BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Contradictions and inconsistencies in the hypocritical bible

So much for having a respectful argument, Insult me all you want I don"t really care. I"ll go down adressing your arguments as they come up. I didn"t say that it was you who made it was part of your argument so I assumed you agreed with it which I wasn"t wrong was I and I just used the first verse as an example (even stated it) and was planning on explaining more as the argument countinied so before claiming I can"t read (in an insulting way or not) try to think about what I was trying to state. Let us not forget that you didn"t even mention my argument that confusion in the definition and wording because different languages have more or less meanings for a English word for example for this would be a word like kill in Hebrew. The only way for god to make something that would never be evil is to make a being that wouldn"t have a choice and that would be evil wouldn't it to make something that is essentially your slave a robot that would do anything they are told. If you create a different being that can love you have to give them a choice Argo they have to have free will you can"t get out of that it"s a package deal. To stay omnipotent all he would have to know is the outcome of the choices. Your argument for evil at the end the why does evil exist is quite simply be answered using the argument above there is a loophole he would contradict his nature if he did anything else but allowed choice. Now note I don"t claim to understand or speak for god I claim that there are ways in which a god could exist. I don"t believe I have made the best argument ever, I don"t believe I have all the answers, Your right I am young, And I believe I am not the most qualified person ever to argue either side. I just wanted to see your opinions against mine no need for name calling please try to be respectful it may help your point.
Contradictions and inconsistencies in the hypocritical bible

First off if you plan to type verses actually quote the verse, Because anyone can rephrase a quote so it sounds worse than what it is the verses are your opinion of verses not the verses themselves. Example your first verse GE 1:31 should be "God saw all that he had made, And it was very good. And there was evening, And there was morning. " And the verse that you say contradicts it is GE 1:31 "The LORD saw how great wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, And that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was evil all the time. " Explain to me how this contradicts anything he of course is satisfied with his general creation and having omnipotence does not change the fact he was disappointed in humanity. If you give someone free will you have to allow them to make choices meaning god could purposefully allow multiple choices to happen if only one thing could be chosen there is no free will and god could know all the different choices and still be omnipotent. Example I have the choice of to help an old lady across the street or let her limp across if that choice was already decided than I have no free will. Of course there are points where there are misinterpreting or look strange like since they were many words for a certain word in the main dialect and only one word in English creating something that looks contradictory. If there Is some contradiction men wrote the Bible saying that men will never make a mistake or put there own interpretation into there book of the Bible is ridiculous for either side. Also if you"re trying to prove atheism or disprove god I suggest you try a different argument since this won"t do much as an actual argument against god. If you want a good argument for god take into affected that atheism has essentially no proof which if you want I would be happy to explain further if you allow me (please don"t immediately write me off before hearing my opinion thank you).
Voting For Oneself Should Be Allowed on DDO

No one needs to explain their vote in politics. CON is wholly mistakenI think my opponent is thinking in terms of a civilian voter, as opposed to the positions of the politicians themselves, in which case, we are at a mis-understanding. if anything, I have advocated for regulation of bias via SSS. CON does not have a counterargument, only opinion.Con has this debate slightly getting confusing as the above statement suggests that bias is thus a problem to some extent requiring "regulation", however in this statement:This debate is about REMOVING the ban on bias, Suggests bias is not a problem justifying the means of removing it's ban. The line on bias drawn by my opponent seems to be too slippery, and has me doubting whether an SSS is really more of a solution. Why go through the effort of implementing it? What positive change to voting can this possibly impact in a way that can't already be affected?I do not see a presented problem with anything in 5. The debaters for these great debates would have incentive to attract a greater audience pool to vote for their debates. If their debates really are that great, then it will create a word-of-mouth effect, and will cascade into more votes. Right now most people are afraid of bias. That is an unwarranted fear.The explanation behind how an SSS will acheive the "word of mouth" effect any better than that effect is already being implemented remains lost on me. The fear of bias should be shut down with the current rules implementation, as my opponent promptly stated himself in better wording. Again, this really seems to come down to my opponents view on bias, which seems to be skewed at the moment. CON has not addressed the meaninglessness inherent in the current system Niether, do I feel, has pro.Conlcusion I don't feel like this debate is really over, and I would definitely be willing to continue discussion in a forum somewhere where we can get some more avenues of opinion on the topic. As far as dropping points, realize this is a 3,000 character debate. I feel like my arguments encompassed most of the impacts, but my opponents accusation of my arguments being "dogma and opinion" are slightly mis-represented. This entire "debate" isn't really a debate, nor was it ever. I am not specifically against people voting for themselves yet, but I have yet to have seen an argument to convince me that voting for oneself should be once again allowed. Then a lot of this "debate" needs discerning between the impact of voting for oneself, and a change in the voting system itself. The link between the two would be required to properly establish why removing the rule is neccesary absent of all the philosophy. I invite further discussion on this subject elsewhere, so we can more properly discuss and adress specific points of impact. Thanks for a good discussion!
Voting For Oneself Should Be Allowed on DDO

Final Rebuttal1) CON: "I am seeing a major contradiction. My opponent in R2, stated that bias was existent in all voting actions, yet is using it as an argument about whether or not to change the rule. However even in an SSS, bias will have to be present..."This is not a contradiction. A SSS accounts for bias. We should remove the rule banning bias. That's been my stance since round #1.2) CON: "Where my opponent is wrong, is where he asserts that we agree that just the score itself is important. The score needs justification, to properly fit the standards that debaters look to. Such is true in politics as well."No one needs to explain their vote in politics. CON is wholly mistaken.3) CON: " To be specific, this debate is about banning anything."This debate is about REMOVING the ban on bias, and thus allow voting for oneself.4) CON: "If I were to suggest to Juggle to remove this standard, I would need a good proper reason that outweighed the pro's and the con's of doing so. So far I have only seen the con's, and some decent arguments against enforcing regulation itself, which is counter-productive."Then CON has ignored or misunderstood most of my case. CON does not elaborate on what he means by "decent arguments against enforcing regulation," making it impossible to argue the point - if anything, I have advocated for regulation of bias via SSS. CON does not have a counterargument, only opinion. 5) CON: "If RFD's weren't present, they may not of read the debate and could have done one of the historic seven pointers that many of the veteran debaters are notorious for."a) I do not advocate removing RFDs.b) If people want to leave an RFD, then implementing a thumbs up standard, as I advocated in round #3, would give them incentive to do so.c) I would make one vote = one point, period. The RFD can still contain all of the categories that may explain the vote. This is consistent with my advocacy of RFD =/= score.6) CON: " I have seen great debates go weeks, with only one or two votes on them (sometimes less)."This is EXACTLY what the SSS is attempting to solve. The debaters for these great debates would have incentive to attract a greater audience pool to vote for their debates. If their debates really are that great, then it will create a word-of-mouth effect, and will cascade into more votes. Right now most people are afraid of bias. That is an unwarranted fear.7) CON: "The system in place seems to suit most debaters needs just fine."CON has not addressed the meaninglessness inherent in the current system.8) CON: "Either way, I don't see the SSS as an argument to allowing members to vote for themselves."See #6.ConclusionI do believe CON has misinterpreted a good deal of my case. Argumentatively speaking, CON dropped most of my arguments in his prior round and instead rendered judgment without debate. This renders CON's statements to be dogma and opinion.I welcome further analysis/debate on this issue, especially point #6.
Voting For Oneself Should Be Allowed on DDO

BiasI am seeing a major contradiction. My opponent in R2, stated that bias was existent in all voting actions, yet is using it as an argument about whether or not to change the rule. However even in an SSS, bias will have to be present if what was said in R2 was true. This is why I was basically taking realism into the philosophy behind his argument. Realistically, the system we have in place works well because it suits the human psyche's needs of establishing a "fair" voting premise. Where my opponent is wrong, is where he asserts that we agree that just the score itself is important. The score needs justification, to properly fit the standards that debaters look to. Such is true in politics as well.RFD VS ScoreThe initial direction I think Pro has gone with the beginning of this point, is counter-productive really. To be specific, this debate is about banning anything. Someone else has already made the decision to put the rule on voting for onself in place, this debate is about revoking that rule. So I will agree with my opponent that as far as trying to regulate things, we should be careful on how we do so, and why it is important to do so. However, the purpose of this debate is to actually repeal something already set in place, to which point I am not really seeing much reason why. If I were to suggest to Juggle to remove this standard, I would need a good proper reason that outweighed the pro's and the con's of doing so. So far I have only seen the con's, and some decent arguments against enforcing regulation itself, which is counter-productive. We simply cannot outlaw bias...that would be the same as outlawing eating. Bias will always exist, but I remain unconvinced that with standards set in place discouraging it, that it will be so much of an issue. For example, I have seen many people vote against the side that suits their originaly ideology, to support who they thought did better. If RFD's weren't present, they may not of read the debate and could have done one of the historic seven pointers that many of the veteran debaters are notorious for. Because the standard we have set in place is important though, members will go out of their way to meet it, because before, a debate wouldn't show the victor.SSS Ultimately, I feel the SSS isn't something that realistically will work as good as the current system. I have seen great debates go weeks, with only one or two votes on them (sometimes less). There is a certain point when people stop caring. Even then, we used to have voting periods that would last indefinitely (some debates still have these rules in effect). At some point, both debaters simply stop caring. The system in place seems to suit most debaters needs just fine. Either way, I don't see the SSS as an argument to allowing members to vote for themselves.
Voting For Oneself Should Be Allowed on DDO

BiasB2) PRO/CON agree that "the score not reflect bias" is a rule and not a bias, and I will consider CON to have dropped his point that "the community and society here have a bias already set in place," because what he called a bias is actually a rule. Should this rule change? That is the core contention at this point.B3) PRO/CON agree that the best option is what's best for the community. What's best for the community is for the score (i.e. result of a debate) to achieve significance and meaning. Currently they do not. At best they reflect the opinions of a handful of people, a handful of biased people that is not a SSS.RFD vs Score (and Learning also)RS4) CON delves into an excellent, succinct analysis on human nature, and PRO/CON agree that "winning is everything" is a prevalent and justifiable mindset.RS5) CON: "The need to win can still be satisfied, but [outlawing bias in voting] does help reduce the "negative" outlook that already exists on bias, and vote bombing." I disagree. I believe current rules actually exacerbate the negative outlook on bias, by turning bias into a sin. Similarly, rules banning witches, homosexuality, etc exacerbated the negative outlook on those respective groups. We should do away with "banning bias" utilizing similar reasoning as to why banning such categories is counterproductive. Perhaps some regulations on bias would be proper, just like regulating occult activities, sexual practices (no lewd acts in public, for example - I'm not implying anything about homosexuals, just sexuality in general, apologies for the potential implication), etc can be seen as proper. That is where my SSS solution becomes relevant - we control for bias via SSS. We simply cannot outlaw bias...that would be the same as outlawing eating. It's simply something we do...yet something we can regulate to stave off potential negative effects (food pyramids, nutrition labels, etc).Votebombing complaints are an unavoidable by-product of the drive to win, and are irrelevant to my advocacy. I only seek to address bias.RS6) PRO/CON agree that "The win or the loss...is what many people care about." The win/loss must also have significance. Currently it does not, hence my advocacy of SSS. If the score is meaningless, so are the statistics that stem from it, such as leaderboards and what not. Such meaninglessness undermines the entire system.RS7) CON: "The point many members feel [the score] should be, is to gather external feedback..."The point of any scored debate is to win. You win through expression of bias by voters, including yourself. This is the score, and is separate from feedback. Feedback/RFD is secondary to winning once a score is being considered to any degree. In the context of any scored debate, the only purpose of feedback is to help you win in the future.SSSSSS2) CON: "[The SSS] should not have to exist independently of the current system..."I never said it should. I advocate incorporating it into the current system.
Voting For Oneself Should Be Allowed on DDO

BiasI don't think there is neccesarily any confusion between bias and rules, themselves, but the issue here is a dis-agreeance with the impacts behind the two. For example the "rule"wasn't put in place because of some dictatot sat on a throne and demanded it be so, it was something influenced by the decisions and mindsets of a community, and there belief about what voting should look like. We aren't talking about voting in general, so a lot of the issue I see being brought up here is irrellevant to voting on DDO. To me the most important impact to be upheld, is which option is the best for the communities well being? Given the constant complaints made almost daily about votebombing, can we really see voting for ourselves as a contributing factor of good, for the most amount of people? I realize I am looking at this from a utilitarianistic point of view, but given the resolution, that value seems most important to uphold to me.RFD VS ScoreThen we dive into human nature. Human psychology has us pursuing the score, because the score is what drives the nature of "winning". The need to win can be harmful, but it is still there. Unfortunately many people are not as humble as you, and don't share the philosophy that winning isn't everything. The way I see it, DDO encompasses winning, but the "rule" set in places, helps benefit both sides. The need to win can still be satisfied, but it does help reduce the "negative" outlook that already exists on bias, and vote bombing. Your suggestion to seperate the two, is interesting, but is something that I cannot see reducing the negative atmosphere around voting habits. People want to know why they are winning or losing. The win or the loss, unfortunately, is what many people care about. RFD's attached to the votes are the best tway to reduce conflict surrounding win/loss though it will never be flawless. Going into that, my question surround "the point" of voting for yourself, may have been mis-interpreted. What is the point of expressing bias towards yourself again, when you have already done so in the debate argument? You already know your position on it, why is it important to reinforce that through a vote? The point many members feel it should be, is to gather external feedback that can be used for future improvement, which is why it is the way it is now. SSSThe primary problem with the SSS is that it should not have to exist independently of the current system, which I have explained above is the best system to satisfy all parties wants or needs. Learning The score and the RFD have to go hand in hand for the purposes of learning, however. They are a means of influencing learning. As a child, if you were simply told that you did something was bad, you don't stop merely on merit of that knowledge alone. You stop doing the act, because of the punishment or reward of stopping. Human psychology doesn't always have perfect logic to justify all actions, but it works.
Voting For Oneself Should Be Allowed on DDO

RebuttalBiasB1) CON: "Many newcomers to the website don't initially understand the way things here are run, yet the community and society here have a bias already set in place for how we expect voting to look like. The community is expected to adhere to that bias, and when the bias isn't adhered to, we have problems."IMHO this above statement confuses "bias" with "rules" (and IMHO this site can use more enforced rules). The "rules" of mathematics force us to conform to a certain reality, that "1+1 = 2 is true" has a certain meaning that we all hold to be the same. Currently, the "rules" on voting deal mainly with ensuring that RFDs adequately reflect the score, and that the score not reflect bias. The underlined rule needs to change, as both PRO/CON both agree that everyone has bias on a philosophical level, and so the underlined is impossible. This may go very far in explaining why voter turnout has declined recently. It would also eliminate all of the ridiculously petty bickering surrounding current voting procedures.Once that rule changes, there is no reasonable basis to prohibit self-voting, except for the debate-spamming scenario I outlined and a solution for which I laid out (SSS).RFD vs ScoreRS1) CON: "We've effectively established that bias itself isn't the whole problem..."I don't see how CON has argued that bias is a problem to begin with. We simply need to allow for it.RS2) CON: "...but if I may be philosophical myself, does allowing one to vote for themselves have a specific point?"Yes. That point is to express bias. The point of EVERY vote is to express bias.RS3) My main point in this section is to simply state that people should be able to vote without an attached RFD if they so choose. The RFD is also valuable, but should not be obligatory.My solution to RFDs and votes and how they are portrayed is that we can list the votes like we do for votes in the polls section, and treat RFDs like comments in the opinion section. People can "vote up" RFDs they like, and RFDs with a lot of thumbs up would better reflect WHY the community voted the way they did for a debate.Regardless, the score itself has meaning independent from the RFDs. Currently we do not recognize this, and obligate the marriage of the two out of fear of bias. This is an unwarranted fear.SSSSSS1) CON: "While the SSS is an interesting idea, I don't see how it justifies allowing debaters to vote for themselves."An SSS requirement this would add statistical meaning to the score, and make the victor of a debate more than just the bias of one person + friends. This eliminates what most people fear - undue bias. LearningL1) CON: "The points are merely a means of telling you that you did well, and should continue the good effort, or that there is room for improvement."Wholly disagree. The RFD does this, not the score. The score is the vote. The score reflects bias. The S&G, conduct, etc section of the scoring is actually part of the RFD, and not the score.