assertions" As you may well say; the end justifies the means. The motive excuses the acts. Christians should be against gambling. Why? Because gambling is motified by greed, and greed is sin. gambling also encourages temptation in the form of "aww, just another 1, c'mon lucky number 7!" Therefore the Christians should be against it. A church should get its earnings and funds from freewill acts of kindness, donations, and offerings to God. "This is not the God ordained way for legitimate authorities, such as church and civil government, to raise money." If the winners used their money to benefit God, then it should be encouraged, but the winners can use the winnings for whatever they like, and for their own selfish needs. If they gamble they lose money. If they lose money, they go broke. If they go broke, they steal. If they steal, others go broke. If others go broke, they will steal. It will be a continous cycle until everybody is just stealing money off each other and nobody will be able to afford to maintain having a child, so nobody will have children, which will lead to the human race ending. Therefore, Gambling = End of human race. :) As for your bible quote, unfortunately i think you seem to of misinterpreted it, Brian. :P But i must say you are very funny, without crossing the line to being an absolute nutjob. Sources: http://www.prca.org...
The churches should expand their gambling operations

Thanks for that, Tyson. I suppose what you are saying is that Christians are supposed to invest their money in a high yield private equity fund rather than go down the bookies and punt it all on a rank outsider in the 3.15 at Newmarket? Well, that may be wise advice but gambling in church-based casinos is actually a very Christian thing to do because the profits all go to good causes. Indeed, the Bible teaches us that it is every adult's Christian religious duty to go to church to gamble money: "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." - Corinthians Chapter 13, verses 11, 12 and 13 You see, this passage tells us the story of a young Christian who forgot all about his childish toys when he looked through the smoked glass window of a temple and saw men playing blackjack inside. It then goes on to relate how his cards were dealt face up to him while the dealer's cards were dealt face down so he didn't know who would win. However he had faith in his ace-neutral counting system and he hoped for good luck, but in the end, if he lost, he knew that his stake would go to charity and that, from a Christian perspective, would actually be the best outcome. You see, gambling in church-based casinos is morally and ecumenically sound because, at the end of the night, everyone's a winner man! Thank you.
The churches should expand their gambling operations

The churches are always moaning about falling church attendances and dwindling revenues and it is certainly true that churches have been haemorrhaging customers for years (1). Furthermore, with the demographics of the current congregations being so overwhelmingly dominated by the elderly, this situation is predicted to deteriorate even further as and when all the church-going coffin-dodgers succumb to the inevitable (2). In order to reverse this decline and also to secure a prosperous financial future it is clear that the churches must broaden their appeal. Of course, the core business of the churches should remain peddling religion to the spiritually credulous and the emotionally vulnerable but hymns, prayers and sermons don't really appeal to hedonists, thrill-seekers or, indeed, pretty much anyone with a pulse! Therefore, the churches will need to provide something a bit more stimulating in order to attract a younger, more vibrant clientele. But the question is "what?" Well, obviously it needs to be a money-spinner and also something that the churches would feel comfortable with. At the moment, churches raise some of their funds through gambling, usually in the form of raffles or bingo sessions, but these are quite dull, don't raise that much cash and don't attract new punters through the door. Church-based casinos, on the other hand, would be very exciting and glamorous and would raise fortunes for the churches' coffers. You can imagine that an evening playing religious roulette, biblical blackjack and spiritual slot machines with Christian croupiers as hosts, perhaps followed by a meal of loaves and fishes washed down with communal wine served by worshipping waitresses in sexy cassocks would be a lot more appealing than the bible studies, bell-ringing and brass rubbing that churches currently use to attract younger people. Furthermore, since people are going to gamble anyway, diverting punters away from traditional and online casinos and into the churches will mean that their money will be used to maintain historic buildings and help the poor rather than line the pockets of shady businessmen. Also, the church-based casinos will give the vicars and priests an opportunity to mingle with the gamblers and try to convert them to Christianity, or at least flog them Bibles or rosary beads or fake holy relics. In conclusion, the churches must move with the times and accept that people today have lower boredom thresholds than previous generations and by expanding their gambling operations to encompass church-based casinos they would attract more punters through the door and create a valuable new source of income into the bargain. Thank you. (1) http://www.churchsociety.org... (2) http://www.timesonline.co.uk... http://www.youtube.com...
the required threshhold of faith required for Christians to be saved is unclear

con makes an issue out of me not stating a type of christianity. i don't need to as we are examining the formulas people give for their own worth. i argue what i see, you argue what you see. i also point out, con hasn't shown why believing he is the Son of God, or that he died for our sins, are listed in the things that must be believed. they are surely christian teaching, and a christian will follow what Christ taught, but why are these ones singled out when there are tons of others, as mentioned earlier? baptism. do you argue that a christian who doesn't get baptized is going to hell? do you think that the Christian can be new to the faith, believe that Jesus is lord and that he was raised from the dead, and still be going to hell even though it was just because he hasn't had a chance to be baptized yet? i'm not sure how absolute your thoughts are on baptism, but if we can establish that you aren't hardline, we can establish that you yourself don't take it truly hardline, when it's clearly possible to be hardline about it. it's not clear if we should be hardline or not. con points that baptism is associated with salvation in the bible. okay i will grant that it is clear that a christian follows the teachings of Jesus. that includes baptism. that could be said to include the other things, but i don't see why the other things were made so special as to be included in the list? why is the Lord's supper not considered something a Christian must do? Christians must follow his teachings, that means this one too. i wouldn't parse out baptism specifically. some argue that a Christian must believe Jesus is God, why is that not on your list? the bible says that he is. i would argue against the notion given the bible teaches this in places that are not clear to all Christians. but i'm open to what's required v not. you don't seem to be, so why are you not forcing this belief? if i tried to put a more definite bar on what's required, i would think it is sufficient to believe you are a sinner and believe he's your savior. but i know it doesn't necessarily boil down to that, cause it's possible someone will be working all those issues out, but at least believe something like "jesus is Lord, he was raised from the dead" so they are saved. why don't you think the way? and that draws us to that last point. which you still have not addressed. what if someone believes in their heart that Jesus is Lord, and was raised from the dead, but they haven't had the chance to be baptized yet? or what if they haven't had a chance to fulfill the other requirements you list? surely we have that bible passage for a reason, what does it mean if that person isn't really saved or what?
the required threshhold of faith required for Christians to be saved is unclear

so here we have if folks? the official list of things that must be believed, through milleniums of fighting and wars by christians..... it has been officially listed on debate.org during the month of June, 2014? notice the sarcasm. so you are asserting that someone would not be saved if they: 1. You must be baptized 2. You must believe Jesus Christ was God's son and died for our sins 4. You must repent your sins. didn't tell anyone that they were Christian after being baptized? do you go against the bible's teachings, then, as it says "anyone who confesses that Jesus is Lord, and believes in his heart that he was raised from the dead, they will be saved". that shows a lower threshhold. even most fundamentalists don't require *necessarily* that you be baptized, just that it is proper. what if they are new to the faith and never had a chance? what if they were trying to figure out what it means and wanted to know what they were doing before getting baptized? and what about the Lord's supper? it was a direct command for us to do it.... why is it not in your list? what makes baptism so much superior to the lord's supper? i'm sure i could go on and on with more examples. i don't see any reason why con's list is so magical.
the required threshhold of faith required for Christians to be saved is unclear

I would first like to begin by saying that I believe you to have made several crucial errors in your logic with regards to this debate. You wish to debate that, "The required threshold of faith for Christians is unclear" However, this is problematic because: 1. There are too many types of Christianity with conflicting views. In order to properly debate this, it is necessary to pick one. So for the sake of argument, I am going to assume that you are referring to the original form of Christianity before it began to branch off. 2. The 'threshold of faith' is not the same thing as the entrance requirements of heaven. While we could argue all day about the definition of 'faith', if you take it at it's most common meaning, it is to say that you must believe in Jesus Christ as well as God. Demons fully fit this requirement, but are denied entrance into heaven. 3. You make a logical fallacy that popular opinion means vagueness. Even if 99.9% of the population were incorrect and believed the entrance requirements for heaven were to eat popcorn-flavored sprinkles on their jelly beans, this does not make the facts as described in the bible any less clear. It simply makes everyone who doesn't adhere to the strict bible description wrong. The bible lists four requirements in order to be given over to 'God's grace' after death. 1. You must be baptized 2. You must believe Jesus Christ was God's son and died for our sins 3. You must verbally state your belief in Christ to another person 4. You must repent your sins. Each time you do so is essentially a blank slate, and you can't get into heaven without this blank slate. The Bible clearly states all of these requirements, and there is no vagueness about them. They are spelled out firmly and fairly clearly, and those who believe otherwise have not read The Bible properly and/or are not fundamentalists.
the required threshhold of faith required for Christians to be saved is unclear

the requirements are either too vague, or too listy/dogmatic. the bible says if you confess with your mouth jesus is lord, and beleive in your heart that he was raised from the dead you will be saved. it also say if you believe in the lord you will be saved. it also has all kinds of other statements. i'm sure if you do these, that is sufficient. but what about various other scenarios, like the content of 'sinner's prayers' that dont include those things? what or where exactly is the threshhold? if you believe he existed or is God is that enough? probably not cause the bible says demons do likewise. what about a list of of common beleifs? that you rely on him generally, that he is your savior, that you are a sinner, that he is lord, tha he rose from the dead, that he was incarnated, that he is God, that he is the son of God, that you believe you are saved (plenty of christians say you must believe you are saved, or you aren't saved), substitutionary atonement v 'christus victor' etc etc. ask different christians, get a different answer, almost every time. they just have 'gut feelings' but dont have firm answers. see past debates from me on this topic, and you'll note a different answer pretty much every time. some say you have to admit you're a sinner and that he is your savior. what if you believed all the other things and not these? or what if you believe you're a sinner, and that he's a savior, but not that he's God, or a various type of atonement belief. eg, chrsitaus victor v substitutionary. some say that he is God is required, some say legal substitution is mandatory. and how do you demarcate the requirements for those who are new to the faith, and those who are really knowledgeable? it might be seen a okay for a newbie to miss a thing or two, but less understandable for the expreinced etc. does this come into play? so what's the magical formula?
Privacy is an outdated norm in society.

In the 21st century, privacy is no longer the thing it used to be. The vast interconnected web of people we know as the internet, and the access we have to the lives and knowledge of each other, is widely recognized as one of the greatest achievements of our age. However, this does come at a cost: it reduces the privacy of individuals who are involved, trading away some knowledge about themselves in response for the knowledge they gain about everything else. Because of this, privacy of the kind we are used to can no longer be considered to be an accepted norm of society. The main reason for this is because the new technology we now take for granted takes priority over, and conflicts with, the privacy that we also attempt to take for granted. Think about whenever any new technology comes along, with the potential to improve the way we connect with each other or to simplify and streamline aspects of our lives. Both of the above effects are intuitively desirable, as they make our lives easier, thus improving them. However, what is the argument that always comes up against anything trying to do this? Privacy. People expect that information about them should not be publicly available, even as they Google any questions they have to try find something on the internet that will answer their question. If you were trying to find the quadratic formula, you would expect it to be online. If you were trying to get information about a business, you would expect it to be online. Consequently, if you were trying to get information about a person, you would also expect it to be, to some extent, online. The whole idea of privacy totally disrupts this. Though privacy is nice, a balance is obviously desirable, and in our society, privacy of these forms ultimately disrupts our new way of life, and therefore the idea of privacy that has been accepted up until this point is not realistic to uphold in the new millennium.
Privacy is an outdated norm in society.

So what I see is your only real concern to debate here is basically the definition of privacy. Depending on the way you look at it you can consider it either as outdated or not outdated. To try and get a good definition of what privacy is, it's important to consider why privacy is so valued. Privacy comes about because people want separation between themselves and the rest of the world. This can be likened to the walls of a house; what is you is on one side, and what is not you is kept on the other side, without overlap. While the extent of material that someone considers private can vary person to person, each individual has their own clearly defined barriers which constitute what is and isn't private for them. Material like your cellphone number isn't private sometimes and public sometimes, you either make it available to everyone who wants it or you don't. Now what new inventions such as the internet do is they break down the clearly defined barriers by creating overlap between what is your private information and what isn't. Social media does this by collecting your personal information and feeding it to corporate entities. Websites do it by requiring your information to create accounts, and often using it to send you products and updates. Ads do it by looking at your details and search history to show you things you might like. This is all before you consider the possible effects of hackers or computer viruses, or what happens when something goes wrong. Because of all of this, the barriers between our personal lives and outside society have become blurred, and this counteracts the core concepts of what privacy really is. As such, the norm of privacy is totally outdated.