BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible does not have contradictions

Thanks for this debate. My opponent failed to provide any definitions so I will do so. I. DefinitionsA. The Bible: The 66 books of the Protestant Bible (not including apocrypha). B. Contradiction: a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions (Wikipedia). With that, let's start. II. Who was the Father of Joseph? A. The father of Joseph was Jacob: Matthew 1:16 “and Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. ”B. The father of Joseph was Heil. Luke 3:23 “Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli”Genealogy is very important. According to Jewish law, the father determines the tribal status of the child. For example, if the mother is from the Tribe of Judah and the father is from the tribe of Levi, the child is considered to be a Levi. However, the mother determines the Jewish status of the child. If the mother is not Jewish and the father is Jewish, then the child is not Jewish. Christians claim that Jesus was the Messiah. According to the Prophets, the Messiah had to be a direct descendant of King David and also King Solomon (see II Samuel 7:16). Luke’s genealogy goes through Nathan, not Solomon. Thus, if Luke’s genealogy is correct, then Jesus is not the Messiah. The genealogies have even more problems as you continue and they contradict even the Old Testament's genealogies. Contradiction 2: Where was Jacob burried? A. In a cave at Machpelah: Gen. 50:13, "for his sons carried him to the land of Canaan and buried him in the cave of the field at Machpelah, to the east of Mamre, which Abraham bought with the field from Ephron the Hittite to possess as a burying place. " B. In a sepulchre at Sychem: Acts 7:15-16, "And Jacob went down into Egypt, and he died, he and our fathers, 16 and they were carried back to Shechem and laid in the tomb that Abraham had bought for a sum of silver from the sons of Hamor in Shechem. " There are actually two contradictions here. One is dealing with where the patriarchs were burried, the other one is who the tombs were bought from. Contradiction 3: The date of Jesus' birthAs Paul Carlson notes: "According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death. " (. http://infidels.org...) ConclusionGoing back to the definition of a contradiction, it is clear the Bible contradicts itself. One of these propositions has to be false which negates the resolution.
christianity is a force for good in the world

Where to begin in the long list of atrocities caused by the catholic church in the name of the church, I think I'll begin at the turn of the 21st century where this evil institution has admitted that they committed wrongdoing through pope John Paul II long list of apologies on the 12th of March 2000 the 'day of apology'; the pope begged forgiveness for, among some other things, the crusades, the Inquisition, the persecution of the Jewish people, injustice towards women (that"s half the human race right there), forced conversion of indigenous peoples especially in South America, the African slave trade, the admission that Galileo was right, and for silence during Hitler"s Final Solution (1). This is an appalling admission of guilt made by the church of unspeakable heinous crimes that in many instances cannot be forgiven. And even after this day there is still many issues the church still needs to apologise for such as condemning homosexuals to death, advocating against one of the best techniques we have in curing certain illness with stem cell research and to many more to name. But don't worry their evil coward ways do not stop there, that very same pope john paul II on 15 November 1989, addressed the 4th International Conference of the 'Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Health Care Workers' said and I quote " it seems profoundly damaging to the dignity of the human being, and for this reason morally illicit, to support a prevention of AIDS that is based on a recourse to means and remedies that violate an authentically human sense of sexuality, and which are a palliative to the deeper suffering which involve the responsibility of individuals and of society" (2) in summary his point is AIDS are bad but not as bad as condoms a gross and ignorant statement. In September 1990, John Paul II visited the small town of Mwanza, in northern Tanzania, and gave a speech that many believe set the tone for the AIDS crisis in Africa saying that condoms were a sin in any circumstance (3) I have to ask the question how many millions of people this would have killed in the catholic parts of Africa? Im sorry im new and don't quite know how to cite so ive done my best this way with citations to websites below in numerical order: (1)https://books.google.com.au... (2) https://erikbuys.wordpress.com... (3) http://historynewsnetwork.org...
In the West, men look at women as a sexual object

Well, Julia5678, Thank you for the opportunity to debate this topic with you. I believe that you are making a number of false assumptions in your opening assertions. Much of what you are saying can easily be corrected with a few lessons in logic. You switch, somewhat irrationally and illogically, back and forth between what a so-called "liberated" woman can do in some western societies and what men must do. That is completely fallacious and unwarranted. Men do not have to do anything and neither do women. In western societies, they are free, unlike in many other despotic regimes where they are forced to do certain things. The logical fallacies here are so obvious that you state that a girlfriend "can" do certain things and then jump to the false conclusion that men have to do certain things in response. Your last paragraph is truly stupefying. Women "make" men do things in your odd world-view. Really? Can you psychologically explain how a woman compels a man to do something? The logic here is so far-fetched and you have a great deal of explaining to do but I am patient. Please show "cause-and-effect" reasoning, if it is true that a women can force and compel a man to do some particular act. Just to clarify, you will be arguing that women who are not fully clothed and veiled according to Islamic tradition are compelling men (who have mysteriously lost any choice or free-will) to look at them as sex objects. I will happily argue the contrary.
In the West, men look at women as a sexual object

Today in some societies, particularly in the West a woman can walk semi-naked in public, swim topless, patronize bars and clubs, smoke, drink, dance in discos and have sex with anybody she feels like.She can even serve her boyfriend, like an unpaid prostitute, and be free to murder her unborn baby if she falls pregnant. She can also compete in the business world by using her body to promote commercial commodities. At the end of the day she will be regarded as a truly 'liberated' woman. Look at the glossy cover of any magazine or advertisements on TV and newspaper, you will find that most of these advertisements have scantily dressed women in alluring poses to attract the attention of men. This proves that the Western society considers woman only as a sex symbol. A truly liberated woman always dresses decently and modestly. A true woman will never degrade her body and sell her dignity to the highest bidder. No woman is truly liberated if she is still the slave of her wayward conscience, bodily lust or infidelity. But as we see in the West, women show off their bodies and make men look at them as a sexual object. Does this facf respect women and give them high status?
it is more probable that aliens exist than not

My opponent only offered one point in his conclusion (an unnecessary clarification) so I will address this point within my short conclusion. Pro presented a debate and made a positive claim so the burden clearly rests on him. The bottom line: He did not support the claim. The debate concerns whether aliens are more or less likely to exist. My negative position is simple: We do not know enough about the formation of life to conclude the likelihood of life on other planets, yet. Stating that life is more likely without a framework for the formation of life was not supported in this debate. I asked Pro to provide justification for this conclusion, but he never provided the framework for us to consider. I am well aware of the debate topic and my case has been little more than asking for support. Pro simply did not provide it. I had little to counter. Until we know more about the formation of life, we are remiss in declaring the likelihood of the process. We just need to do some more work and that work is in progress. As of today; however, Pro's position cannot stand. Thank you for the fun debate and welcome to DDO. Sherlockmethod.
it is more probable that aliens exist than not

During this debate, me and my opponent have been arguing whether it is more probable that aliens exist than not. Not that we have proof they exist or that they even do. The question is, which is more likely, for us to be alone in the cosmos or that somewhere else there is life? 1) Goldilocks Zone Because we know that planets do lie in the Goldilocks Zone, there is a chance life could exist at any one of these worlds, and out of all the worlds, it is less likely for us to be alone. 2) Time Because the universe is billions of years old, it is most likely that some other planets have gone through the process to form life.
it is more probable that aliens exist than not

I will respond to my opponent's points and conclude next round 1.Goldilocks zones: I defined this term for DDO voters and I fully concede that Goldilocks zones exist. These are planets that may or may not be in an ideal location to have surface water. As I stated, we do not know what all the elements are for some type of life formation…yet. As such we should not conclude the likelihood of life on other planets. I have already addressed this point. 2."[I]t would make sense that at some time, (past, present, or future) for we are talking about billions of years after all, that life would have come into existance (sic) else where not on planet earth." Until we know the outline of the process this statement is without warrant. I made this point in my last round. 3."My opponent has stated that no 2 planets will be alike. Why not?" I linked an article referencing binary stars to show that two celestial objects can be very similar, but not identical. I never stated that two planets cannot be alike, only that they are not identical. We do not know what all the elements are for life formation (we don't know if Goldilocks zones are the best place to look) [1] ; I agree that surface water is a good place to start, but I cannot bring myself to make a conclusion at this point. My point is the differences in our planet's history and current condition may be the key. Again, we simply do not know. 4."It is most likely that there are planets that look incrediblely (sic) similiar (sic) to earth." Why, Pro? And if such planets exist, they exist in the Goldilocks Zone, but we cannot tell if the differences are the key. Must a planet be merely similar? If so, what differences are allowed? We just don't know. I am, as stated in round 1, presenting a purely negative case. I am forcing Pro to support his claim and going into the conclusions, I cannot say that he has, but I love this debate. Good luck in your final round, Pro! 1.http://en.wikipedia.org...
it is more probable that aliens exist than not

I see now that because the burden of proof is on me, I will not win this argument. However I will not simply stop arguing because that wouldn't be Irish of me. 1) Goldilocks Zone My opponent has already helped me define this term. We know for a fact that in our solar system alone 2 planets exist in the Goldilocks Zone, earth and mars. Both of the planets have water (on mars it is ice), which is the number one thing all known life requires. If the 2 planets in our Goldilocks Zone harbor water, why shouldn't at least a few hundred thousand other planets in Goldilocks Zones across the cosmos also have water? Some planets surfaces are probably all liquid water. 2) Formation of life While we do not know that is the actual case of life on earth there are many theories, many my opponent has kindly mentioned. Some also believe in Panspermia, in which life originated in the cosmos. No matter the cause for life on earth, there is no reason to believe that it would be limited to only 1 planet. No matter what theory you believe, aside from God, it would make sense that at some time, (past, present, or future) for we are talking about billions of years after all, that life would have come into existance else where not on planet earth. 3) Planets My opponent has stated that no 2 planets will be alike. Why not? We are talking about billions and billions of planets, some are bond to be similiar, just as some are unimaginable different. There is a huge cosmic sea, and only so many elements. It is most likely that there are planets that look incrediblely similiar to earth.
it is more probable that aliens exist than not

I agree with Con that my argument in round 1 was vague to say the least. I agree upon his terms of aliens. 1) Statistically impossible It is statistically impossible for there to be only one planet out of the trillions to have any form of life on it. The cosmos is littered with galaxies, each one littered with stars, ranging in age on a cosmic scale. Some stars have planets revolving around them, most of which are huge gas planets like our Saturn. But some planets fall into what is called the Goldilocks Zone, where life, according to earth standards, could exist. I also add this though, what about moons? The gas planets in our solar system have many moons, ranging to size from a small rock to a small planet. If our gas planets have moons, why not others in the cosmos? These moons could also have a possibility to harbor life. 2) Formation of life It is mostly agreed upon that life sprang up from primordial goo, when molecules were colliding into each other at random and over millions of years, by chance, life came into existence because of a lucky combination. If this theory is true, why shouldn't this happen all over the cosmos? Why is it limited to one planet? It took millions of years for this to happen on earth, but the cosmos has been around for billions of years. Stars range in age in the billions of years some times. An older solar system has an even longer time to go through the stage for life to come from non-life. For this reason, not only is it more probable that aliens exist than that they don't, but it is also likely that some where else in the cosmos, an older civilization is out there, and they are much smarter than we could even comprehend.
it is more probable that aliens exist than not

I will deal with a few semantic issues first: Aliens: Pro specifically said planet earth in his opening statement so he cannot wish to show that "aliens" in regards to illegal aliens in a certain country satisfy his definition. So for the purposes of my response the term "alien" (left undefined by my opponent) should be an organism existing on a planet other than earth. This organism need not be intelligent. I see no need to determine the fine line between life and non life as that is another debate. I leave to my opponent whether he would consider a virus to satisfy his position. Stipulations: I support the evidence that life can arise by natural processes and has done so on our planet. I will take a complete negative position for this debate. Point 1: Aliens most likely exist Rebuttal: Show me. Point 2: Statistically impossible Rebuttal: I do not know what Pro means by statistically impossible in reference to this debate so I ask for a definition. What is/is not statistically impossible concerning a process that we cannot fully define at this point in our knowledge? This debate is four rounds so I will reserve my negative case for Pro's first presentation. Bring your best stuff and you should come out on top, but my position will be a negative one in the respect that we cannot determine the statistical impossibility of a process that we are currently unfamiliar with at this moment in time.
Was it racist for Zack and Trini to be the Black and Yellow Power Rangers.

I mean for example zack is a black man, and it sounds like you mean it's being exaggerated by making him the black ranger. So it's that you think there's negativeness in black skin and it's being exaggerated. I mean the black suit looks way cool there isn't anything negative about black skin in the first place. It's an individual who sees black negatively not that it is universally.
Was it racist for Zack and Trini to be the Black and Yellow Power Rangers.

Simple as, Tommy being the white ranger is then something stereotypical. If that's not considered why is zack and trini being black and Oriental even considered when choosing those to be the power rangers. I bet you'd argue that there from minority races in America where whites do more well and this stresses stereotypes. That would be seeing blacks and orientals negatively in the first place. When there is no inferiority to see the stereotype isn't emphasised. It would just be a coincidence. Next thing I'll bet you'd argue is that it's too much of an obvious choice which I get again STEREOTYPICAL. Maybe it just suits I mean it's aimed at kids whose daily lives aren't even as complex as adults so maybe it's just to keep it simple.
Was it racist for Zack and Trini to be the Black and Yellow Power Rangers.

If you mean by etymolgies black has negative connotations it's about individuals supporting that themselves or not. It's more about dark being depressing not dark skin. People love darkness, the night sky, space, a dark room to sleep in... Sci-fi has dark colour schemes. Who are these type of white loving weirdo black folks anyway, nobody has this around London, it's an odd thing white skins better. You seem like this type, someone who thinks white skins better and dark skins worse. Where have you heard this, in somewhere like India, what uncool weirdos.
Smoking Ban

As my first real debate, I'd like to discuss why I am for the smoking ban. As I am PRO, I am in favor of a smoking ban, while CON will be against a smoking ban. If CON wants any definitions I will be happy to give one, however I believe all terms used thus far are self explanatory. I would like to thank anyone who accepts this challenge. Considering I am a complete noob at debating forgive me if I make mistakes. Burden of proof is shared. Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Arguments (no refutations or rebuttals by PRO or CON) Round 3: Refutations/rebuttals (no new arguments by PRO or CON) Maybe I'll learn something new from this debate! :) Thanks in advance to whomever will accept. PLEASE DO NOT FORFEIT. I also urge CON to read all sources. In return, I will do the same. PLEASE ONLY ACCEPT IF YOU AGREE TO ALL OF THESE TERMS AND AGREEMENTS. THANK YOU.
Smoking Ban

I would like to clear this again: we are not debating whether cigarettes are healthy, but whether total ban is the solution to smoking problems. Rebuttals Okay. Given that you believe that total ban on cigarettes is the solution to smoking problems, but I tell it is not so. It would just create more problems as history had taught us especially during the Prohibition period in the United States where there was a ban on selling and consumption of alcohol. Like Volstead law (ban on alcohol), your proposal of total ban on cigarettes would just create disrespect for the law. As Abraham Lincoln said, “Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man’s appetite by legislation and makes crimes out of things that are not crimes.” Another, it would just create black market and organized syndicates selling unregulated cigarettes. This is very dangerous to the people. Remember: where there is demand, there will be supply. It would also overburdened police, courts, and the penal system. Total ban on cigar, like in the Volstead law, would also harm people financially, emotionally, and morally. Lastly, like ban on alcohol, total ban on cigarettes would prevent from seeking help those people are suffering from disease caused by smoking. Reasons why you failed in this debate:1. History will repeat itself with your proposition. Look what happened during the prohibition period.2. Your idea is so drastic.3. Your expected results are uncertain.4. You failed to consider moderate solutions like increasing tax on cigars and promoting healthy lifestyle.5. All the sources you cited about the hazard of smoking are irrelevant because we are not debating whether smoking is healthy or not. This debate is about the total ban which you underachieve.
Smoking Ban

To simplify the debate: Pro wants to ban all forms of smoking in no specific place. This means that the idea alone of smoking must be banned. With your first point which concerns the health of all the smokers, I would say that that is fact. No one can say that smoking is healthy, because clearly it is not. But the questions are: Is total ban the solution to this social problem? Can total ban really be effective? Is this proposed solution realistic or even possible? Questions above will be answered later. I personally believe that smoking is dangerous to health. I hate smokers because they destroy their lives, the lives of others, the environment, and many others. But the solution of total ban is a wrong move. All the arguments that you presented in this debate are useless. We are not debating whether smoking is healthy or dangerous. It’s a fact that smoking is dangerous. So, do not expect me or anyone to debate that smoking is good to your health. I rather would debate the idea of a total ban that you proposed. The idea of total ban is that the manufacturing, selling, and consuming of cigarettes in all forms and whether public or private must be prohibited, otherwise face imprisonment. This sounds not a good idea. The total ban of cigarettes is not good for many reasons. First, it would have a severe negative economic impact. Those people who work in that industry would lose their jobs. Also, the government can no longer collect tax revenues from legitimate tobacco manufacturers. Instead, black markets of cigarettes will occur that the government would not be able to tax. Having said that, the economy will suffer. Second, countless people would go to jail because they cannot stop their addiction. Smoking is addiction. Many people tried to stop smoking but they failed. Banning smoking would not stop that addiction, but it would only made them find a way to acquire cigarettes in a black market. They will continue to smoke because it has been their way of life. Hiding in a place that they will not be caught by police is what they will do. A life of a drug addict or criminal afraid of police is what they will acquire. With that, many of them would be imprisoned which would also result to an overcrowded jails. What we need to do to help smokers get away with their addiction is to increase tobacco tax and encourage and promote healthy life, not your proposed total ban which is very hard to implement and would have grave personal and economic impact. Thank you.
Athiest's Are Illogical

I feel my case is strong enough to withhold any further arguments at this time. I have shown that my opponent's arguments for theism are on shaky ground and that Christians necessarily believe in at least one contradiction and circular reasoning. Accordingly, we must conclude that "Christians are illogical" is a more truthful statement than "Atheists are illogical," which is what was decided in the comments section would be the criterion for judging this debate. I hope my opponent has not simply given up on this debate, as I am enjoying it greatly.