BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible contains contradictions

I’m sorry for giving reasons as to why I should win so early in the debate, I didn’t see that part the first time I read it so It’s my bad. All is forgiven! I shall start from the easy points and work my way upwards. I have given my opponent this syllogism 1. God knows everything2. Jesus does not know when his return is3. Therefore, Jesus does not know everything4. Therefore, Jesus is not God This syllogism would be of course true, but Jesus did know everything when he achieved his omniscience. However, my opponent doesn’t seem to fully understand the nature of the trinity. My opponent contends that Jesus, after his Resurrection, achieved his omniscience. However, my opponent fails to realise that the Bible clearly states that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and forever. " In other words, Jesus cannot change. He is unchangeable. In order for him to have "Achieved" omniscience, it would have required him to change--which is something he cannot do. New contradiction 2My opponent contends that , when a father misleads his family, the effects of that misleading are often felt for generations. This is because the father is being covenantally unfaithful and God has stipulated that there are punishments to breaking the covenant with God. That is the case with these verses that deal with the sins visited upon the children. If a father rejects the covenant of God and takes his family into sin and rejects God, the children will suffer the consequences, often for several generations. Whether or not this is fair is not the issue. Sin is in the world, consequences of sin affected many generations. I will allow him to the argument that a father misleads his family, the effects are felt for generations. However, it is not the child's fault that he is a bastard or an illegitimate child so why should he be not allowed to enter the congregation. Original ContradictionMy opponent still contends to the point that Jesus was being hyperbolic. However, I asked Taylor a question, "How do we know what is hyperbolic or not? " My opponent responds CONTEXT! However, no matter where in the Bible the same word is used, it is not hyperbolic. So how can we take one passage that Jesus stated and say it was hyperbolic? Was it hyperbolic when Jesus said the same word when he said that you will be hated of all men? Also, in the Greek it was ALWAYS literal. Take a look at this passage. Matthew 10:34-36 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes [shall be] they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. (emphasis mine) Variance: διχάζω 1) to cut into two parts, cleave asunder, sever. This is an important parallel passage to the point that Jesus is speaking. I am looking forward to my opponent's response. Back to you.
The Bible contains contradictions

In addition, I will agree to what you have stated and will not post any new contradictions as time goes on. I will not require you to answer the new contradictions. My opponent offers only one “contradiction”, I said that he could offer up to four so I will allow him in round three to add up to two more contradictions if he would like, due to the fact that he seems to take the verse in question out of context. I will be using the King James Version (KJV) for several reasons. It is considered most accurate It is the most popular version No copyright-I do not have to worry about being sued Most of the contradictions in the KJV are also in other versions. I disagree on all levels for the KJV. It was translated 400 years ago by only 50 or so scholars. Today, we have translations for a modern dialect, with versions that use up to 200 scholars to determine the accuracy, and there are many more “contradictions” in the KJV due to improper translation. My opponent may use KJV, however I would not recommend it if he legitimately wants to understand what the Bible is trying to say. He may of course use KJV, I simply don't recommend it and will be using different translations. Contradiction 1: How should you treat your parents? Are we supposed to hate or not? Luke 14:26 and 1 John 3:15 You must hate - (Luke 14:26) - "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. " You must not hate - (1 John 3:15) - "Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. " In Luke 14:26, Jesus is drawing a comparison of importance by exaggerating a relationship. Jesus is merely making his point so that people will understand how highly one should love Jesus. In the Bible, the greatest commandments are to love God with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and then to love your neighbor as yourself. So Jesus is by no means telling people to hate anyone. He is saying that your love for me should be so great in comparison for your love for your family, that it is on the scale seems as though it is hate compared to Christ. He is saying that by comparison to Him, you must love Him more than all else. In 1 John 3:15, John is writing to the church about abiding in the love of Christ. In fact, in 1 John, the word "abide" occurs 16 times in the NASB and the apostle continually refers to abiding in Christ (1 John 2:4,24,28;3:6,24, etc. ). For Christians, this means that we must have a love for Christ that far exceeds the love we have for anyone else. He should reign supreme in our hearts. Sources: . http://carm.org...
The Bible contains contradictions

I will honour your request and only post my favourite contradictions. Note that as a Canadian I may have slightly different spelling. In addition, I will agree to what you have stated and will not post any new contradictions as time goes on. I will not require you to answer the new contradictions. I will be using the King James Version (KJV) for several reasons. It is considered most accurate It is the most popular version No copyright-I do not have to worry about being sued Most of the contradictions in the KJV are also in other versions. Contradiction 1: How should you treat your parents? A. You should honour them"Honour thy father and thy mother. " Exodus 20:12B. Hate your parents"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. " Luke 14:26We need to understand the word hate according to the Strong's exhausted concordance dictionary, the word hate means the followingHate: μισέω 1) to hate, pursue with hatred, detest 2) to be hated, detested. http://www.blueletterbible.org...It is also important to note that it is Jesus speaking and the same word is used in Mark 13:13 where it says "And ye shall be hated (detested) of all men for my name's sake: but he that endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. "To love A much more than B does not mean you have to hate BAnother contradiction arises in the same verse. 1 John 3:15 states the following, "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. " And the SAME WORD that means to hate, pursue with hatred is used there. There is obviously a problem. In efforts to comply with my opponent, I am keeping this to only the two that I see in those verses. For more contradictions, please visit . http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...I am not requiring my opponent to answer the entire SAB.
The Bible contains contradictions

I will say some things before I begin. I will ask my opponent to limit his contradictions to just a few of his favorites or the contradictions that uphold his side in the greatest way. I would say have 4 contradictions as an absolute maximum, and I would prefer less than that personally. Also, it will be out of conduct to introduce new arguments after the first constructive is over. So once again do not introduce new contradictions because I will not be required to debate them. It is of course my opponent's burden of proof to show that their are contradictions in the Bible and in order for them to be contradictions they must be statements that exclude all other possibilities. For example:Me: I have an apple. Stranger: He has exactly two apples. This is not a contradiction because the first statement does not exclude the possibility that there could be two apples. We are basically argueing over the second law of logic which is the law of non-contradictory. The law of non-contradiction tells us that A cannot be both A and not A at the same time and in the same sense. In other words, something (a statement) cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same way. We use the law of non-contradiction constantly in discussions and debates because we are naturally able to recognize when someone is contradicting himself. If I were to tell you that yesterday I went shopping and then later I told you that yesterday I did not go shopping, you would be correct in saying there was a contradiction. A contradiction occurs when one statement excludes the possibility of another and yet both are claimed to be true. Since we know that both cannot be true, we see a contradiction. From this principle, we can conclude that truth is not self-contradictory. This is a very important concept. Let me repeat it. Truth is not self-contradictory. . https://school.carm.org...If the Bible violates this law then I will lose this debate, however if I am able to show that it is not contradictory then I should win this debate. This is the foundation set for the contradictions and I wish good luck to my opponent, who is called MilitantAtheist among other names that he has given himself that people might recognize him as.
The Bible contains contradictions

In this debate, I will attempt to show that the Bible is full of contradictions. StructureRound 1: Acceptance only, no argumentsRound 2: Pro's opening arguments, con's first rebuttalRound 3: Pro's first rebuttal, con's second rebuttalRound 4: Pro's second rebuttal, con's third rebuttalRound 5: Closing arguments, pro's and con's last rebuttals. In addition, we must wait till round 5 to state why vote for you. ObjectivePro will show that there are contradictions in the Bible and con will attempt to reconcile the contradiction. RulesWe must show good conduct and good character through the entire debate. My opponent must be a Bible-believing Christian that believes that there are no contradictions in the Bible. Good luck and let's get started.
The Bible contains contradictions

I think I will engage in more contradictions debates in the future, due to this one. Contradiction 1: Should we love or hate our family? I would like to extend a deep apology to my opponent for not being clear. The point I was attempting to make was that in the rest of the Bible, that word is used literally. I looked back and realize how narrow I was there. Please do forgive me. I forgive my opponent, however I will point out that he makes no defense against the first “contradiction”. I accept his forfeit of this argument. Contradiction 2: Did Jesus know everything? 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. . http://www.biblegateway.com...... My opponent’s only defense of the second contradiction was this verse. However I will remind my opponent that this epistle was written after the resurrection (which was when it was believed that Jesus achieves His omniscience and then knew all things. ) My opponent has taken another verse out of context to prove a point. We know that Jesus grew in wisdom and stature (Luke 2:52) and so this is not a contradiction. Contradiction 3: Should a son be held responsible for the father’s sins? That doesn't mean they WILL become an alcoholic. I understand bastard to mean a half-Jew half-gentile child as that is what I understand. This does not mean the child will repeat the idolatries of his/her mother. Yes but for this reason it would be unwise to allow someone with that history to be a priest because the Jews were afraid that pagan traditions would mesh with their religion. My opponent has not shown that this is a contradiction either. Because we know that when we examine the context, the verses in context are speaking specifically to levitical code. My opponent, in the 2nd round, broke the terms of agreement by stating, "Thus for this reason. .. vote con. " Therefore, I declare a victory because of that term breach. Although I forgive my opponent, Taylor should have read the terms more carefully. My opponent says he forgave me, but apparently he did not. Well my opponent has forgiven me and taken away the consequences for prematurely saying vote for me, but now uses it as a major voting issue? My opponent has lied about forgiving me and I hope that the voters will take this into account. For the sources, we have both quoted from the Bible. However, I have quoted multiple sources to support my position, so I should get the vote for sources. My opponent has offered three different “contradictions”. When we examine the context of all three verses in question, we can see that these are not contradictions at all. These verses are merely my opponent taking them out of context. You may not believe in what the Bible says, you may still believe there are other contradictions, however in this case I should this debate because I have shown that these contradictions are being taken out of context. My opponent has even forfeited his original contradiction!
The Bible contains contradictions

I thank him for being such a tough opponent. You have proved yourself a worthy opponent. Oh really? . .. For example, in English there could be different meanings for the word green. I would like to extend a deep apology to my opponent for not being clear. The point I was attempting to make was that in the rest of the Bible, that word is used literally. I looked back and realize how narrow I was there. Please do forgive me. Well actually God never changes (I am the Lord, and I do not change” – Malachi 3:6). Jesus is God, but as I stated in my first rebuttal of this contradiction in Luke it talks about how Jesus grows in wisdom (“Jesus grew in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and all the people” - Luke 2:52). My opponent contends that Jesus does change, it is God that doesn't. However, Hebrews 13:8 clearly disagrees. It appears that my opponent is using the NASB so I shall use it as well. 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. . http://www.biblegateway.com...whoever the writer of Hebrews was, I believe it to be Paul, points out that Jesus IS the same FOREVER. That is eternity past and eternity future. Thus, my opponent's argument fails. My point was that, because the child comes from a background where the father has had a child out of a marriage, then the behavior and sins will be repeated by the children. Just like in today’s society where we know that if someone’s relative is an alcoholic then they are more likely to be an alcoholic. Also, let’s see what the word “bastard” meant to the Israelites in that time period. That doesn't mean they WILL become an alcoholic. I understand bastard to mean a half-Jew half-gentile child as that is what I understand. This does not mean the child will repeat the idolatries of his/her mother. Why vote pro? Spelling and grammar is tied. My opponent, in the 2nd round, broke the terms of agreement by stating, "Thus for this reason. .. vote con. " Therefore, I declare a victory because of that term breach. Although I forgive my opponent, Taylor should have read the terms more carefully. I will leave the voters to decide who had better arguments and sources.
see=unlimited intelligence

I would like to point out that my opponent has made no attempt to explain what we are debating and his only rebuttal to that is calling me stupid. What he is saying appeared to be mostly gibberish yet I took the time to translate what he was saying the best I could to give him a chance of having a coherent argument. Even still he refuses to explain if my theory on what the topic of the debate was is correct. As I am the only person making sense in this debate I feel that I should be given the win by default. Thank you. OAK
see=unlimited intelligence

I will attempt to make sense of your argument the best I can. I believe you are trying to say that a person is not more or less intelligent then another person. I also think that you are suggesting that the differences we see in intelligence are simply cosmetic. You try to state this by saying that when you knit( I'm going to assume you meant knitting because it sounds similar to nidding and since I cannot find any evidence that's an actual word, I'll stick with that assumption until proven wrong.) a sweater( also assuming you spelled sweater wrong), a person can call it red or rainbow colored but its still a sweater.right? The color or colors of the sweater does not make it any more or less greater then any other sweater. However, that sweater can grow and increase in size without limit as long as the person wishes to make the sweater bigger correct? Its similar to your view on intelligence. in your view no person is born smarter or dumber then another. What I think you believe is that each person starts out with some thread that represents there intelligence, and each person can keep knitting that thread to make there intelligence as big or small as they want correct? You believe that a person's intelligence can grow without limit or in other words is infinite. Am I right? Is that what you were trying to say? btw the summary of this is each person starts out with threads they can use to knit in order to make there intelligence as big as they choose. Therefore its not really a higher level intelligence but really just different stages in the process of knitting your sweater/intelligence.
Resolved: On Balance, Anarcho-Capitalism is better than Anarcho-Communism.

This debate is impossible to accept. If you accept without permission then you forfeit all 7 points to me. If you wish to accept then please leave a comment.RulesFirst Round is terms and definitions by Pro and acceptance by Con.Second Round is for Opening arguments, NO rebuttals.Third Round is for Rebuttals.Forth Round is for Rebuttals and conclusion.No semantics, the definitions provided are the ones to be used.No trolling.BOP is shared.Minimum ELO is 2000.No ProfanityOn balance- With all things concideredAnarcho- Capitalism- term coined by Austrian-school economist Murray Rothbard to describe a market-based society with no government. Instead of government, all goods and services would be provided by private businesses. Politics and taxes would not exist in an anarcho-capitalist society, nor would services like public education, police protection and law enforcement that are normally provided by government agencies. Instead, the private sector would provide all necessary services. For example, people would contract with protection agencies, perhaps in a manner similar to how they contract with insurance agencies, to protect their life, liberty and property. Victimless crimes, such as drug use, and crimes against the state, such as treason, would not exist under anarcho-capitalism. Assistance to the needy would be provided through voluntary charity instead of compulsory income redistribution (welfare). (http://www.investopedia.com...) Anarcho-Communism- is a theory ofanarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, capitalism, wages and private property (while retaining respect for personal property), and in favor of common ownership of the means of production, direct democracy, and a horizontal network of voluntary associations and workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". (https://en.wikipedia.org...)
Posted Calorie Counts

1. There is no evidence that posting calorie counts has any effect on obesity. 2. People eat to feel satisfied, not to achieve a calorie count. http://articles.cnn.com... 3. Anyone who cares can buy a small printed book or a cell phone app that gives the calorie counts for all chain restaurant meals. http://www.chowbaby.com... 4. It's completely unreasonable that any business face 12 months in the slammer, or whatever, for miscalculating calories or failing to update counts for menu or portion size changes. The burden of regulation stifles business. 5. The Constitution lists the legitimate functions of the Federal government, and requiring calorie counts is not one of them, nor should it be. 6. Voluntary advocacy would be far more effective. For example, a consumer group could award a "healthy dining" logo for display by restaurants that voluntarily conform to a whole set of guidelines. 7. We cannot afford to employ federal agents to run around checking compliance, nor can we afford to prosecute offenders. 8. What's next: laws to brush your teeth, eat lots of fiber, and walk to work twice a week? They are all good things to do, but it is none of government's business to force them. 9. Anyone who needs to lose weight already knows they shouldn't be eating fast food hamburgers. If they are already in the restaurant, they are not going to be deterred by a list of calorie counts. Consider this place: http://www.heartattackgrill.com... 10. Anyone who cares can estimate calories well enough by themselves. Protein and carbs are 1800 calories per pound, fat is 4000 calories per pound. Water and air are zero. Sweetened soft drinks are all around 150 calories per 12 oz. http://www.calorie-counter.net... That's it. Dieting is all about motivation. Information on calories is not the obstacle.
Posted Calorie Counts

With the passing of the new laws on restaurants posting calorie counts, Americans could save hundreds or thousands of calories they would have otherwise consumed. It is projected that if the obesity rates keep rising, they will be at 42% by the time we reach 2050. It is absurd that we could let our country get so out of control when it comes to food consumption. And while there are complaints about the price of health food in our current economic state, once restaurants realize that their sales are on the decline due to their nutrition statistics, they will have no choice but to lower those prices. Obesity is the number one epidemic in our country that causes a number of other diseases to arise such as heart attack, stroke, and diabetes. It would be beneficial to us to post these calorie counts so we as consumers know what we're getting into when ordering food. And while many may still choose the more unhealthy thing on the menu, they have the choice of knowledge at their fingertips. And for those trying to lose weight who want to still eat out, these stats will help control what they are ordering. It is possible to raise a healthier America by allowing the posting of nutritional information in restaurants for consumers to see. Food is something that we need to fuel our bodies so we should be given the information necessary to fuel it in a proper manner and a proper amount if that is what we desire to do. These postings may also help those who are less knowledgable about the topic of nutrition which will ultimately benefit them in the future as well as saving the rest of the country money so we do not have to pay for their healthcare. There are not many downsides to posting calorie counts in popular restaurants for the sake of the consumer.