BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible is Not God's Word

Unfortunately, my partner made several mistakes that I wish to point out in this round. -->Rebuttals<--All I have to do to win this debate since the title is The Bible isn't God's word, is to proove (sic) that the Bible is refurred (sic) to as the word of God and in this site and in my church it is refurred (sic) to as the Word of God. .. . This is false. My partner made an argumentum ad populum. Based on this logic, the Quran is the Word of God because it is referred to as the Word of God on this site (Mirza, baggains) and in local mosques as the Word of God. On point 1, what evidence do you have that Matthew and Luke were given the ability to speak in different languages? Likewise, this ability has been reported in different religions as well such as several Japanese folk tales [1] and other pagan faiths as well. [2] On point 2, I don't quite get what you are referring to. What about Alexander? If you are referring to Alexander the Great, he was a pagan king who declared HIMSELF as a god! [3] Different manuscripts say conflicting thingsMy partner refutes absolutely NOTHING. What I mean is, if the Bible is God's Word, then it should be clear; especially in terms of salvation and which books belong in the Bible. Second one refurrs (sic) to the fact that heaven is neither east or west you just should look for it, because it isn't Earthly. This is irrelavent and I have absolutely no clue what you are trying to get across. Three tests to see if God is in the Bible1) What each remedy revealed about the Son's father: Please explain a bit deeper. Can you prove the creation account actually happened? 2) How accurate each remedy pictures the nature of the disease. Many of the liberal and humanistic religions stress the basic goodness of man's nature. They say corruption comes from society. This goes contrary to the facts of history and logic (see 'People are Basically Good' - Proof to the Contrary). History reveals that man is not basically good; he is basically selfish and sinful. The liberal view is also illogical because society is a group of individual people. To blame the situation of the world on society is to blame it on people. This is exactly what the Bible teaches: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). How is this suppose to prove the divine origins of the Bible? !! ?-->Conclusion<--My partner refuted NOTHING of what I stated and instead relied upon an argument that I have no clue what his point is! Please vote pro. -->References<--1. . http://www.jstor.org...;2. . http://www.speaking-in-tongues.net...;3. . http://grad.usask.ca...;
The Bible is Not God's Word

Greetings, The full resolution is "On balance of probability, the Bible is not God's word." =====> Debate Guidelines <======Rounds:1. Terms and abstract2. Opening arguments3. CX/1st R 4. CX/2nd R5. Closing For the purposes of this debate, the Bible will be the 66 books accepted by all Christians. The Catholic/Orthodox Deutercanonical books are not in play because of this. "Improbable" will be defined as less than 50%. The BoP is shared. The time limit between replies is 72 hours. If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. If one side explicitly concedes or violates any of these terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other. By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms.=====>Abstract<======This is a quick summary of my case in syllogism form. This was made by Theodore Drange: [1] (A) If the God of evangelical Christianity were to exist, then the Bible would be God's only written revelation. (B) Thus, if that deity were to exist, then he would probably see to it that the Bible is perfectly clear and authoritative, and lack the appearance of merely human authorship. (C) Some facts about the Bible are the following: It contradicts itself or is very unclear in many places. It contains factual errors, including unfulfilled prophecies. It contains ethical defects (such as God committing or ordering atrocities). It contains interpolations (later insertions to the text). Different copies of the same biblical manuscripts say conflicting things. The biblical canon involves disputes and is apparently arbitrary. There is no objective procedure for settling any of the various disputes, especially since the original manuscripts of the Bible have been lost and there has been no declaration from God that would help resolve any of the disputes. (D) Therefore [from C], the Bible is not perfectly clear and authoritative, and has the appearance of merely human authorship. (E) Hence [from B & D], probably the God of evangelical Christianity does not exist. http://www.infidels.org...Good luck :-)
Ultron ( pro) vs Thor (con)

==Clarification==Pro and I discussed in a PM this topic, and we *both* decided to retain the Earth-616 mainstream Marvel comics version of the characters. But Pro is arguing based on the MCU version, which is *not* Earth-616. Therefore, these arguments are invalid. RI. Quicksilver Quicksilver is *not* with Ultron in this scenario, as it is Ultron vs. Thor with no interference. ==Arguments==CI. Earth 616 vs. MCUPro is arguing for an MCU version, which has no particular statistic that allows for the comparison of the characters. As seen in my Clarification, we are arguing for the Earth-616 variation ONLY. These arguments and contentions are invalid. CII. Unrefuted ArgumentsNone of my arguments have been refuted by Pro in any manner whatsoever. I extend all my arguments. I have refuted all of Pro's contentions. ==Conclusion==Thor's chronokinesis and God-blast alone can destroy Ultron, and this debate is about the Earth-616 variation only. I have refuted all of Pro's arguments, but Pro has not even attempted to refute mine. The resolution is negated.
Ultron ( pro) vs Thor (con)

You have not watched the movie version I see. In Avengers 2, Ultron steals vibranium which allows his main bot to grow bigger and be made more durable. Captain threw his shield but Ultron just went back a bit as if it was an over sized cricket ball. If Thor would have been able to go as fast as the speed of light, then Quicksilver would have been no problem for him. Although he was grounded by his hammer, it was only that Quicksilver tried to hold it that brought him back in normal time. Otherwise the throw had already missed. Even if it would be 1 Ultron vs 1 Thor, Ultron would win. This is based on the movie version. Plus Ultron can escape if things go wrong, for only Vision was able to shut him out of the internet.
Ultron ( pro) vs Thor (con)

Lets start then. Ultron's boss model was made of vibranium, same metal as Captain America's shield, so Thor's hammer will have a lesser damage effect. Also, Ultron was mentioned to be 'All over the net' and was trying to hack nuke codes but was stopped by Jarvis. This time none would stop him, and his army was basically clones of him so we have 1000 Ultron's vs 1 Thor. Thor Odinson, without reinforcements is no match for the might of Ultron.
Women should not be allowed to vote or have authority

I would like to elaborate on why I oppose women voting and having more authority. Men think in straight lines; women think in circles. When it comes to making decisions, women usually go by their emotions, and their emotions are very fickle. Not only that, but modern day feminists are filled with fury and intolerance, and they tell evil lies about men for the purpose of causing prejudice against them. Many women--not all, but many--are now using their authority to punish men. The government and the Secret Societies are using women to destroy the family. When a family is strong, the government has less power and control over society. The government has encouraged single motherhood by making a woman benefit from a divorce and by paying child support. The law is also making it harder and harder for good fathers to see their children if the mother chooses to be spiteful. In order for the government to wreck marriage and family, they have gradually changed the law to only benefit women, and this allows women to be completely independant on a man. This is why divorce, single motherhood, and fatherless children has engulfed Western culture. Then we have the abortion issue. When abortion was first legalized, it could only be done in extreme cases--if the woman had been raped or if there were serious complications. But today, thanks to the feminist movement, abortion has become commonplace. A woman can have an abortion for any reason she wants. And anyone who holds the opinion that a woman should not have an abortion will be subjected to angry opposition, because saying that abortion should not be allowed automatically makes you a "sexist, intolerant biggot who just wants to oppress women. " When men were in charge of the family, society was much better. But the government wanted to destroy this. The government knew that if it gave women more authority and gave men less authority, this would encorage more women to get divorced and be single mothers. And we can now seen the dire results of this agenda. I look forward to my opponents response.
Women should not be allowed to vote or have authority

I'd like to begin by thanking my opponent for challenging me to this debate. While I know Pro is arguing against what is considered politically correct, I highly commend his challenge of arguing against the status quo. Still, of course I vehemently disagree with his assertions. I look forward to a civil, interesting discussion. Pro opens the debate by saying that allowing women to vote and hold positions of power has been "disastrous" to families and society as a whole. Of course, without examples or evidence, we have no reason to automatically accept this contention as true. Warrior needs to be specific in outlining how women having equal rights (like voting and the ability to hold legitimately elected positions of power) has in itself caused harm. Pro also claims that "There is a deliberate agenda to put women in bigger positions of power while taking away the rights of men." Again, Pro must be more specific in order for this contention to have merit. Who is behind this agenda? How is it being implemented? How are men's rights inhibited by acknowledging the rights of women? What are the dire consequences that Pro references? These are fundamental aspects of the debate that Pro needs to explain. It is merely Pro's opinion that women were made to help and please men. Indeed, various cultures throughout history have viewed women in different ways. Matriarchal societies are those in which women, particularly mothers, have the central role of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property [1]. Some societies are actually governed and led by women, specifically [2]. Matrifocal family structures are those in which mothers head families and fathers play a less important role [3]. Now, I'm not arguing that these societies are superior to patriarchal ones, but instead pointing out that various cultures view the role of women differently. As such, we cannot automatically assume a woman's "proper" role as Pro indicates. He must argue what that role is or should be and why.[1] http://www.second-congress-matriarchal-studies.com...[2] http://utopianist.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Women should not be allowed to vote or have authority

I feel that this debate is important because I think it's important for people to understand that allowing women to vote and giving them more authority has proven to be disastrous--for marriage, family, and society. There is a deliberate agenda to put women in bigger positions of power while taking away the rights of men. I don't believe that women have any place in politics or positions of authority. However, I also believe that women are the most beautiful of God's creation. Women were made to help men and please him. In return, the man is suppose to love, honor, and protect his wife. Once upon a time, women were such beautiful cratures, but feminism has poisoned everything. Women are replacing a man's role and leadership, and the consequences have been dire. I welcome my female opponent to express her opinions, and I hope this will be a friendly debate.
Democratic Socialism

You're not talking about a totalitarian government that owns all the companies (like the socialist party in France) Are you talking about a capitalist country where people can buy and sell companies? "...a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production". What is Democratic control of the means of production. Is that like the way we regulate business in capitalist society? or are you talking about setting prices of goods and services, and dictating to companies how they should run? What is social ownership, as opposed to government ownership, and share holders? Do you mean that the workers own the company they work for? "the men at the top of any business should not have any more political or social power than the man sweeping the floor" What do you mean by political and social power? Do you mean wealth and influence?
Democratic Socialism

Wikipedia defines socialism as: "...a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production". I am not therefore arguing for 'my idea' of socialism, but rather the established definitions of it from reliable sources. I did not define socialism as representing both equal pay and equal power. In fact, the last sentence of my opening statement argued against this, stating as follows... For the CEO of NASA to make the same salary as the man sweeping the floor in McDonald's is NOT an egalitarian concept. I further did not intend to imply that corporations/business should not have a 'hierarchy'. I did however intend that politically speaking, the men at the top of any business should not have any more political or social power than the man sweeping the floor; certainly however, on the topic of the increasing wealth gap between the dominating, and oppressed social classes, I would certainly advocate that those who have reached a higher income bracket, should likewise be required to contribute by proportion to society. And finally, no, there have not been examples of Democratic Socialism to date, regardless of the nominal status of the governing party as "Democratic Socialist". The French Revolution is a good example of this. The "socialist" party of France gained power, established "State Capitalism", (the 'state' is now the capitalist), and called it socialism. This caused Karl Marx to denounce the revolution, stating, "If anything is true, it is that I, myself, am not a Marxist". The reason for lack of examples involves a couple of things, but the primary cause is simply "corruption". Once the party claiming to be "Socialist" gains power, corruption sets in, and the transition of power to the people ('society') never takes place. In todays' context, this involves democratic checks and balances on power during the transition, and honest leadership of that transition.
Democratic Socialism

Socialism has become a very frightening word to use in the U.S., particularly after the World Wars, the following government-subsidized anti-socialist propaganda, and it's magnification during the era of the cold war. There has no doubt been room enough in this hundred-year debate for a re-writing of history, ad-hominem attacks, circular reasoning, mis-definitions of socialism, and dare I say just plain falsehood. Proponents of capitalism have attempted to jumble the fundamental definition of socialism as only being a "big-government" ideology; even claiming that the authoritarian "State-Capitalist" regimes reflect what socialism is. This is untrue. Socialism, by definition, represents control of the means of production by the population. The only egalitarian method for accomplishing this would be the "democratization" of the means of production by the people, and management of those means by individual corporations, including the legislation of egalitarianism by the state. Secondly, there have been repeated attacks on socialist ideology by the very people who have wrongfully defined it. One simply cannot point to State-Capitalist regimes as being socialist, and then attack socialism on the basis of the unsuccess of those very regimes. In the existing examples of nations of the past that have, out of corruption, referred to themselves as "socialist", we do not have public controls over the means of production. We have only examples of government -control over those means, with poor representation within the public sphere. If we are to call government control over manufacturing and services "socialism", than we most certainly would look for extended and open representation of the common man in the work environment to have a seat in government affairs. This has not been the case. State capitalism is therefore, or "should be" only the first step. In order to rearrange the sociopolitical structure, there must first be an attaining of state power by a "Socialist Party", before a redistribution of power can take place. And of course, this in itself, is a rebuttal of the myth that socialism requires the redistribution of wealth "full-scale". For the CEO of NASA to make the same salary as the man sweeping the floor in McDonald's is NOT an egalitarian concept. If the man sweeping the floors of McDonald's has the same political power, the same loud voice, and identical freedoms; THAT is egalitarianism, at it's absolute finest.
0! should be 0, not 1.

0 factorial is accepted to be one for multiple reasons, which I will outline and briefly explain below.First, let's define factorial. dictionary.com gives us "the product of a given positive integer multiplied by all lesser positive integers." There is no positive integer less than 0, so 0 is not multiplied by anything else, leading to the first reason.Empty ProductPro states that "0 times 0 is equal to 0, so this makes since. [sic]" This is correct, but irrelevant. The additive identity is 0, as for any number n, it is obvious that n + 0 = n. In the same way, 1 is the multiplicative identity. For any number n, n * 1 = n. These identities have been established for a long period of time, and they are commonly accepted by mathematicians.If no numbers are added together (let's think of this as an empty sum), the result is always 0, the additive identity. Similarly, if no numbers are multiplied, the "empty product" is 1, the multiplicative identity. Because 0! has an empty product, the result is 1. The second reason for 0! being 1 deals with factorial and its applications. Empty SetFactorial is commonly used when referring to probability, sets of data, and other similar branches of mathematics. The permutation and combination functions, nPr and nCr respectively, use the factorial function in their equations. One application of factorial itself is the amount of different ways you can arrange a set including n items. This is also a permutation function, namely for any whole number n, nPn. A set of 3 items can be arranged 6 different ways (3!), a set of 4 can be arranged 24 different ways (4!) and a set of 5 things can be arranged 120 different ways (5!). A set with no items in it can only be arranged one way - empty.A third explanation for this situation is purely mathematical, and very logical.Factorial Division4! and 3! are 24 and 6, respectively. 4 factorial can be represented by 4*(3!), and as a result 4! / 3! is 4. This is reproducible all the way down to 1. 1! / 0! must be 1, and as a result 0! must be 1. Note that this cannot be continued into negative numbers, as the factorial function is only used for positive integers.I look forward to my opponent's response. Thanks for a good debate topic, and hopefully you don't forfeit like many other members of this website.
That beauty padgents should be banned

I think that 1.Beaty padgents encourage people to be unatural and try and lose weight when they are in perfect shape. ex. When someone dosn't win they often think they need to be skinnyer when they are in perfect shape and this can lead to anarexea. 2. People need to be themselfs when they go to beaty padgents they wear clothes that other people think look good and do not be themselfs. 3.They are only ever pleasing for the winner because they think they are the prettiest and get a big head on the other hand people who do not win think they are ugly or fat
That beauty padgents should be banned

Beauty pageants are detrimental to many aspects of society, however this does not mean that they should be banned. Definition That contests where girls (young or old) compete for a beauty title that is based purely on exterior beauty. [Dear Pro - I don't have much time so will keep it short and sweet] My points: [First round] 1. Remove or improve...? 2. Because it's bad doesn't mean it should be banned. [Second round] 3. Calling in life. Point 1. The negativity that surrounds these 'beauty' competitions often lacks in integrity and truth. Perhaps to solve this problem, beauty pageants should be improved to include interior beauty as well, or have some other skill involved other than just false, plastic exteriorities. Don't remove, improve!! Point 2. Because something is bad, does not mean it should be banned. Take unhealthy food for example, there is nothing actually wrong with, for example, McDonalds selling their famous Big Mac's. However there is something wrong with an obese, unhealthy person ordering four of them. You see how it is not actually the fault of the company, or the burger itself, they're just trying to make a few dollars. The fault is with the people who eat and eat it until they are obese. It may be the burger that is making the person fat, however it is the fault of the person who orders twelve of them. So...does that mean that we should ban McDonalds. No, some smart people consume fast food in moderation. It's exactly the same with these beauty contests. They were fine until people took them too far, fine until they became fake. So should it be banned. No. They should be improved. Refute 1. The opposition have claimed that "it leaves the children thinking that they are all grown up and think they are fat and ugly because they don't enjoy how they look." The reason people don't "enjoy" the way they look is because of the media's influence on what our sense of beauty is. They are portraying beauty as a size zero and plastic everything, when in actual fact beauty is skin deep. It is the fault of the media that people have low self-esteem, not beauty pageants. Good luck Pro and I will look forward to your case and contentions. Vote Con!!
That beauty padgents should be banned

I'm sorry that I was unable to post my round, but it is for no-one to judge, not everyone has the ability to debate when ever they please. Contention 1. Beauty pageants themselves do not force people to try and change their image or body, it is the people's individual pursuit of beauty that drives the pathetically shallow dreams of unobtainable beauty. The pageants are just an opportunity for them to showcase their progress along that pursuit. Contention 2. Wearing different clothes does not change a person's sense of self, or personality. Being yourself is not just about wearing whatever the hell you want, it's about living through your personality. It's like going to athletics competitions, athletes wear crop tops and short shorts, does this reflect o their personality...no, it reflects on their activity. Contention 3. "people who do not win think they are ugly or fat", Touchï¿½ however, going back to the athletics example, if you lose a race you may think that you are slow or unfit. In reality this is no different from winning or losing a beauty pageant. Contention 4. Bad examples come from everywhere, so just because it CAN be a bad influence, does not mean that it should be banned. Don't remove, improve! As I forfeited the proceeding round, my point of "calling in life" is invalid and therefore should be scratched from my round one allocation. Vote Con!!