BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The New Testament contains no genuine contradictions of consequence

If he doesn't mind, I'll use the decimal system to number my arguments, letters get confusing. I will use the ESV version for citations, however, in some cases I may refer to the original Hebrew or Greek for clarification (and, preempting a few of my opponent's rebuttals, I probably will). There are, of course, hundreds of contradictions I could list, but to keep things simple I'm only going to list eight. .. 1. Matthew 5:18 "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. " Ephesians 2:15 ". .. by abolishing the law" Explanation: Did Jesus abolish the law? 2. Matthew 23:17 (Jesus speaking) "You blind fools! " Matthew 5:22 (Jesus speaking) "Whoever says, ‘You fool! ' will be liable to the hell of fire. " Luke 23:43 "today you will be with me in Paradise. " Explanation: Did Jesus go to hell or paradise? 3. Luke 11:10 "To the one who knocks it will be opened. " Luke 13:24 "For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. " Explanation: if you seek the Kingdom of heaven, can you enter it? 4. Romans 11:32 "For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. " Mark 16:16 "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. " Explanation: Can non-believers be saved? 5. Matthew 6:13 (part of Lord's Prayer) "And lead us not into temptation" James 1:13 "he [God] himself tempts no one" Explanation: Does God tempt? 6. Romans 13:1 "those [governing authorities] that exist have been instituted by God. " Acts 5:29 (said in disobedience to ruling authorities) "We must obey God rather than men. " Explanation: Need ruling authorities be obeyed? Were they instituted by God? 7. John 10:30 "I and the Father are one" Acts 2:22 "Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works . .. that God did through him" Explanation: Is Jesus God, or a man in whom God worked? See also Rom.1:3 vs Heb.7:24 8. Matthew 5:16 "let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works" Matthew 6:1 "Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them" Explanation: Should we show our "light" or keep it hidden? I look forward to hearing my opponent's rebuttal!
The New Testament contains no genuine contradictions of consequence

Greetings. I would like to propose this debate to any takers. Prior to the debate I would like to define some terms and establish some rules for the debate. [Terms] The New Testament - The 27 books of the established cannon recognized by the Christian Church. Contains - Contradictions that are WITHIN the text. It is not a viable argument to present the New Testament as contradicting with anything outside of the text, including Science, the Church, Other Religions, Other Documents from the 1st Century, etc. Genuine Contradiction - An actual contradiction. An example of two texts that cannot both be true. Consequence - A contradiction that poses actual threat to the meaning of Christian doctrine. The converse would be trivial contradictions, such as slight variations in dates or counting. Such trivial contradictions are typically easily explained, or pose no challenge to the truth being taught or the accuracy of the historical retelling. [Rules and Debating Proceedure] In the first round, Con must present any contradictions they believe are insurmountable. Please number them for clarity of response (Contradiction A, B, C, etc). In the following round, I will respond to the contradictions and attempt to explain how they are either A) Not Genuine Contradictions, or B) Not Contradictions of Consequence. Con may respond in round 2 either with challenging my response, or presenting new contradiction (or both). In Round 3 I will respond to his challenges or new contradictions. In round 3, Con may only respond to my answers. In round 4 I will respond to his challenges. In the close of round 4 Con may not present new arguments or responses to my challenge (that gives us each 3 rounds since my first round is being used only to describe rules). In Round 4 Con will enter "Closing Round" or something similar. If Con presents new arguments or rebuttals in Round 4, they are in violation of the terms of this debate and forfeit all 7 points to Pro for the debate. [A note about Burden of Proof] This debate does not have burden of proof in the way normal debates do. My burden of proof will be to reasonably explain any apparent contradictions that Con identifies. Con's burden of proof is to provide adequate biblical citations so that I may find the passages he is referencing. In addition, please use the ESV as the translation (It can be found at ESVonline.org) as it is both accurate and readable, and using only one translation prevents us from slipping into confusion over variant readings in different translations. If space is a premium, ESVonline provides a link shortening service to link to verses. Simply type esv.to/verse reference and you will get a link. For example. esv.to/john3:16 will link to John 3:16 If there are any questions, please pose them in comments prior to accepting the debate. By accepting you agree to all the stipulations and rules that have been given above. I look forward to my challenger.
Stupid bands.

Year Nominated work Award Result 2002 "Chop Suey!" Best Metal Performance Nominated 2003 "Aerials" Best Hard Rock Performance Nominated 2006 "B.Y.O.B." Best Hard Rock Performance Won 2007 "Lonely Day" Best Hard Rock Performance Nominated As you can see Chop Suey was nominated for Best Metal Performance. Aerials, B.Y.O.B., and Lonely day were all nominated for Best Hard Rock Performance, with B.Y.O.B. winning the nomination.And System of a Down's rhythm and beat is amazing.Even though the first two verses are exactly the same, the band delivers awesome instrumentals and make the song catchy enough, to a point where it doesn't even matter. http://www.youtube.com...
Euthanasia is a humane solution for the terminally ill

As for choosing their own ends: What if a second after the "sleep" medicine or whatever is administered, the person suddenly changes their mind and wants to live? What if they're a child or they have some mental impairment and don't fully understand what they're agreeing to? As for choosing another's end: Is that really a choice we ought to make for other people? Assuming we're talking about people who awake and somewhat aware and not people in a comma or brain dead or anything like that, should we really be allowed to choose whether or not another person died or lives? This is not a simple matter of ending someone's suffering.
Logic and reason,aka humanism, cannot accurately describe the human schema

"My argument is that the rush to act is what must be put into question." Then why didn't you make that the topic? You're talking about logic and reason. My stance is that just because logic and reason haven't been used well in the past, that doesn't mean that they are not capable of describing the human schema. I think that they are, and that few people use them correctly. As a wise Ethics teacher once said, "Life is simple; we make it complicated." Your example of Vietnam is a moot point. Just by reading your description, that war doesn't seem logical at all. I doubt that our representatives at the time really put in enough time to come up with a reasonable solution. Just because they gave a reason for it, doesn't make it reasonable. Your point about humanism vs. logic and reason are not valid. Mostly because you defined humanism as being synonymous with logic and reason in your topic. You chose the topic, therefore you are responsible for whatever you define in there. I learned that the hard way in a debate about capitalism. Yes, people are not meant to be manipulated. But with logic and reason, we can all come up with solutions to problems that would negate any need for manipulation. You can somewhat do the same thing with ontologicism (is that a word?), but that doesn't matter. All I have to do is prove that logic and reason can be used. Which is, so far, what I have done. Let me take on your Vietnam example. We thought that democracy would work in Vietnam. We thought it would help them, and more importantly, help us. This isn't using logic. Real, unbiased, objective logic would point out that it would only hurt both nations. It would have been best to never have gone out on a full-fledged war. We see that. This brings up another point: hindsight. "Hindsight is always 20-20." This is true, why? Because, looking back, we are able to analyze situations through an objective lens. What is this lens coated with? Logic and reason. Only in hindsight, can logic and reason be used at their best. And it gets even better. After examining past situations, we can apply what we've learned to present day scenarios. This is a HUGE way that logic and reason are still applicable. I'm going to finish with this: Saying that logic is applicable, isn't exclusive. In other words, just because logic and reason can be used, doesn't mean that ontological methods cannot be used as well. They both are good approaches to understanding the human schema(if it seems like I'm contradicting myself, I'm not). However, I think that logic is FAR superior.
Logic and reason,aka humanism, cannot accurately describe the human schema

My argument is that the rush to act is what must be put into question. If we always jump to the solution without understanding foreign policy power configurations, action will always beat out thought as the preferred mode of engagement. Yes, I can prove humanism has led to awful interventions. We went into vietnam since we thought democracy was the be all end all to save mankind and kick out the dirty communists. They didnt want democracy but we kept pushing. This is the inevitable breakdowns in foreign policy that result from an oversimplifcation of the international arena into a linear grid of reality. Humanism and rationalism cant coexist. Humanism is everything that is irrational. The world is about me, is what humanism teaches. Is that rational? That turns all your arguments. Objects are not constructed to be manipulated, that is the ontological problem with humanism. Yes we build things, but the problem is that when we see it in terms of how we can utilize it to accomplish a broader project, we're ignoring how truth and power are constituted, while devaluing the life or value the object has. When we look at a tree in terms of paper, no longer does it carry the value and significance that the piece of nature had before. When we think something is truley logical or happy, we become blind to the dangers that power exposes. Your comment asumes a world without truth and power, one where they are external and opposite to one another, when in fact it is something not to be overcome. Vietnam is the perfect example, democracy was suppose to create a stable government, we thought we were above power relations, ended up in the obliteration of everything we deemed different. Your contradiction argument has no warrants and makes no sense. The root cause of bad decisions is not rationality, meaning all your offense doesnt even link to my claim. You say ontology doesnt come first: You and your policy just aren't that important – if we don't pass your plan, written your way, today, there's nothing precluding us from passing a marginally different plan tomorrow or next week. Framing the debate as your plan versus endless suffering is blackmail for the sake of pushing your plan through. Voting negative is consistent with rejecting suffering. We agree their harms are bad, and they're certainly inconsistent with our post-structuralist framework. We're criticizing the manner in which they assembled evidence in the 1AC and how they're leaning on this evidence to make normative statements about foreign actors and what needs to be done. If we win a link and you agree with our impacts, then voting negative is still a way of empathizing with their harms – and, actually, a better way. Humanism is the root cause of all conflict. My alternative solves your offense in the best possible manner. Oh, and dont say that I dropped your args, I didnt drop a single one. But you conceded truth and power are co productive, which grants me an internal link to my impacts of value to life.
Logic and reason,aka humanism, cannot accurately describe the human schema

Truth and power are co productive meaning that any attempt to try and stop the world and break it down into something linear will fail and is rooted in a contradictory logic. Remember, ontology is what matters here. My alternative is not to reject all forms of conceptualization, rather to understand how we've been situated such that we understand configurations genuinely. We should not ask "what ought I do" because thats jumping to the solution without posing the question correctly. My argument is that we must understand the parameters working around us before we just jump into a situation and start acting. Vietnam is proof of why humanism is bad, how it boiled up to the surface and showed itself. Being able to predict everything is an attempt to manipulate variables. In this value system, life has no meaning because objects become something to be used and expended. What life is valuable if it can be used up in an instant? Thats my point. The idea we're free from power relationships, ie, that this is a pure and benign action, that logic is all happy, makes us blind to the dangers that power exposes. It makes us forget and push away atrocities that have happened. To say that we should send troops to Iraq is to presuppose we have a stable and coherent notion of the world when there is none. Logic and reason is fine in a world where we understand the paramters of our actions, but more often than not, when we approach a problem with a solution that we can just tack on, it is like a band aid that doesnt address the root cause. My alternative is one that proposes ontological questioning. Rationality is only a construct of what we make it. To say you're rational presupposes that I'm irrational, and that logic is what I'm criticizing, because it creates a certain truth of the subject when really, it is constantly fluctuationg. Sorry I'm condensing a life's study of philosophy into few words, I'd keep going but thats for my debate at harvard :D Look, the round gets much simpler when you evaluate the lens that the arguments are being written from. I'll win that in an ontological sense, ie, recognizing foundations, the idea of humanism is bankrupt.
Logic and reason,aka humanism, cannot accurately describe the human schema

Spanos and Foucault write about this in depth. Truth and power are co productive-- we cannot break down the world into linear and cause effect relations. Doing so assumes a world that is an ordered whole, one where we can predict and manipulate objects to achieve a desired end. Doing so is an attempt to overthrow power configurations by deeming them repressive, something that must be overthrown or overcome. This framework is inherently contradictory because it embraces a kill to save logic -- a framework that justifies certain life as valuable and other as worthless cannot articulate an objective meaning to life. Attempts to conduct foreign policy with the point of view that we have the correct solution, and that we have the correct blueprint/reading of the world is dangerous and arbitrary. Ontological questions come first, before we can understand the implications of policy action, we must understand its methodology and ethical constructions.
"Socrates should have drank the hemlock"

By drinking the hemlock, Socrates would have accepted the consequences of a crime that he did not commit. Socrates was not looking to be a martyr and die for what he believed in, but he said that there would be others like him. Also, he spoke of death as a "deep, peaceful sleep" or a "change of place." His meaning of this was that no matter what happened, he would continue to speak his words, while "sleeping soundly'" , through death which would do no physical harm to him anyway.
"Socrates should have drank the hemlock"

Socrates himself noted that he could have won the trial and been acquitted of his charges had he practiced the art of Sophistry, yet he chose to speak the truth. He did not try to finesse his way out of the charges against him, though he knew he had committed no crime whatsoever. I chose the negative side of this argument because I don't believe that Socrates should have drank the hemlock, or that he even wanted to because he was of old age. He knew in his mind that he was simply testing the Oracle's vision of him being the wisest man. He set out to find others who were like him, or wiser and made them question certain beliefs, in order to in fact determine whether or not he actually was the wisest man. Socrates stated that he was not a Sophist, nor a corrupter of the youth, but described himself as a gadfly sent to help the people. Socrates was well aware of his ignorance, in reference to Sophists who proclaimed to know everything, yet they did not. While on trial, Socrates proceeded to ask everyone present if he had corrupted anyone's mind. Plato, among others, spoke out in defense of Socrates stating that Socrates has helped them, but never corrupted their minds or ways of thinking. therefore, Socrates was innocent of the crime of corrupting the youth
"Socrates should have drank the hemlock"

Purpose of debate is to define our reasons, "Why Socrates should have by drank the hemlock" or the opposite, "Why should he have not drunk the hemlock". R1. Why did we decide to chose our side of the debate. R2. Explanation R3. Rebuttal. R4. Conclusion of each side. Socrates was a man of integrity and never wronged the community of Athens at least not intentionally. Plato referenced a gadfly to demonstrate Socrates stirring up Athens to make them think as a gadfly would sting a horse and irate it into action. His actions of provoking thought are what caused the Athenians to sentence his death by drinking hemlock. I chose the pro side because I believe that Socrates wanted to die. He was 70 years old and decided that it was time. He was given the chance to escaped prison but chose not to. He was a man that believed in justice. The court decided that he was guilty and his punishment was death. Socrates, whether or not they were right was going to obey their orders. I agree with the drinking of the hemlock, because during this time period once a young adult turned 18 years of age he had the right to continue living in Athens or to move elsewhere. If the young adult continued to live Athens there was an agreement that he would abide by the rules and standards of the Athenian court including trial by a judge and jury. Socrates decided to continue to live in Athens which was an agreement that he would obey the law. In this case if the court stated that he was guilty, whether or not he committed the crimes he was guilty under the Athenian court. Socrates obeyed the court and took his punishment knowing that they wrong he was not guilty.
"Socrates should have drank the hemlock"

Socrates himself noted that he could have won the trial and been acquitted of his charges had he practiced the art of Sophistry, yet he chose to speak the truth. He did not try to finesse his way out of the charges against him, though he knew he had committed no crime whatsoever. I chose the negative side of this argument because I don't believe that Socrates should have drank the hemlock, or that he even wanted to because he was of old age. He knew in his mind that he was simply testing the Oracle's vision of him being the wisest man. He set out to find others who were like him, or wiser and made them question certain beliefs, in order to in fact determine whether or not he actually was the wisest man.
"Socrates should have drank the hemlock"

Purpose of debate is to define our reasons, "Why Socrates should have by drank the hemlock" or the opposite, "Why should he have not drunk the hemlock". R1. Why did we decide to chose our side of the debate. R2. Explanation R3. Rebuttal. R4. Conclusion of each side. Socrates was a man of integrity and never wronged the community of Athens at least not intentionally. Plato referenced a gadfly to demonstrate Socrates stirring up Athens to make them think as a gadfly would sting a horse and irate it into action. His actions of provoking thought are what caused the Athenians to sentence his death by drinking hemlock. I chose the pro side because I believe that Socrates wanted to die. He was 70 years old and decided that it was time. He was given the chance to escaped prison but chose not to. He was a man that believed in justice. The court decided that he was guilty and his punishment was death. Socrates, whether or not they were right was going to obey their orders.
Pope Francis is a heretic and not a true Pope

1.Officially-sanctioned Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws embody errors and/or promote evil. 2.Because the Church is indefectible, her teaching cannot change, and because she is infallible, her laws cannot give evil. 3.It is therefore impossible that the errors and evils officially sanctioned in Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws could have proceeded from the authority of the Church. 4.Those who promulgate such errors and evils must somehow lack real authority in the Church. 5.Canonists and theologians teach that defection from the faith, once it becomes manifest, brings with it automatic loss of ecclesiastical office (authority). They apply this principle even to a pope who, in his personal capacity, somehow becomes a heretic. 6.Even popes have acknowledged the possibility that a heretic could one day end up on the throne of Peter. Paul IV decreed that the election of such a pope would be invalid, and that he would lack all authority. 7.Since the Church cannot defect but a pope as an individual can defect (as, a fortiori, can diocesan bishops), the best explanation for the post-Vatican II errors and evils we have catalogued is that they proceeded (proceed) from individuals who, despite their occupation of the Vatican and of various diocesan cathedrals, did (do) not objectively possess canonical authority. Since the election of Jorge Bergoglio ("Pope Francis") by the March 2013 conclave, more and more Catholics have started to wonder whether the sedevacantist explanation for the state of affairs in the post-Vatican II church might not indeed be the correct one. After all, how can you reconcile the countless outrageous public statements that Bergoglio has made (no Catholic God, who am I to judge, doctrinal security is not possible, proselytism is nonsense, etc.) with the claim that he is indeed the true Successor of Peter? On the face of it, you can"t. The only explanation that makes any sense alongside the Catholic (pre-V2) theology of the Church and the papacy is sedevacantism. Bergoglio is not a real pope, and the papal office is therefore objectively vacant (sede vacante = the Holy See is vacant). The man who deposited a beach ball on the altar of a Roman basilica and, more recently, donned a clown nose, is not, thank God a real pope, despite the fact that he wanders around in a white cassock.
Pope Francis is a heretic and not a true Pope

I really shouldn't have taken this debate. With Pro's exceptional knowledge of the self-defensive dogma of his Church, I have little room to argue against him. However, I still believe that when two doctrines are in conflict, the more unitive one is to be chosen, not the first one that was chronologically established. With that being said, I recognize that the schismatic churches are the ones who divided themselves from the Catholics, and I appreciate Pro's sentiment of "love the heretic, hate the heresy. "