BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Data (pro) vs Luke skywalker (con)

Oh, and here I thought this was a battle between the two "men", not their equipment. But, if equipment we'll allow, then so be it. First, a laser could blast a hole in Data, so in a showdown, it is a draw. However, while the force may not be strong enough to literally crush Data, it is strong enough to disarm him, by crushing said phaser. After Data is disarmed, Data's hardware will not protect him from a direct attack from a light saber, which has been shown to melt and destroy blast door on ships. Second, in the entire Star Wars franchise, the force was used to manipulate objects, almost exclusively machinery, more than minds 10-fold. So, while mind tricks and the like may not overpower Data directly, there is nothing stopping Luke from doing the following: Use the force to open the hatch-door, Use the force to push Data out said door, Use the force to guide Data to the nearest star, or at least its gravitational field. After all, the force can lift a ship out of a sunken swamp. I think the force can lift a Lt. Commander off his feet. Further, Pro must explain why a phaser and a laser are fundamentally different. They both shoot beams of light to my understanding. Lastly, Data runs on power. So, while Data might not need to be destroyed outright, his power cell, is not so indestructible, or infinite.
Data (pro) vs Luke skywalker (con)

As Data is an Android I will first list the force abilities that will be ineffective against Data.INNEFECTIVE FORCE POWERS1. Any power that affects the mind; because Data isn't organic he can't be affected by mind tricks.2. Any force electrical discharge eg. electric judgement; because Data can withstand incredibly high power surges and has a nonconductive "skin."3. Any force power which alters environmental factors or attempts to use brute force; because Data is made of duranium and cortenide which is used in star ship construction (and so must have great mechanical, thermal, and electrical properties and a polyalloy spine which was designed to handle extreme stresses.4. Any force ability used in an attempt to overpower Data; because Data has strength beyond anything even the force can provide eg. He effortlessly bent a 2 inch bar of parsteel; an alloy with a tensile strength of 40 kilobars and has been able to force open blast doors.Second Data will be using a Phaser against Luke Skywalker. Luke Skywalker will not be able to use his lightsaber to deflect phaser beams since phasers have no magnetic or electrical field to repel against. The proof for that is that in the 22nd century phase pistols; which use nadions like phasers do; produced beams that didn't spread apart before research even started in magnetic containment fields. I contend that because Luke Skywalker can't deflect phaser beams and can't use Mind Tricks, Electrical force powers, Environmental and telekinetic force powers against Data and can't overpower him; Data will be able to defeat Luke Skywalker.
Bsh1, in his debate with Zarroette, Failed to Refute her Parenting Argument

I thank bsh1 to make sure the integrity of the votes on this site, and is will to challenge any possible wrong doing. First, I will say bsh1 did partially refute the argument; however, it was not a full refutation. 1. Biological Parents argument was not refuted. In Zarroette's arguments she said "Part of the problem with homosexuals raising children is that they are not the biological parents" [1]. This argument implies that biological parents raise children better than non-biological ones. She did provide some pictures in her second point that reinforced this point too that compared multiple family structures with intact families. These pictures all showed how intact families did better than any other structure. Bsh1 does seem to understand the argument presented and correctly pointed out "Pro's [Zarroette's] argument is an argument against non-biological parents in general, not specifically against gay parents" [1]. Bsh1 does not try to refute the argument, and in fact is the only time mentioned the general argument. So, concluding the argument still stands and was not contested. 2. The Biological Parents arguments had to be refuted. However, this argument is dependent on the idea that marriage has something to do with children. If marriage has nothing to with children then the argument would not need refutation. However, Zarroette did make the claim that "Marriage is intrinsically related to procreation" [1]. This means there is something natural about an opposite sex couple and procreation. Bsh1 does not refute this either, but rather gave examples where marriage does not turn into extrinsic value, procreating, such as infertile couples. However, this tiny minority does not break the rational intrinsic link of marriage and procreation. Most infertile couples can have a biological child via a surrogate which is totally different than reproductive donations of same-sex couples. Concluding, opposite-sex marriage does have an intrinsic link with procreation that would demand a response to the biological parents argument. Sources[1] . http://www.debate.org...
Bsh1, in his debate with Zarroette, Failed to Refute her Parenting Argument

PrefaceThis debate is in reference to this debate [http://www.debate.org...]. I challenge Guidestone to defend his RFD on that debate, particularly the part related to parenting.I request that Guidestone either accept this debate or remove his vote.Full TopicBsh1, in his debate with Zarroette, Failed to Refute her "A2: Homosexuals make for poor parents" argument.Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling or semantics6. Pro has the full BOP7. Pro must go first8. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's CaseR2. Con rebuts Pro's Case, Pro defends Pro's CaseR3. Con rebuts Pro's Case, Pro waivesThanks......to Guidestone; I hope he feels confident enough in his ballot to defend it.
Contradictions in the Bible are reasons to doubt its validity.

Since this round is allotted for my conclusion only, I will abide by that and I won't make further arguments or rebuttals. Thanks for having this debate, although I think we were on different wavelengths on some points it was interesting and thought provoking to consider your arguments. In summarizing what I've conveyed and why voters should chose me: The Bible makes truth claims and, more, claims to be the word of God. Con's arguments in relation to contradictions being ascribable to varying authorship fails when the Bible itself purports to be divinely inspired. Some contradictions are zero sum, as in, if one assertion is true, the contradictory assertion must necessarily be false. These errors are reason to question validity. Believers have a tendency to describe passages alternatively as literal or metaphorical, as divinely inspired or written by men, and with esoteric interpretations going against the plain meaning of words, in a way that suits them in a given context. It is incoherent to, on the one hand, describe the Bible as the infallible word of God and, on the other, attribute contradictions to the work of men with imperfect memory. This is moving the goalposts. I do think we had some disagreements over definitions and relevancy, and these matters were not established in rules up front, so it falls to the voters to determine which of us missed the mark on points of contention. Once again, thanks for debating, TannerJK, and have a good night.
Contradictions in the Bible are reasons to doubt its validity.

You said "we are debating the validity of the Bible indirectly", which isn't true. As the person who created and worded this debate, I assure you that this debate is not over the validity of the Bible. It is only whether or not contradictions give good reason to doubt it. Anything not directly related to this is invalid in this debate. 1-If the two accounts are not identical, it doesn't mean one is fully false, but one was remembered differently. "You can apply this to almost anything: go to the beach with your friends on Sunday and by Friday you"ll all have slightly different takes on what happened. Wait another 20 years and your stories will be completely different, bar the central fact that you were physically at the beach". Given the gospels are attributed to different authors and supposedly written some 20"50 years after Jesus" death, it"s kind of impressive they agree on anything at all." (1) You also say that the Bible says authors can"t interpret it. Also not true. It says "no prophecy of scripture" is someone"s own interpretation. That doesn't mean the style in which they each wrote and the way they remembered historical events as happening can"t have diversity. 2-I never said there are "errors" or "inaccuracies" because there are not. I said there is variation. Please don't misquote me. 3-The motives of the authors have everything to do with this debate. Their motives would influence the order they write things, the sections they emphasize, the parts they include, and the parts they leave out. 4-Context is also important. What they said near the passage as well as when they write and whom they are writing to would cause them to word things certain ways, etc. Similar to last point. 5-For the sake of not using my character limit, I will label them a, b, and c, according to the order you presented them. a.Please read the entire article I cite. (2) It will explain in greater detail than I have room to. One of the biggest messages in Jesus' ministry is that He is God. However, he also often says that He is on Earth to do the Father's Will. He is equal to God (in the sense that they are One), yet he is under the authority of God while on Earth. In that sense, omnipotent God is greater than on-Earth Jesus. b.Context! The "make judgments" verse means judge THINGS. He advises to judge actions they may commit, and to judge what's being taught to them. It's in the sense of evaluating right and wrong in concern to themselves. In your next verse, he tells readers to not wrongly infer or think bad of others, since we aren't perfect and hold no right. It's in concern to PEOPLE. c.I don't think something as trivial as this is a contradiction. The colors are similar and could be described as either. Besides, the robe was likely old, used, and the color faded. Read (3). (1)listverse.com/2013/03/20/10 (2)www.teachingtheword.org/apps/articles/?articleid=64843&view=post&blogid=544 (3)apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=300
Contradictions in the Bible are reasons to doubt its validity.

First off, thanks for the compliments. I'm having fun with this as well so I appreciate you putting this debate forward. Understood on making things clear and you intention to address the contradictions in your defense. Onto my defense: ==Burden of Proof== The Bible makes assertions. The topic of this debate is whether internal contradictions are reasons to doubt the validity of the Bible. Assertions that would require significant evidence to believe are not credible when supported by internally inconsistent statements within the Bible. I do think that the topic of the debate trespasses on the claims of the Bible overtly in relation to how contradictions in the Bible affect the credibility of said claims. Unfortunately I believe we're at an impasse here so I'll subject myself to the arbitration of the voters on this. ==Infallible Word of God== Thank you for acknowledging the truth value of my factual statement about what the Bible conveys on this matter. I do believe that this is a vital point that delivers a devastating blow to any defenses of inconsistencies on the basis of varying authorship. ==Numerous Contradictions== I appreciate you asking for three specific contradictions, as I don't think we can argue this in broad strokes without specific examples. I look forward to reading your responses to the passages I cited. I don't think there's much more to be said on this beyond those specific responses. ==Holes in Opening== First off, I'm concede that stating that there are numerous contradictions without elaboration in the opening (although I provided a source) was less than an ideal. However, in my defense I would like to point out that you set the parameters of this debate and we have only 3,000 characters per round. This did not give me sufficient space to delve deeply and cite a number of specific contradictions. I felt that providing a source listing dozens of contradictions, while weaker than listing contradictions explicitly, was appropriately succinct within the confines of the debate structure. As for the rest, for me this is a matter of philosophy of logic. I provided two arguments which I then converted to standard form, in which contradictions in the Bible formed whole or part of a premise, with the conclusion that the validity of the Bible should be doubted. I disagree that any of it was irrelevant to the debate topic. I think although this has been a fun exercise there is a mismatch in some respects as to our reading of what is and isn't pertinent, how to address the topic and what logic to apply.
Contradictions in the Bible are reasons to doubt its validity.

First of all, I would like to say that I am truly enjoying this debate. You are obviously very intelligent and a skilled orator, which is what makes a debate fun. I would also like to answer a question you asked in your rebuttal. My introduction, where I discussed the subject of the debate, was mostly a general statement to ensure that not only we, but also our readers and voters, weren't misinterpreting the topic. Lastly, thank you for providing me with three "contradictions" as I asked. As promised, I will answer them next round in my defense points. Now, I will give rebuttals to your opening arguments in Round 1. -Burden of Proof I'm not sure that this is true, since the topic isn't about whether or not something is true or exists, which is what the source you shared was talking about. (1) We are merely debating whether or not contradictions point to an invalid Bible. Nothing to prove or disprove, meaning there is no burden of proof, only who lays out the most convincing arguments. "Not all assertions we make in a debate necessarily have a burden of proof" (2) The other two paragraphs under this header are nearly unrelated to our topic. We aren't debating if all the claims in the Bible challenge validity, only contradictions. -Infallible Word of God Everything in this section is true. The Bible was inspired by God through around 30 authors. They wrote based upon the convictions he placed on them as they wrote. (3) -Numerous Contradictions This is the topic of the debate. As the link you cited with this point says (4), "Not everyone will agree that all of the listed "contradictions" are, in fact, contradictions." That lowers the credibility of this source. The majority of my initial argument could serve as a rebuttal to this point. Many of the "contradictions" are merely the result of variation in authors' styles, misinterpretations, text out of context, or differences in translations. Since you provided me with three, I will explain them and further argue this point in the next round. Each one you gave me is a common example from a skeptic, and therefore not very hard to explain. I feel there are a lot of holes in your opening argument. Everything was vague and when you actually discussed our topic, it was with one sentence that said "just to be clear" followed by your stance. You can't make a general statement like that and not back it up. I wish you had more supporting evidence a more elaborate outline. Besides that point, one stated accepted Christian beliefs that you didn't argue and the other was not accurate to our debate topic. Now on to our defense rounds. Best of luck to you. (1)http://www.qcc.cuny.edu... (2)https://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com... (3)http://biblehub.com... (4)http://infidels.org...
Contradictions in the Bible are reasons to doubt its validity.

==Subject of the debate== I understand the topic and would like to point out that both of the arguments that I put into standard form involved internal contradictions in the Bible as a premise, with the conclusion being that the validity of the Bible can be doubted. I'm unsure if you are making a general assertion to clarify things or if you believe that criticism applies to what I've written. If the latter, please be explicit in your rebuttal. However, we *are* debating the validity of the Bible indirectly, although I understand we're restricted to only doing so through a specific line of reasoning. ==Definitions== I will note and accept all of the definitions which you have provided. ==Rebuttal - "Different doesn't equal fictitious"== -If two directly conflicting statements are mutually exclusive, then they can"t both be true at the same time. So to the contrary of your assertion, "different" can indeed equate to the logical conclusion that one of two competing claims is false. -Even in cases where contradicting statements are not mutually exclusively, it is still a reasonable criteria under which to assess credibility of a source. -The "Rashomon effect" analogy you drew is not comparable to the discrepancies in the Bible which, as I stated in my opening, explicitly claims to be the infallible word of God and explicitly rejects the possibility that any interpretations from authors influenced the text. ==Rebuttal - Slight variation supports the fact that it is true== -First and most importantly, you're actually conceding right here that there are inaccuracies in the Bible. The fact that you attribute this to authors is irrelevant; what matters is that *you are admitting that there are errors in the text itself*. By definition, if it's erroneous its validity can be questioned. -Again, the Bible itself undermines the argument that contradictions are due to varying authors. -Additionally, there are internal contradictions even within a single book of the Bible, written by a single author. ==Rebuttal - Different authors had different purposes for writing== I fail to see how the motives of the authors have any relevance to this debate. ==Rebuttal - Context is key== Too broad a point to argue generally, but I'm open to you attempting to demonstrate this with any specific scripture I present. ==Rebuttal - Many "contradictions" aren't so== I'd be happy to present three examples of contradictions, as you request. To emphasize there are even contradictions within individual books, two of the examples fit this pattern. Due to character limit constraints I will need to summarize and can't include the full text of the scriptures. John 10:30 (1) - Jesus equal to the Father. John 14:28 (1) - The Father greater than Jesus. 1 Corinthians 2:15 (1) - Make judgments. 1 Corinthians 4:5 (1) - Judge nothing. Matthew 27:28 (1) - Jesus wore a scarlet robe at trial. John 19:2 (1) - Jesus wore a purple robe at trial. (1) https://www.biblegateway.com...
Contradictions in the Bible are reasons to doubt its validity.

Before my initial arguments, I would like to remind you of what our topic actually is all about, and make sure we are on the same page: WE AREN'T DEBATING THE VALIDITY OF THE BIBLE. We are not debating whether or not the Bible is true, and there is no burden to prove. The topic is ONLY whether or not contradictions provide a solid reason for doubt. Anything unrelated to contradictions and what they mean for the Bible's validity are therefore irrelevant and have no effect on this debate. Contradiction- ...statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another. (1) Doubt- To be undecided or skeptical. (2) Valid- sound; just; well-founded (3) 1- Different doesn't equal fictitious. The biggest view from a skeptic is that a difference automatically disqualifies something from being true. This is simply illogical. Imagine you and a few friends are having lunch together. While having lunch, you all are reliving a great memory you had together. Each of you are probably going to remember things a little differently, and some of you may remember an aspect that no one else remembers. You will obviously paraphrase quotes, and because of this, everything might not line up 100%. Does this mean the story you're telling didn't happen? No. Each of you had a different aspect and therefore had slightly different accounts. 2- Slight variation supports that fact that it is true. Besides saying that variation doesn't disprove the Bible, I want to take it even further and say that they actually support the Bible's validity. They help push the fact that real people wrote these things down. If the Bible was made up by some cult who was trying to fool everyone, it would not contain any "errors" and if any were discovered, would have been fixed immediately. As Explore God put it, "Contrived and forged works generally don"t contain such marks." (4) 3- Different authors had different purposes for writing. It's not necessary to explain in depth the History of the Bible. Each book is a letter or historical "textbook" written by who it says it was. The Early Church compiled the ones it believed most reliable and made our holy text. Whether you believe what's in the Bible to be true, this is solid fact. (5) Each author wrote with a specific purpose and audience in mind, and chose content accordingly. Explore God: "Its authors simply reported what they experienced to the best of their abilities." (6) 4- Context is Key Many so-called contradictions occur due to taking Scripture out of context (7) 5- Many "contradictions" aren't so. (8) As I have reached my 3,000 character limit, I ask that you give me 3 examples of contradictions that I will attempt to explain next round. (1) en.oxforddictionaries.com/ (2) www.thefreedictionary.com/ (3) www.dictionary.com/ (4,6) www.exploregod.com/what-about-contradictions-in-the-bible (5) www.allaboutthejourney.org/history-of-the-b (7) www.tektonics.org/lp/merri (8) answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/