BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jesus is not the Messiah

Thank you, Wandile, for an engaging debate. It is truly an honor to debate someone as formidable and knowlegable as you. However, I do believe you have committed a fatal error in your previous round. Unfortunately, due to time restraints from vacations and final exams have not allowed me to fully refute your arguments. I am going to nail down a couple of stuff, though not everything. PLEASE NOTE: WHAT I HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO I AM NOT CONCEDING! C2: Jesus the false prophet My partner keeps insisting that Jesus only done away with the ORAL law: However, I can easily argue that the Oral Torah is as much from God as the written Torah (more on this later). Let's actually see if my partner's contention "Jesus was addressing the Kosher laws of the Oral Torah which are purely from men," is true.Jn 6:51I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.Jn 6:53Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.Jn 6:54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.Jn 6:55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.Jn 6:56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.Here, Jesus argues for the Cathoic doctrine of Transubtantiation. As my partner is part of the Catholic church, I imagine that he believes in this doctrine. It is clear that this is literal as they understood it to be such. Early Christians such as Irenaeus (Asia Minor, 140 - 202), Tertullian (Rome, 160 - 220), Cyprian (Carthage, 200 - 258) are just a few of the earliest who attest to the objective reality of the words of Christ. [1]The problem, of course, is that it is very clear that the Torah CONDEMNS drinking/eating blood: Leviticus 22:26-27: You shall not consume blood... from fowl or animal. Any soul that consumes blood will be cut off from his people. Leviticus 17:10-12: Any man of the House of Israel and of the proselyte who dwells among them, consume any blood -- I shall concentrate My attention upon the soul consuming blood, and I will cut it off from its people. Deuteronomy: 12:23: Only be strong as not to eat blood...To quote Rav Shimon Ben Azai: "if blood, which is so repulsive, needs such dire warnings surely one must take great precaution not to succumb to sins that are appealing." (Note that the Torah also condemns this in the Noahic covanent for Gentiles as well). I will respond to the rest in the next round. Due to finals, I humbly request that my partner wait until about 5 hours before the time runs out to submit his arguments, that way I can be sure to not forfeit. References1. http://www.catholicapologetics.org...
Jesus is not the Messiah

Resolution Jesus is not the messiah promised in the Old Testament. ClarificationThis debate is NOT about whether or not Jesus existed, rather, we will examine the claime that Jesus is the Messiah under the light of Jewish scriptures.Similar debates have been done here http://www.debate.org...Definitions You may disagree with these definitions and adopt your own, but the following definitions are offered to clarify the resolution as I have expressed it. "Jesus Christ" or "Jesus" is a proposed historical human being whose character began the myth of the character of Jesus in the Christian gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The historical "Jesus" has a biographical profile roughly corresponding to the profile of the character of Jesus in the gospels (i.e. home town of Nazareth, baptism by John the Baptist, traveling preacher, twelve disciples and crucifixion in Jerusalem). [1] A "messiah" is a term used for one who is anointed. The word "messiah" literally means an anointed one. [2] Positions of Opposing ContenderMy contender must show that either my arguments are false, or he may show that Jesus is indeed the Messiah. Rules Round 1 is acceptance only. Absolutely no ad hominem attacks: This will result in an automatic loss. Do not introduce new arguments in the last round. If you wish to forfeit, then please post it; do not let the time run out! I wish my partner the best of luck. ==References==1. For the definition of Jesus, please see ApostateAbe's unrelated debate here: http://www.debate.org...;2. http://www.aish.com...;
Topic that was agreed upon in a message

For those who don't know the topic is Euthanasia. I am for euthanasia and my opponent is against euthanasia. I will post three contentions 1. Euthanasia furthers human rights As a human being, I have a fundamental right to liberty. This means that I should be allowed to do anything I choose to that does not infringe on the rights of others. This is why I can get my hair cut however I want, I can live in whatever kind of house I want (assuming I have the money to do so), I can play sports, I can get an interesting (or not so interesting) job. Basically anything that doesn't hurt others is guaranteed to me by this right (in theory). Euthanasia, the conscious decision of a terminally ill person to have their life ended early to avoid more suffering is one of these rights. It does not harm anyone else, because I will soon die anyways, and the only thing that does not transpire because of my choice is the massive pain and suffering in the last days. If it does not harm anyone, it must be a right of mine, which means that we should be in favor of euthanasia. 2. Euthanasia is consistent with utilitarianism Utilitarianism, a consequentialist theory of morality that holds that people should follow the principle of utility, that is, the principle that our actions should maximize happiness and minimize pain. I won't go into the many benefits of utilitarianism, but I will say that it is the only rational theory of morality, in that any other theory would hold that it is possible for an action that causes more unhappiness than happiness is right, which is absurd. The terminally ill person has little happiness and much unhappiness in front of them. In order to maximize happiness and minimize pain, we should euthanize them in order to save them from the intense unhappiness later. 3. Euthanasia is often necessary Imagine you are driving on the highway, and suddenly, the driver of the tractor trailer ahead of you loses control, and drives his truck through the guard rail. You stop your car and run down to see if he's okay. You find him 10 yards away, with laceration all over his body, and some obviously broken limbs. He is going to die soon, within the hour. At this point he has enough strength to say "There's a revolver in the cab, kill me now, stop the pain, ugh..." The only merciful and the only moral course of action would be to go to the cab and take the revolver and shoot him. This is exactly what euthanasia is. It is required by mercy and by morality.
God exists

I will be arguing in this debate that the case for God is extensive and is most often underrated. I will be using science, philosophy and logic to form the foundations for my arguments for God. I am a Theist and my opponent should most likely be an atheist who denies the existence of God.Definitions :Universe - all of space, matter, time and energy God - The necessary, uncaused, omnimaximal, timeless, spaceless being. Exists - to have an objective being or existence. Rules : -no trolling -no forfeits -no semantics (tweaking definitions of the dictionary) Rounds : Round one - acceptance R2) arguments R3) Rebuttals + arguments R4) Rebuttals R5) Rebuttals BOP : Burden of proof will be shared. The opponent (who is most likely an atheist) will have to demonstrate that God does not exist. Since claiming that the natural reality is all that exists and that there is no supernatural reality is a claim. Whoever claims that God does not exist is making a negative claim and therefore should prove it. Proving a negative claim is possible because you can prove that there are no muslims in the U.S. senate, there are no dinosaurs on the face of the Earth, the sun does not orbit the Earth. all of those were negative claims that should and could be proven. The most logical position taken if you reject the claim that there is a God would be an agnostic, who claims that he simply does not know since you would still have no evidence for/against either sides. No arguments against religion shall be made since you could disprove all religions and you still would not undermine or even address the reliability of God.
God exists

Sure, I'm in. Sounds like fun. I wish you luck and hope for a good debate.I don't deny the existence of God, just as you don't deny the existence of Allah. As another note, please no presuppositionalism, or at least don't rely too heavily on it. I hate it when you provide an argument and then they say you can't use reason. At that point, it is hardly a debate. That's all I ask.
Girls Shouldn't Be Let into the Boy Scouts

A man is driving down the road and breaks down near a monastery. He goes to the monastery, knocks on the door, and says, My car broke down. Do you think I could stay the night? The monks graciously accept him, feed him dinner, even fix his car. As the man tries to fall asleep, he hears a very strange sound. The next morning, he asks the monks what the sound was, but they say, We can't tell you. You're not a monk. The man is disappointed but thanks them anyway and goes about his merry way. Some years later, The same man breaks down in front of the same monastery. The monks again accept him, feed him, and again fix his car. That night, he hears the same strange noise that he had heard years earlier. The next morning, he asks what it is, but the monks reply, We can't tell you. You're not a monk. The man says, All right, all right. I'm dying to know. If the only way I can find out what that sound was is to become a monk, how do I become a monk? The monks reply, You must travel the earth and tell us how many blades of grass there are and the exact number of sand pebbles, when you find these numbers, you will become a monk. The man sets about his task. Some 54 years later, he returns and knocks on the door of the monastery. He says, I have traveled the earth and have found what you have asked for. There are 145,236,284,232 blades of grass and 231,281,219,999,129,382 sand pebbles on the earth. The monks reply, Congratulations. You are now a monk. We shall now show you the way to the sound. The monks lead the man to a wooden door where the head monk says, The sound is right behind that door. The man reaches for the knob, but the door is locked. He says, Real funny. May I have the key? The monks give him the key, and he opens the door. Behind the wooden door is another door made of stone. The man demands the key to the stone door. The monks give him the key, and he opens it, only to find a door made of ruby. He demands another key from the monks, who provide it. Behind that door is another door, this one made of sapphire, And so it went until the man had gone through doors of emerald, silver, topaz, and amethyst. Finally, the monks say, This is the last key to the last door. The man is relieved to know that he has finally reached to the end . He unlocks the door, turns the knob, and behind that door he is amazed to find the source of that strange sound. But he can't tell you what it is because you're not a monk.
Girls Shouldn't Be Let into the Boy Scouts

In my area, it has been announced that they are accepting Girls Into the Boy Scouts. I find this kind ridiculous. I'm not discriminating against girls. Actually, I am one myself. But the Idea of a "Girl" Being Let into the "Boy" Scouts, its just stupid to me. I'm not stereotyping the genders or discriminating against either. I'm all for equal rights between both genders, its just it feels idiotic in that certain point. Whoever accepts my argument feel free to argue in the next round. Have fun! :)
God Exists

Rebuttals:I. "I disagree with Con's claim that "A rectangle" . .. Perhaps sometimes it is even obligatory or necessary. "Having different definitions throughout an argument (in this case, a rectangle referring to different rectangles throughout an argument) is a fallacy of equivocation and is always forbidden. It is so because of what you could do if it wasn't. By committing the equivocation fallacy, Pro came to the conclusion "All Propositions are True" which is clearly contradictory nonsense that demonstrates a flaw with using false equivocation. Pro can continue to claim he can commit a fallacy, but unless he can provide an example where committing a fallacy is absolutely necessary, he has no reason to suggest he can commit one. II. "In the comments section for this debate, Con has conceded my "argument isn't technically using different definitions of the same word, . .. . " I agree with what Con has conceded. "Pro fails to realize that my comment was in response to a flawed rebuttal and is no longer applicable to my refutation of his argument. I missed the punch, but the "Rectangles Argument" committed a non sequitur fallacy instead of a fallacy of equivocation - opposed to what I originally thought in my flawed rebuttal. Since Pro has pointed out that the "Rectangles Argument" still didn't represent his argument, that specific refutation made to his argument is no longer relevant (and it follows that my comment is also no longer relevant). Pro invoking my comment serves no purpose. III. "Perhaps in this case, the benefits of overriding the Equivocation Fallacy outweigh the drawbacks. "Pro fails to realize that the drawback is that his argument is invalid and his conclusion is meaningless. A fallacy is called a fallacy for a reason: it prevents weird contradictions in logic (like Pro's premise) which are not allowed. IV. "I agree with that nonimplication . .. the popularity of the convention does seem to suggest the convention is correct. "Pro argues that it doesn't matter that his argument commits an appeal to popularity because it commits an appeal to popularity. His original point on convention is still irrelevant. V. "I like the convention very much, and it has my own approval. "I like unicorns very much, and they have my own approval. Does saying this make unicorns real? No. Pro's personal opinion of an argument does not affect the validity of the argument. This is a non sequitur fallacy. Final Remarks:This debate was interesting, and I thank Pro for having it with me. :)I apologize if my writing is strange at times. I revise it to make sure it is as accurate as I can make it in a short time, but I know I'm not the best writer. Voters: Pro has failed to support his "All Propositions are True" premise so his argument for a god's existence fails. The resolution has failed to be affirmed.
God Exists

I disagree with Con's claim that "A rectangle" is not allowed to have more than one meaning at the same time. Con continues to cite the Equivocation Fallacy. Having multiple senses for the same word or phrase may sometimes be forbidden. However, it seems that sometimes it is permitted. Perhaps sometimes it is even obligatory or necessary. In the comments section for this debate, Con has conceded my "argument isn't technically using different definitions of the same word, ... ." I agree with what Con has conceded. The same definition of "A rectangle" is being used at all times. One possible definition for "A rectangle" is "A quadrilateral with four interior right angles." So, Con himself doubts that the Equivocation Fallacy applies in this case.Perhaps in this case, the benefits of overriding the Equivocation Fallacy outweigh the drawbacks.Con suggests I'm fallaciously appealing to popularity. Con suggests the nonimplication "A convention for expressing propositions is popular does not imply it is correct" is true. I agree with that nonimplication. However, in this case, given the context and my knowledge of the world, the popularity of the convention does seem to suggest the convention is correct.Not only is the contested convention for expressing propositions popular, but it agrees with my own personal experience. It has worked very well in my life. I like the convention very much, and it has my own approval. It may have Con's approval, for all I know. Con may have used or be using the convention in his own high school geometry class or in his own work, without any conscientious objection to the convention.Despite three rounds of refutation from Con, Con has failed to sufficiently rebut my premise that all propositions are true. My opening argument and its conclusion that a theistic god exists remain intact. Therefore, a theistic god exists.
God Exists

Rebuttals:I. "'A rectangle' is allowed to take on multiple senses simultaneously." No, it is not. When you use "a rectangle" to refer to more than a singular object (or a defined group of objects), you are commiting the fallacy of equivocation. (This time in the literal sense regarding definitions.) Since different rectangles have different properties, you are not allowed to use more than one as definitions for "a rectangle". Using them as such would mean the argument is referring to different things at different points within the syllogism which is the fallacy of equivocation.II. "That flexibility agrees with common use, as is exhibited by the aforementioned editions of geometry textbooks."This is an appeal to popularity and is therefore irrelevant.Conclusion:Pro has failed to support his "All Propositions are True" premise so his argument for a theistic god's existence fails. The resolution has yet to be affirmed.
God Exists

"A rectangle" is referring to a singular rectangle in my argument. It is not referring to all rectangles; it is referring to one rectangle."A rectangle is a square" is not equivalent to "all rectangles are squares." The former proposition is sometimes true, but the latter proposition is never true.Neither is "a rectangle is a square" equivalent to "some rectangles are squares." The first proposition is sometimes but not always true, while the latter is always true.Thirdly, "a rectangle is a square" is not equivalent to "every rectangle is a square." The former is sometimes true, but the latter is never true.Fourthly, "a rectangle is a square" is not equivalent to "each rectangle is a square." The first is sometimes true, but the second is never true.What "a rectangle is a square" is equivalent to is "one rectangle is a square." A rectangle is a square if and only if one rectangle is a square. Both propositions are sometimes but not always true.I am not committing the Equivocation Fallacy on the grounds that "A rectangle," as mentioned in the proposition "A rectangle is a square," does not have to always refer to the same rectangle. "A rectangle" is allowed to take on multiple senses simultaneously. That flexibility agrees with common use, as is exhibited by the aforementioned editions of geometry textbooks.
God Exists

Clarification:This new rebuttal is in response to the same argument used by Pro to support his "All Propositions are True" premise, but I'm rewriting it because I was apparently unaware of what he meant by "a rectangle". This new rebuttal should now properly refute his argument.Rebuttals:I. The Rectangles ArgumentInstead of "a rectangle" referring to a singular rectangle in this argument, Pro contends that "a rectangle" is referring to all rectangles.In the Rectangles Argument, Pro contends that "a rectangle" (i.e., all rectangles) is a square. He then contends that some rectangles are squares and some are not so the proposition is both true and false.I will write his argument as a syllogism so as to highlight his reasoning:1. A rectangle (i.e., all rectangles) is a square.2. Some rectangles are squares so premise 1 is true.3. Some rectangles are not squares so premise 1 is false.C. Therefore, premise 1 is both true and false.As you can see from the syllogistic form of his argument, Pro is falsely trying to equivocate all rectangles with some rectangles (specifically those that are and are not squares) in his second and third premises. By doing so, Pro arrived at a contradictory conclusion. If Pro were to avoid this strange and false equivocation, then he would quickly realize that premise 1 is simply false.Like the "Rectangle Argument", my misunderstanding of the "Rectangles argument", this argument commits the fallacy of equivocation (see Source 1) and is therefore logically invalid.ConclusionPro has made no progress supporting his "All Propositions are True" premise (and has instead only moved me to a different - yet the same - fallacy) so his argument for a god's existence still fails. The resolution has yet to be affirmed.Sources “Equivocation Fallacy.” Logical Fallacies, www.logicalfallacies.info/ambiguity/equivocation/.
God Exists

Con claims that "A rectangle," as mentioned in the proposition p = "A rectangle is a square," refers to "a rectangle that is not a square" or "a rectangle that is a square," but not both. I disagree with his claim. It is not required that "A rectangle" refer to one and only one rectangle. All that is required of "A rectangle" is that it refer to "one rectangle." In mathematics, and technically, in ordinary language, "one" does not mean "one and only one." Sometimes "one" indicates "at least one." For example, if there are five peaches on a table, then there is also one peach on the table. As another example, if a triangle has three congruent sides, then it also has two congruent sides. In the case of proposition p, "A rectangle" refers to at least one rectangle. In p, no further information is given as to what "A rectangle" is referring to. As a result, "A rectangle" applies to every rectangle simultaneously. For that reason, "A rectangle" simultaneously refers to every rectangle. That is how propositions of the same form as p are commonly used in geometry. I have at least seven geometry textbooks, including two that I believe are copies of the same title and edition and two others that I believe are copies of two different, more recent editions of that same title. I believe at least six of the textbooks use propositions of the same form as p throughout the books. One edition of one of those titles, the edition I believe I have two copies of, is Geometry (2004) authored by Ron Larson, Laurie Boswell, and Lee Stiff, and copyrighted by McDougal Littell, a division of Houghton Mifflin Company. I believe it is the same title and edition I was afforded as a freshman in high school during the 2005-2006 academic year. That edition is my most favorite book. It is perhaps the most important and influential book of my entire life. I have highly respected it for over 11 years. I believe none of those six books are wrong.