BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the bible

I may not have worded this debate correctly. So I will start over. I think the bible was written by a bunch of different people trying to promote their religion and their god. I don't think it is the word of god or any supreme being and I can't understand why anyone would think that it is. When I was 35, I decided I had better read this so called good book. Didn't take me long to figure out that this was not the word of any god. It is bloody, silly , not very well written and most of it is boring. It started on the first page when it stated that God created two great lights. The greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. The moon does not have any light, it's light is reflected from the sun. But in the times the bible was written, they did not know that so they wrote " then God made two great lights." This is just a small error compared to some other things in this book.
the bible

"the bible is written by a bunch of people trying to promote ther religion" So I assume this is the resolution. I will prove that the Bible is indeed a book written by a bunch of people to promote their religion, and I suppose Con will negate that.CONTENTION THE FIRST: The Bible was written by a bunch of peopleNow I assume of course we are talking about the New and Old Testament. The Old testament is literally a recording of Jewish History (or what they say their history is at least) so it was written by many different Jewish Kings prophets and chiefs, that's why it is broken into different books like Daniel, Ezekiel and Isaac. The New testament was also written by many people, such as the apostles Matthew, Marc, Luke and John (Sometimes they would have scribes and assistants write down their dictation of their recollection of the acts of the God they call Christ). So I think we can all agree that the Bible was written by a bunch of peopleThe Bible was made to promote a religion The bible is a book telling you all the awesome things that will happen if you follow the God of Abraham, and Deity called Christ. Its purpose is to promote the Religion of Abraham, Judaism. The Bible actually doesn't say anything about another religion of Christianity (unless you're in Texas), but the Bible does indeed promote the religion of the tribe of Judah. Thank you, extensive research was undertaken in order to participate in this debate. I cower in fear at what I'm sure will be a merciless rebuttal by my opponent. Here's a funny joke I heard the other day:How does one commence an Ethiopian rave?Stick food on the ceiling.
the bible

A couple of New Jersey hunters are out in the woods when one of them falls to the ground. He doesn't seem to be breathing, his eyes are rolled back in his head. The other guy whips out his cell phone and calls the emergency services. He gasps to the operator: "My friend is dead! What can I do?" The operator, in a calm soothing voice says: "Just take it easy. I can help. First, let's make sure he's dead." There is a silence, then a shot is heard. The guy's voice comes back on the line. He says: "OK, now what?"
the bible

A guy walks into a bar and sees a big jar full of $100 dollar bills. He asked the bartender what it was all about. Bartender says you put 100 dollars in . then there are 3 things you have to do. If you do these 3 things, up get the jar full of 100's. The guy says Im not interested and goes back and starts drinking beer. The guy gets a little drunk, and goes up to the bartender and asks, ok whats the 3 things i have to do? Bartender says, see that great big guy back in the corner? He's a regular here and a pretty good fighter. You have to knock him out with one punch. See that woman over there? She's kind of a bar hop and has been with alot of men, but has never had an orgasm. You have to make her have an orgasm. Out in back, we have a big pit bull with a bad tooth. You have to pull his bad tooth. If you do these 3 things, you get the jar full of 100's. The guy says alright. Walks over to the big guy and knocks him out with one punch. The guy goes out back and you hear barking and snarling and then a big moan. The guy comes back in and has bite marks and scratches all over him and says," ok, where is that blonde with the bad tooth?"
Dance is a sport

The pro did't put up an argument and i don't think she will be posting one in the following rounds so i will make mines fairly short. The pro did not say what type of dance so i will just use dance in general. Dance cannot be considered a sport because there is no set of guidelines that determines whether someone wins. For example unlike basketball, football and other sports you can not decide who wins just by looking at a scorecard/scoresheet(when scored by points it is a person giving out points). Instead the winner of dance competitions is determined by judges which means the winner can vary depending on what a judge means. In my opinion someone who does not know anything about a sport should be able to determine who won based on a specific set of rules/guidelines and in dance this cannot be done. For this reason i conclude that dance is not a sport.
Evolution and the Creation Could Both be True

Thanks for the arguments.PollI found 1 more person that agrees with your precise belief, others only talked about theistic evolution which is not equal to creationism. Fair enough i guess.RebuttalsThough it is true that macroevolution refers to the change in species, it is still a fact that macroevolution is directly connected to the Darwinian evolution, and from that we conclude that every evidence found that points towards Darwinian evolution points towards macroevolution. You say that "macroevolution is a given", but is still a fact that macroevolution of all the species of Earth are relevant to this debate. I already have shown some evidence of scripture contradicting macroevolution, such as the order in which things were created in Genesis, Noah's flood and Adam n' Eve. Specifically the Genesis tells us that plants were created before the animals, and macroevolution tells us that everything evolved at the same time.Noah's flood also can't account for the number of species today working in accordance with logic.This is an important question for people with beliefs like yours, Pro: If Evolution actually happened, why are the scriptures so inaccurate in describing the creation? Why don't they mention change? That said: macroevolution is compatible with creation if we rule out the Bible. Then we go back to good old Deism and Theistic evolution."The fact that abiogenesis states that life originated in the ocean does not apply to the evolution-creationism compatibility model, because there is no reason to incorporate abiogenesis with evolution"Actually it does, since evolution started right after the first DNA replicated."Abiogenesis is a theory/idea and has not been proven, because it has not been shown that life can arise from non-life. Experiments such have these have been performed before by scientists but have failed"True that we are still working on the hypothesis of abiogenesis,but there have been experiments that succeeded, such as this one [1]"The other "contradiction" that you brought up was that God is not alive, therefore stating that he created life is a discrepancy. The problem with this is that this is a baseless statement. Nowhere in the Bible does God say that he is not alive, nor is that a tenet of Christian belief. What it does say is that is that Christ was resurrected and still lives, and that he is God. So to assume that God is non-life makes no sense. That is just an assumption made as an attempt to find an inconsistency in my argument."Okay, I made an assumption, but that doesn't change the fact that Adam n' Eve contradict macroevolution. We come back to the "Eve was made from the life of Adam", you didn't answer that. Bible clearly states that Eve must have been created, and was not given birth from a proto-human and she is now a first woman. So even without the assumption, inconsistency is still present.I think that the point is made. Thanks for the debate, Conservative101. Now, let the voting begin. Good luck!Source: http://www.news.gatech.edu... [1]
Evolution and the Creation Could Both be True

Semantics"I would love to know who else, besides my opponent, accepts both the theory of evolution and the entire Bible as true. I read many polls about evolution vs creation, and the claim that both are true was nowhere to be found. Theistic evolution is irrelevant to this claim."Here is a poll about whether evolution and creationism could both be true (See Source 1). Most of the voters, currently 16, believe that the two could coexist.As for the debate setup, macroevolution should be a given. Anyone who has studied evolution for even a little bit knows that macroevolution does not refer to the Big Bang, or the Solar System. Considering how virtually every evolution debate on this site is about human evolution, it did not seem necessary to point that out every time, since one could use common sense and a basic knowledge of evolution.AbiogenesisLet me clarify some things here. I never stated that I believe in abiogenesis; I have instead contended that life does come from non-life, and that life was created by God. The fact that abiogenesis states that life originated in the ocean does not apply to the evolution-creationism compatibility model, because there is no reason to incorporate abiogenesis with evolution. Abiogenesis is a theory/idea and has not been proven, because it has not been shown that life can arise from non-life. Experiments such have these have been performed before by scientists but have failed.The other "contradiction" that you brought up was that God is not alive, therefore stating that he created life is a discrepancy. The problem with this is that this is a baseless statement. Nowhere in the Bible does God say that he is not alive, nor is that a tenet of Christian belief. What it does say is that is that Christ was resurrected and still lives, and that he is God. So to assume that God is non-life makes no sense. That is just an assumption made as an attempt to find an inconsistency in my argument.I appreciate Con's willingness to debate this topic with me and to discuss the arguments that were made. Good luck in the voting!"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -Albert EinsteinSource1. http://www.debate.org...
Evolution and the Creation Could Both be True

BoP: Fair enough. ArgumentsThe Bible does not state how God created the plants and animals, only that he did. There are no verses in the Bible that show incompatibility with the evolutionary theory. In fact, 1 in 4 Americans believe God guided evolution[1]. The Catholic Pope himself has declared that the evolutionary theory is compatible with church teachings[1]. Since the Bible does not say how God created anything, it doesn't make sense to say that he for sure didn't do it a certain way. However, the assumption still exists with some religious and non-religious folk that the two cannot coexist.Some young-earth creationists point to Genesis and state that the world was created in 6 days and that it was created some 5,000-10,000 years ago. However, the Bible also says that time is relative in the heavenly world. In 2 Peter 3:8 it reads, "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." According to this verse, the "six days creation" could really be thousands or millions of years from our perspective, but just six days in God's time. Young-earth creationism is really a series of assumptions made about the length and age of the creation.Another objection is that if Adam and Eve were the first humans, then they couldn't have evolved from apes. A common stance for Christian evolutionists to take is that Adam and Eve's bodies were formed by evolutionary processes, but their souls were created uniquely by God. In other words, when the Neanderthals evolved to the point where their bodies were human enough, God took an already evolved human-like being and put a human spirit into him, creating Adam.It is indeed logical for a theist to admit that evolution is an acceptable explanation for present life and still maintain that God was the ultimate creator of the world, using evolution as a tool.Sources1. http://www.pewresearch.org...
Homosexual Marriage: Should it be Legalised in the UK

As somebody that isn't a fan of the idea of marriage as it is portrayed (the big wedding with lots of people and even more money), the reason that I would like to get married to show my love and commitment to another person- on the legal side of marriage, a husband/wife is trusted with their significant others life, literally- they are the person responsible for making medical decisions, they are the person that will get inherit everything in the event of death. Marrying somebody, to me, is the ultimate show of trust and the civil partnerships that are currently allowed do not allow the same responsibilities. Why, in this society where it is acceptable to be gay, should a person not be able to make the same commitment that a straight person can?
Homosexual Marriage: Should it be Legalised in the UK

Although gay marriage does go against the teachings of the bible, does the bible not also say that you should love one another. In this world, there are hundreds of different religions, why should the law be moulded to fit around one sub-section of christianity? If the couple themselves are happy together and wish to spend their lives together, why should they not be allowed to have the same rights as a heterosexual couple? Because one book that less than a third of the world (according to the global religious landscape) follows. Should our laws also consider Muslim culture, as this is the second most popular religion in the UK? . Religion is not law, religion is something that can be chosen and something that many people choose to follow different sectors of. If a large group of gay people decide to start a religion that encompasses gay marriage, what would be the difference between your argument and theirs? I propose that the laws should be set out in such a way that allows personal choice, allows everybody to maintain the fundamentals of their own belief and that it should be accepted by others, as every religious book that I know of has a clause stating that everybody should love everybody else.
Homosexual Marriage: Should it be Legalised in the UK

Hello. I am a student that lives in the United States of America. However, I am against gay marriage. ***NOTE*** I am sorry if I offend anybody by writing this. If anybody who reads this happens to be homosexual and/or takes this offensive, then please do NOT read. It is one thing for gays to be together, but it is another for them to get "married". Strictly from the bible (I happen to be Catholic) it has a section stating that marriage is between a man and a woman. If two homosexuals want to be together forever, they should not be taking the name of marriage. It would be fine if it was to be called a union, but when two of the same genders are being blessed together, then that should not be re-considering the holy bible. It is very aggravating to me (and many others) that two people who are both of the same sex are taking the name of what should be a man and a woman. I realize this is becoming cliche, so I will leave my first round point at this. Good luck and let the debating begin!
It is imperative that government take measures to prevent global warming

My opponent proves in her argument that the only way for the resolution be accomplished is through coercion. Her claim that people should prevent global warming does not mean that people should take responsibility for their own actions, but that they should be forced to take responsibility for others' actions. My opponent tries to justify these claims by saying that these rules are necessary, forgetting that that is her resolution. This is circular logic. My opponent has failed to prove that the rules are necessary, so the coercion is thus useless as well as immoral.
Jazz music is harmonically superior to Contemporary Pop Music

Rules: Debater must have typing experience. Debater must have internet access. No excuses or forfeitures. Must structure the debate in a readable fashion. Video clips including music are acceptable. Rounds: (1) Acceptance (2) Main Argument (3) Rebuttal to main argument + voting issuesI accept this debate which I have thusly created and challenge those of rhetorical wizardry to a verbal duel.Good luck to whomever accepts, and may the Gods smile upon you during this debate.
Atheism can not account for right and wrong

Thank you Tarzan for accepting the challenge. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Statement (1) To begin with God is needed in order for morals to be constant and meaningful. First of all God is needed for morals to be constant because without God's rule the morals placed in our society are arbitrary and could very well change from day to day. For instance, in conventionalism which is the view that fundamental principles are validated by definition, agreement, or convention, laws of morals can be changed by a majority agreement on any issue. If murder were to be made legal/morally acceptable in the U.S. because everyone agreed that murdering would be a good way to let go of anger and get rid of the people who they considered to be horrible in their life, then should this be considered morally right? I say no, of course not. My opponent may also say no, in fact I can almost guarantee you that he will. But he says no, not for the same reasons as I. Now, the reason I say know is because God says that I am not to murder someone, "its that simple." To clarify things, if God were not to be real than I am not saying that I would become a murderer either. My opponent says no for reasons I don't know yet because he has not given a response. So we can conclude that my opponent must give us the moral method that he will be using in the place of God, in order to account for morals. He must also give the PROPER DEFINITION of that moral method that is backed up by a reliable source. God is also needed for morals to have any weight or meaning in society. If God did not exist then morals could be decided by the people with the most power or a majority vote. Through this morals could be corrupted and murder, rape, theft ect... could be made morally acceptable among the people, this has happened many times in history. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (2) I am NOT saying that MORALS can not be RECOGNIZED by people who don't believe in God. I know many people who think murdering other people is immoral just like me. But what I am saying, is that there is a KEY DIFFERENCE between a believer in God and a nonbeliever in the way that they get to the conclusion for moral reasoning. Good luck to my opponent. charles15
Rap battle of awesomeness

2.0 is improved, 1.0 is not You own the original it's getting hot Im laughing hard is that all you got? You cancel your "no fist-fight", baby go back to your cot Smack the bear it will run away You beat me? HA not today You know my first thought on mint? Chewing gum I'll spit it out you want hot bars? I'm spewing some You need to train before you humiliate yourself on stage But I'm destroying rappers while you are in your cage All this fire i'm casting, am I some sort of mage? I grow more powerful but you only start to age I don't take hints, I use my brains Not like you have any, hanging round in your chains Memes are famous and funny, unlike you You are merely describing me once I'm through Your mirror must be dusty, you don't see fame Here I wiped it for you, look! You see shame NOW when I look in, shining in glory is my name You need to go faster oh look the sloth came If I earn a dime, you'd go home empty Doesn't matter which hand, righty or lefty You don't get it do you? You never do Contradicting yourself is like your only shoe If i'm wreaking your style, with the ball I would throw a party to see you fall You think you are so strong? So mighty and tall? Well truth is you ain't nothing at all. Practice doesn't make perfect. You are a prime example If don't need to practice with my power already ample I don't have to walk away from the mic if that is what I own I'm already beating you in noob mode what about you have I just shown I pity you for thinking that you are a pro rapper You are facing a god here that will kill you after Two more verses till this battle ends Just like your life swinging round in bottles and cans (Also, since you started first, you have to reply with "pass per rules.)
Rap battle of awesomeness

Ain't that some cr-p, some real fine sh-t,You're copying me boy, I'm that much of a hit.From the lines to my style, my bars that fit,It's like you bought my 2.0 noob rapping kit.Imitation they say, is flattery's sincerest form, I don't blame you for doing it, noobs like you always swarm. Try to be original, you can't ride on my coat tail,Those that never try are the ones that always fail.Don't live for the lime light, that looks really sad, You end up looking desperate, the lack of attention'll drive you mad. But before you take the cred, remember what's real,You don't mess with the bear, or I'll make you my next meal. I'll lay it on thick since you don't take a hint, I'm tired of your lazy copying, quit it ya stupid bint.You're old like garbage, I'm fresh like mint, You're wreaking my style with your lousy ol' tint.It's like watching the tone deaf trying to sing Adele,They just can't do it, everyone can tell. And it's just so embarrassing cause you don't even know, You think you're so good yet you're quality's so low. Please just leave, do yourself some good, Walk away from the mic, return back to the hood.Don't let reality get smothered in dreams, You're not on the high bars, you're on the training beams.You don't have beat, maybe you can rhyme, But the most you'll ever earn of it is probably a dime. How about practising? To make 'em really chime,Almost like a chef with rosemary and thyme. Practice makes perfect, there's no other way, You're bound to realize that one of these days. You're not incredible, nor are you amazing, Stop trying to kid that it's you the people are gazing. You live in a delusion, You're life's an illusion,Your brains a mess like an old persons confusion. You honestly belong to a mentals ward, You'd have gotten treatment already if it were something you could afford. Don't grass up my name, I'm not at blame,When I look in the mirror, all I see is my fame.You made the challenge and I brought the game, It's not my fault if your bars are lame. You're in too deep, way over your head,Glad this ain't a gunfight or you'd be dead. You're beat so badly, you can only stare,As I shine so brightly line the sun's bright glares. Moral of the story, you're dead meat, When you issue a rapping challenge when you can't drop a beat.It's almost like a meme, I swear it could be so, It's the only direction that your rapping career could go.