BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mormonism is a Denomination within Christianity

It's been my experience (and I've had a good bit) that most of the "contradictions" in the Bible are not contradictions at all so much as things that are only irreconcilable on the surface. Unfortunately this is the last round and we won't be able to go into specifics regarding the issue, but if there were any conclusive contradictions (that list of however many hundred that floats around the internet every once in a while doesn't count; none of those hold any water), I would think 2000 years of critical reading as the bestselling book ever would bring them to wide light. The differences in interpretation and translation that you point out - the Genesis one, for example - are examples of the sort of interpretation of the core that defines denominations one from another (or at least sects, if not formal denominations), not of departures from the core as Mormonism has done. If I hold that the earth was created in a literal six-day period and my neighbor holds that the earth was instead created as a separation from uniformity on the basis of that verse, we both still take the Bible as the core text to the Christian faith, despite our different interpretations. The interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16 is a little different though since that refers to the core itself. However, it seems like a big stretch grammatically to consider 'correction' to refer to the scriptures, when the words on either side of it obviously refer to readers of Scripture rather than the scriptures themselves. It doesn't necessarily follow that the transcription of the New Testament by literate non-professionals makes errors inevitable; rather, the innumerable copies, which would have been copied from many copies of the original, make it extremely unlikely that an error - especially a theological one - would propagate through the copies we have today. Where the texts do differ, it's pretty clearly marked in most Bibles that I've seen either in brackets or footnotes (for example, Revelation 13:18, where some manuscripts read 616, or Mark 16:9-20, which doesn't appear in early manuscripts) Of course there are obvious limits on interpretation, for example flatly stated facts ("I and the Father are one") can't be interpreted around. This is where the argument turns back to Biblical interpretation regarding the Mormon issue, for it looks like your proof of discluding the Bible from the definition of Christianity consisted of establishing the Bible as errant (whether or not it was intentionally inspired to be so), which has not been done. It looks like you as well believe that Mormonism is irreconcilable to the Scriptures and our debate thus boils down to the role of the Scriptures in defining a Christian, which hinges on this primary issue of Biblical errancy. And without the need to deny Biblical inerrancy for fear of losing more in the vein of Bart Ehrman and skeptical arguments, the scriptures can occupy no other place than the central in defining Christianity as a faith.
Mormonism is a Denomination within Christianity

Hmm, I'm not quite clear - do you believe that the original manuscripts are authoritative and inerrant and that only the translations are flawed? That's a fair assessment, but I think the multitude of translations is good towards the end of capturing the original meaning rather than a detriment to the English's credibility; you've even said as much in that you have three different Bibles for comparison. But I think you overestimate the differences among the translations - as far as I know, there are no theological squabbles attributable to translational differences among accepted translations. It also seems that Mr. Ehrman has underestimated the meticulous care with which the scriptures were copied throughout Jewish history: the manuscripts were checked multiple times, and if an error was found, the entire copy was destroyed. It wouldn't be as simple a matter to make copying mistakes as he imagines, and certainly not theologically significant ones. It's interesting that you cite 2 Timothy 3:16 for support of Scriptural errancy. I don't believe the 'correction' refers to Scripture itself; rather to people holding to counterscriptural beliefs. If we assume that the canonical gospels are accurate portrayals of the life and works of Jesus and that the English translations are close enough to be useful for the debate, then Jesus did indeed make explicit claims about the nature of the Godhead: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30), "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). It is from statements like this and the final exhortation of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 - "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" - that the Trinitarian Godhead is inferred. Though you are right that Christendom has accumulated a lot of baggage through its two millennia, a lot of it - the Eucharist, for example - was set into motion by Jesus Himself: "For as often as you eat this bread, and drink this cup, you show the Lord's death until he comes". In addition, much of the diversity you attribute to the early Church, which since you've been quoting Ehrman I assume you're referring to Gnosticism and its minor outlying theologies, was recognized early on by Church fathers as heretical: Iranaeus and Justin Martyr, two of the earliest, wrote at length about Gnosticism and other unorthodox early Christian theologies and refuted them Biblically as heresies. It is from the refutation of heresy that theology develops, according to the principle that Martin Luther articulated so well: "Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract". Though I agree wholeheartedly that the institution of Constantinian Christianity in the Roman Empire sent it (Christianity) on a long period of corruption and decline, you identify Constantinian Christianity with modern mainstream Christianity, whereas I hold that although there is still residual Constantinian influence, the Church by extracting itself from the management of a political empire is largely rid of that.
Mormonism is a Denomination within Christianity

My argument is that your criterion to be counted a Christian, "A Christian is a believer and follower of Jesus of Nazareth", is too broad to have any meaning. Your arguments for scriptural errancy and alternative gospels as per Mr. Ehrman's arguments only serves to weaken your own argument, for the question then becomes, what did Jesus say, and what does it mean to follow Jesus? The less credibility one lends to the Scriptures - or any scriptures, really - the less one can say with any certainty what it means to follow Jesus. If I found a gospel that claimed Jesus was really a white supremacist and a crusader against the Jews, could I call murder Christian? My point is that when you argue for alternative gospels and scriptural errancy, you open up Christianity to be anything you want it to be, which strips it of any meaning at all. What is religion then if stripped of its meaning? Could I be a Muslim without believing in the Koran? Of course not. Religions are classified by their system of belief and subdivided into denominations based on nonessential characteristics like interpretation of the core. Discrediting a faith's scriptures takes one squarely outside of the core of that religion, outside the classification of a denomination therein and into a separate faith. Whether or not the Biblical Scriptures are indeed accurate is a debate for another day, but to say they are not has the consequence of putting one's self outside the Christian faith.
The NBA should ban hack-a-Jordan

Again I will state that we aren't changing the rule for only 6 players we would change it for everyone. This "strategy" affects everyone. Adam Silver who is the NBA commissioner agrees that something needs to change. There are many suggestions of how we can deal with this. "Ban it. "Allow the team fouled to the opting of shoot the free throws or taking the ball out of bounds, which would essentially eliminate the strategy, as suggested by Tom Ziller of SB Nation. "Allow a team to use the strategy a certain number of times per game so that DeAndre Jordan is not shooting 34 foul shots in a game, as he did against Portland on Nov. 30. "Include one extra free throw attempt by any player for a set number of intentional fouls off the ball, an idea suggested by NBA.com"s David Aldridge. DeAndre Jordan has practiced free throws. He has stayed in the gym until he's made 1000 free throws to him its mental. Dwight Howard makes about 80% of his free throws in practice. This strategy also ruins the game for younger kids. How are they supposed to learn the sport if this is what they watch and are taught is ok on TV.
The NBA should ban hack-a-Jordan

I will agree with you that this type of strategy is annoying and bothersome. But let's take a step back and analyze the situations for a second. From a practical sense we can ask ourselves this question: "why should the whole game change for a few players?". Shooting free throws is a skill and it's one all top level players should develop. The underlying premise of those who want a rule change is "change rules to make the game better" and i agree with this premise. The issue is unlike other rule changes that happen as a result of the game needing updating, this rule change is to simple accommodate players who lack a skill, in this case free throw shooting. Why are we allowing a few bad players to change rules for others? Also what type of rule could be put in place? How bad a free throw shooter do you have to be to be protected by this rule? There are numerous problems with this idea. One easy fix? Have these pro athletes who spends hours upon hours in the gym learn to hit free throws. Or when crunch time comes around, sit them on the bench. We shouldn't accommodate bad basketball, we should demand they get better. My last point is this. In order for a "hack-a-Jordan" or hack a whoever to work in a large sample all the player needs to do is hit 1 out of 2 Fts. This is because a piont every possession is above the league average since no teams shoot over 50% over the course of a year. According to probasketballrefrence.com only 19 players shot wrose then 50% last year out of 461 players. Of those 19 only only 6 attempted more the 100 free throws during the year. So in reality why are we changing a rule for 6 players... Sources : http://www.basketball-reference.com...
The NBA should ban hack-a-Jordan

Rebuttals: Change is for Everyone? As I said in my argument a player shooting above 50% would be all it takes to eliminate this strategy, only six players shoot a less than 50% while attempting more than 100 free throws. You failed to address this reality and so my argument stands. Weather the players problems are mental or mechanical it still stands that they lack that skill. I can hit 70% of my free throws in a gym by myself too, in a real game not so much. This is a skill these players must improve to the point where they are not liabilities. This shouldn't be too much to ask. Potential Rule Change: While we could in theory change the game but we need to ask ourselves why? Should other rules be changed when players lack certain skills? The answer is no and its remains no for this question. Next Generation: The assertion that this strategy will teach kids that this is okay is counter intuitive. I believe the opposite would happen. Coaches would be forced to make sure all players to learn the basics of basketball including being good free throw shooters. This would eliminate the problem as the next generation takes over the league. Conclusion: Pro did not provide sufficient reason for a rule change. Simply saying it’s a "wuss move" is not enough. You need to provide actual evidence that this is destroying the game. Thanks for the debate.
children aged from 10-13 don't deserve too costly phones

Internet and wifi- Most phones, even cheap ones have internet and wifi these days. Micromax doodle or canvas, even Nokia has 3g facility. Gps- This service can be used as a prank by teenagers as well. What if they dial the emergency numbers by mistake? Also, Gps facility will make them careless as they know they can find it, so they could just leave it anywhere. Also, if a serious case location can be tracked through the IP address, which is present in every device that has internet.
children aged from 10-13 don't deserve too costly phones

"Yes, but many smartphones are not costly. What I am saying is you could just take a cheap phone from micromax or samsung, they would still have these facilities. Even nokia phones have facebook. I don't see the need for an iphone, apple or tab. Phones that are too costly shouldn't be given to children, they'll have no value for it." Oh really? What evidence do you have that children will have no value for these phones? Many children nowadays take great pride in their phones and always have it with them. http://www.cnet.com... 70% of teens use smartphones; allowing younger kids to get them prepares them for the future. http://www.growingwireless.com... 56% of kids 8-12 have smartphones. Most children these days take pride and responsibility for their phones. Cheap phones do not have this important GPS function to help parents find them. More expensive phones have internet access and have service from everywhere. I have named three main things more expensive phones can do that cheaper cannot: GPS, internet, and wireless service from anywhere. Pro has not and cannot refute my arguments, leading to a Con win
children aged from 10-13 don't deserve too costly phones

http://www.ehow.com..."One of the biggest advantages to a teenager having a mobile phone is the ability to call an emergency service in case of an accident or a towing service in case of a tire blowout while driving. According to the 2008 study conducted by the Pew Research Center, 75 percent of Americans claim to have used their mobile phones in emergency situations. Emergency agencies also support the use of mobile phones during an emergency by urging people to add the letters ICE (for "in case of emergency") in front of certain names in their mobile phone directory to designate who should be called in case of an emergency. Many new phones also include GPS location technology, allowing parents to pinpoint the location of their teens or to locate lost or stolen phones."Only "expensive" phones have this GPS tracking technology. which allows parents to find their kids. Younger children may get lost, so parents need to find them. "Smartphones allow teenagers to keep in touch not only with their friends, but also with family members, schools and emergency services. Facebook and other social media applications allow for instant updates on a teenager's status, and mobile phones have revolutionized long-distance communication by including long-distance calling options in their service plans. The ability to send instant text messages is an added advantage, though it should be avoided while driving. According to the Pew Research Center's 2008 study, an estimated 88 percent of teenage mobile phones users use their phones to connect through text messaging."Younger children also need to connect with their peers. http://www.partselect.com... "Cell phones can help teach children responsibility. Parents can set guidelines for their children such as staying within a certain minute or text message range. Children are also responsible for their individual cell phone and parents can set rules about misplacing it or breaking it. Many cell phones allow access to the Internet, which can help a child obtain answers to questions very quickly and easily. This can help with studies as well as other simple daily questions like daily weather or finding directions to go someplace new." Phones help younger people connect to their friends and in emergencies.
The Americans should send the Irish back where they came from

The Irish aren't very adventurous with their food and they won't eat pasta, rice, noodles or any other "foreign muck" with their meat so when the potato harvests failed during the late 1840's (1) millions of Irish people emigrated to America dreaming of new lives with an abundance of French fries to go with their succulent lamb chops, juicy pork steaks and rich beef and Guinness pies. Now, "the luck of the Irish" is a well-known and well-deserved idiom because when they arrived in America the Irish immigrants found potatoes were in plentiful supply and they were able to gorge themselves until their hearts' were content. However, once the Irish had got their feet under the table in America they became discontented when they observed their New World hosts walking about in their fancy leather shoes and tailored clothes and living in houses with glass in the windows and running water - consumer items that were almost unknown back in Ireland. So, in order to obtain the cash required to purchase these luxuries, the Irish immigrants formed criminal gangs such as the Westies and the Winter Hill Gang (2,3). These mobsters operated in most major cities in the US and Irish outlaws such as Billy the Kid, Joseph "Mad Dog" Sullivan, Owney "The Killer" Madden, Stephen "The Rifleman" Flemmi, Eddie "The Butcher" Cummiskey and Terry "The Machine Gun" Druggan (4,5) soon became household names across the country. From these early days of Irish criminality the immigrants' illegal activities grew with their population and so did their level of sophistication. In December 1978, Jimmy "The Gent" Burke, dubbed "the Irish Guinea" by the mafia, orchestrated the theft of $10million in cash and jewellery from a warehouse at JFK Airport. Incidentally, the story of this heist was later made into the film called Goodfellas in which Robert de Niro played the villainous Irishman. (6) Sadly, the Irish crime-wave still continues and only yesterday a leprechaun carried out an armed robbery at bank in Tennessee that left two people dead. (7) So how will America resolve The Irish Problem? In 1930's Germany, the Jews presented Hitler with a similar dilemma and his solution was to gas them. However, with reducing carbon emissions being so high on the political agenda and with genocide being so out of fashion in America these days the only answer is to send the Irish back where they came from and I therefore urge you to vote Pro in support of this proposal. Thank You. (1) http://www.yourirish.com... (2) http://www.gangland.net... (3) http://en.wikipedia.org... (4) http://www.culturenorthernireland.org... (5) http://en.wikipedia.org... (6) http://gangstersinc.tripod.com... (7) http://news.bbc.co.uk...
The Americans should send the Irish back where they came from

Thanks, Brian. :D I rather like my chosen monicker, myself. And I also was quite sure that this was a light hearted banter, as well, as clarified in my entry in Round 1, following the line of many other of your debates. And thus, even though the IRA and the like sent terrorists about England to cause damage, this couldn't be reflected upon the upstanding Irishmen. ; ) My opponent's pictures have likely been found and random, and it cannot be clarified at all that those actually are Irishmen, if they are living in that standard, if many of them are living at that standard or even if in the paveepoint link they're merely camping or hunting and having a generally good time. In turn, I could provide some successful and lawful Irish back then: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://s2.hubimg.com... http://www.aweebitoireland.com... and now: http://www.atlanticwave.us... (Taken at the Irish Fest) http://www.istockphoto.com... http://www.sapadapaso.org... My argument/s and images have thus presented that the Irish are, indeed, capable of becoming productive and even respected citizens in the USA. A couple of modern day successful Irishmen include Paul Galvin (founder of Motorola), Tom Monaghan (founder of Domino's Pizza), Jack Welch (former CEO of GE), Alfred Hitchcock, Tom Clancy, Charles Townes (winner of a Nobel Prize in Physics) and many more. (all names found in http://en.wikipedia.org... ). Also, I feel it necessary not to overlook the fact that it would be prejudiced and against the US Constitution and Bill of Rights to evict any entire group of a single nationality due to unfounded beliefs or accusations. Thanks for an amusing and enjoyable debate, Brian. :D We shall have to do it again, sometime. * Note in Round 1 I stated 'Richard Sheridan'. This is of course incorrect - my mind must have wandered. The famed general's name is Philip Sheridan, in case any of you were scratching your heads and wondering what on earth I'm talking about.
The Americans should send the Irish back where they came from

With many thanks to 1stLordofTheVenerability* for accepting this challenge I should just like to make it clear that I have got nothing against the Irish, even though I'm British and they used to send terrorists over to Britain to bomb us. In fact, some of my friends are Irish – you can't go to the pub as regularly as I do without making the acquaintance of an Irishman or two! No, all I'm saying is they are not like Anglo-Saxons, that's all. I mean, while they are quite willing to put themselves out, whether it be to rob a bank or pilfer some contraband goods while loading ships, they are also happy to live in substandard accommodation just so long as they have enough money to buy French fries and Guinness on a wholesale basis. My opponent himself acknowledged this when he wrote: "There were many Irishmen whom worked hard… while their families lived in squalor and filth." It's always been that way with Irish and it always will be. Please take a moment to review the following old photographs of Irish people: http://www.folkleads.org.uk... http://www.folkleads.org.uk... Now here's some photographs that illustrate the way they live today: http://www.paveepoint.ie... http://www.fotothing.com... Not much improvement is there? Although my opponent did cite some Irish-Americans that were not famous for being criminals, they are the exceptions that prove the rule. In conclusion, since the Irish are generally incapable of bettering themselves, they are certainly not capable of bettering their adopted nation, and for this reason I reaffirm that they should be sent back to Ireland where they came from. Thank you. * Cool name, by the way!
The Atonement of Jesus Christ is Immoral.

1/ I agree with evolution. I think maybe the fall of Lucifer to some backwater may account for the advancement of some skinny ape form. 2/ The Big Bang theory is a theory. 3/ Spiritual experiences are an on-going phenomena involving the subject with a great mystery. 5/Personally I don't care much about origins; I just want to get what I can get while the getting is good. 6/ So you don't need a God? So you're a techie working out the kinks in a routine that doesn't involve higher-powers. Nothing wrong with that. We need lots of techies. 7/ I've compare the Scriptures to frankfurters and pickles, they're just not meat and potatoes.