BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible is both illogical and immoral.

Con makes the claim that I have misunderstood and misinterpreted the bible, but I have to argue that he is the one who has made that error. He made the case that in the case of rape, it becomes the woman's option of whether or not to marry the rapist, but this is simply not true. Nowhere in the following verse does it even mention choice, not to mention that when you read a more modern translation, such as NIV or something equally "modern English" then the phrase actually becomes "they will be forced to marry". I don't know what Bible your source was citing, but I think it was more his own translation, because in all the versions I've read, I've never seen what he claims. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 KJV If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. As to what con said about the sins of the father, Exodus 20:5 KJV Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. Admittedly this is concerning the specific sin of worshipping another god, and the next verse talks of the mercy shown to those who do love God, it doesn't change what the verse says. Also, you didn't show that Adam and Eve were created perfect, just that the bible says so, which proves nothing. On that note, if they were really perfect before the apple, then why did they eat it? Isn't low willpower an imperfection? The whole creation story is one of the most illogical that I have seen in all the mythology I've read, (creation story being planetary creation up to when they were exiled). One final point on the illogic of it is simple. Where did Cain's mystery wife come from? The only people on the planet were him and his family. The land of Nod should have been empty.
The Bible is both illogical and immoral.

I didn't know I needed to define right and wrong, I figured we all knew the difference, but OK. The standards of morality I will be using is our modern day understanding of right vs wrong. As to the bible verses I used I thought their immorality was apparent. Deuteronomy 22:20-21 talks about if a man sleeps with a woman who is not his wife, then they are to be both stoned to death. The second one, and one of the worst in the bible says that if a man rapes a woman then he just pays her father 50 pieces of silver and he takes her for his wife and can never divorce her. Now I wouldn't think this would need any explanation as to why this is immoral, but I will offer one. If a woman is raped, her attacker is a source of much anguish, and yet this passage commands her to spend her life with him. Also, a rapist deserves to be punished, not rewarded with a wife. As to Noah's ark, I don't have the time to verify and work through that math, so I will concede that point. As to the incest, though, genetic degradation has been a result of incest since the beginning of the human race. It has nothing to do with gods permission. One final point for this round is that the idea of original sin in and of itself is immoral. What right does your god have to punish a person for the sins of their father? How is that the action of a just god?
The Bible is both illogical and immoral.

I welcome my opponent to a respectful and intelligent debate. To open things up I will offer some verses that support my point. The first of which being Deuteronomy 22:20-21 and 22:28-29. Those are great examples of the bible being immoral, and as far as illogical, I will start with the most obvious. Noah's ark was not only too small for all those animals, but also there is the fact that there would be some physical evidence of a boat that size. In conclusion of the ark, if the entire human race had come down to Noah's family, the human race would have died off from incest producing genetically damaged offspring.
Muhammad was a pirate

The definition of pirate is: “Use or reproduce (another's work) for profit without permission, usually in contravention of patent or copyright.” Most of his Qur’an was stolen from the Oral Torah/Jewish Talmud, as well as other parts from the Christian Non-Testament: Qur’an 5:32: “Because of that, we decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.” Tractate Sanhedrin Chapter 4 Mishnah 5 says: “It was for this reason that man was first created as one person [Adam], to teach you that anyone who destroys a life is considered by Scripture to have destroyed an entire world; and anyone who saves a life is as if he saved an entire world.” Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 93, Number 589: “Narrated Abu Huraira: the Prophet said, "Allah said, "I have prepared for My righteous slaves (such excellent things) as no eye has ever seen, nor an ear has ever heard nor a human heart can ever think of.” 1 Corinthians 2:9: “But as it is written: “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”
Muhammad was a pirate

Rebuttal: The definition does count. The definition of pirate that my opponent uses, is the definition of plagiarize. Just because you "pirate" something, it does not make you a pirate; calling Muhammad a pirate would be incorrect; calling him a "pirater" since he is doing or completing the verb; he does not fit the nounl description of being a ship-rader.My rebuttal would conclude with making all of my opponents argument above null. Noun form of Pirate (The defintion needed to call Muhammad a pirate) -a person who attacks and robs ships at sea. Verb form of Pirate (Muhamamd being a pirater) -use or reproduce (another's work) for profit without permission, usually in contravention of patent or copyright. I now conclude and await my opponents reply. Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
Muhammad was a pirate

Rebuttal. My opponent, calls him a pirate for committing a single crime of thievery; "Most of his Qur"an was stolen from the Oral Torah/Jewish Talmud, as well as other parts from the Christian Non-Testament:" (My opponent has used the verb form of pirate) In his statement about the Sahih Bukhari, there is evidence of one being a slave trader but never a pirate. I would like to reinforce the more commonly used definition of a pirate which is the noun form: "1A person who attacks and robs ships at sea. [AS MODIFIER] "a pirate ship"" Now my opponent has given a verbal form of pirate: "Use or reproduce (another's work) for profit without permission, usually in contravention of patent or copyright." This is the term of pirate used to represent someone pirating discs, and plagiarize. Which would mean his entire argument is null; for his use of pirate means if you plagiarize an item for your own.My opponents quote of the Corinthians is unessicary for it just speaks of Gods love of Muhammad. This is where I shall conclude my rebuttal. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ First Argument Muhammad was a merchant; he never fitted the noun's definition of pirating nor did he fit into the words. Islamics Holy Text the Quran states that he is a merchant. Muhammad was a war-leader, but never plagerized the riches for himself but rather for the state. I now conclude my second argument; Source: https://books.google.com.au... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.historyworld.net... https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
Aliens are Real

1. There are so many planets out there, there just has to be life on other worlds. 2. It is impossible to disprove the existence of ETs because you would have to search every inch of the universe, and other universes 3. They could be microscopic. 4. UFOs exist, The Tinley Park case is the best evidence http://www.youtube.com... These UFOs were proven not to be flares, they have to be, a. Top Secret Government Craft, or aliens 5. The meteor found in Antarctica proves there was life on mars http://www.telegraph.co.uk... 6. Europa may have life on it. Conclusion since it is impossible to disprove the existence of life on other planets, it is not possible to say there is no life on other planets. Probability suggests there is life on other planets. I leave it to Con to search the entire universe and show me it is all dead.
American Involvment in Middle East Peace

I believe that American involvement in any Middle East Peace deal is more harmful than helpful. As we all know the majority of Arabic leaders in the Middle East want nothing to do with America. Most Arab leaders already have feelings against Israel and adding America to the mix only makes things worse. It seems to me that Israeli's need no assistance in taking care of the situation themselves. The financing and brains for the response comes from their own people. Americans have no experience in dealing with the kind of situation Israel has been in for the last 60 years of its existance. We are not under constant stress of suicide bombings and other miscellaneous acts of terror at regular intervals. We live in relative calm over here in the United States so how can we explain to Israel how to coordinate a peace effort. They are doing the only thing they can do - defending themselves. Look at our mess in Iraq. What peace did we create? We have caused more problems then anything there. Destroyed their military - sent all military home (talk about job loss - what do you think that did for their economy/ job rate), dismantled their sanitary systems... the place is in chaos. Then we want to go to Israel and tell them how to have peace. What a joke. Then you have US media trying to have a pity party for the Arabs whenever Israel does respond to a current attack! Oh, those poor woman and children who were in the area when Israel attacked. Look at all the killing of innocent civilians Israel does - Stop them! Why don't we ever hear about the thousands of men, woman and children that have died in Israel at the hands of terrorists. The monthly, weekly, and sometimes daily attacks that they have to live through. And that is the key, you have to 'live' through it. We don't step out our door everyday and wonder if it is going to be our last. How could I presume to tell anyone in Israel how to handle a situation like that?
Religion has served its time, and is no longer needed

For my argument I will take the atheist view that people created religion. Religion, especially Judeo-Christian religions, was created to give people individual rights. This was especially popular during the days of Kings, and Queen's. Obsolete is probably too strong of a world. #1 and two are similar, Religion gave people rights as an individual, and made royalty fear, that if they hurt too many of their people, God would punish them. When royalty had all of the power, before religion, the royalty had nothing above them. Until religion was formed and made a fear of "hell" or something like that. Currently most civilized societies have a "Constitution" or something above the leaders that protects individuals, but before that the word of "God" was above what the King said. The royalty had to adhere to the word of God, and that kept them in line. #3 Most governments with a singular ruler, had a God above which set the standards for rules. China, England, France, India, Middle East countries, etc. Those countries were ruled over by the royalty, which was ruled over by the God. #4 The purpose of religion was to give people rights. Constructive--- When religion was created, people's natural morals and their hope for individuality were put into the "laws" of the religion. What is good and bad is determined by the people. Thomas Hobbes claimed that without leadership life would be "nasty, short, and brutish." The religion helped people express their ideas to the royalty, which in turn helped the people become individuals.
Religion has served its time, and is no longer needed

Religion has become obsolete in today's world. When religion was first introduced it was a way for people to become individual, and to have the rights of an individual. Now with most of the major powers in the world being a people's government, every person is an individual. I argue that though religion has served its time, it is no longer needed. Based strictly on the facts that the purpose of religion has been fufilled, and it does not do good any more.
Religion has served its time, and is no longer needed

Ok introduction don't really care what's your argument? I'm confused he concedes that religion is not obsolete. "#1 and two " "religion gave people rights as an individual" what rights are you even talking about? and that whole argument about royalty fearing religion o God or whatever argument you're trying to make is completely irrelevant we are debating so please stay on the current time on religion. "most civilized societies have a 'constitution' or something" what? apparently you don't know current events and what nations actually grant "people rights" well every nation does so I can't possibly know what said rights you're talking about and also many countries are totalitarian governments or dictatorship or communist for that matter. and you keep on making these claims that you have no evidence of. "extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence" Constructive negation- what laws of religion are you even talking about? what is good and bad is determined by society. Thomas Hobbes also has a social contract which he believes is the best and cannot fail. what is this social contract you ask. well it basically says that for there to be peace freedom ( all sorts of freedom 1st amendment) would be given to the government. Conclusion- my opponent hasn't offered any evidence he makes claims that he can't backup and he's debating in past tense clearly violating his own resolution and most of his arguments don't even make sense. to opponent- please if you're going to debate pleeaaase extend your arguments and what you mean make them clearer and read the other opponents arguments and attack them these are basics of debate learn them.
should unhealthy foods be banned in schools

My opponents rebuttle to the points and valid arguments made,"I think that the government should not force the upbringing of children(which is the parents job)upon the teachers. The teachers are there to teach math,social studies,English,and science NOT to teach us what's right and not right to eat"There are a few problems with this statement.1) In no way are teachers involved in the banning of unhealthy foods, as they are not the ones who serve the foods, teachers teach, they do not hand out food. 2)The teachers aren't TEACHING about what to eat and what not to eat (Unless your taking a health class) A ban of unhealthy foods in school is just what it sounds like, a ban. There are no ifs, ands, or buts involved, and once again, the state government is imposing these restrictions, the enforcement is carried out by all school officials, but in no way are the teachers teaching about unhealthy foods, just following the rules and regulations of the school itself (Basically, doing their job).3) Assumptions- The upbringing of students is not solely what they eat in school. The parents job may be to raise the child, but a school may impose it's own reasons for wanting to increase a child's health. The school itself (and the State legislature) may in fact want higher test scores and therefore ban junk foods.(Look at the points from R2)4) Extensions- Extend all points on round 2, there has been no comment on any of the attacks and valid arguments made by Pro.5) BOP- As con fails to give any insightful information and simply uses arguments that are created from pure opinion, Pro's "Case" is the only thing in this round that is credible, and Pro has fufilled the BOP. Con on the other hand, just rambles on with assumptions and fails to give a reason for voting.Conclusion- Vote Pro, the wording of the resolution, and the entire round say it all, one more round is left but the resolution is already affirmed as no new arguments can be made in the final rebuttal. Thank you all for taking the time to read this debate! I apologize for the sloppiness and the way the case was rushed, but I'm extremely busy right now! Thanks everyone!
should unhealthy foods be banned in schools

Well i think that yes in most cases unhealthy foods do cause obesity BUT we should be responsible for what goes into our body so just because you might have a problem to limit yourself on what you eat that doesn't mean the rest of us should have to suffer. I would also like to point out the fact that the government shouldn't be able to dictate us in what we should and should not eat because this is America which in defenition means we are allowed basic freedom and by taking unhealthy foods away it's also taking away our basic freedom and rights of what we can and cannot eat.
should unhealthy foods be banned in schools

I accept! Good to be back on DDO! As Pro, I will be affirming that unhealthy foods should be banned in schools. Since no definitions were given, I will go ahead and clarify the resolution:Unhealthy- Causing or conducive to poor health. Foods- (As this is strictly School-Foods, we will be looking at common foods in schools, A. K. A No random foods/outrageous foods a child would not normally have, therefore this word needs no definition. )Banned- A prohibition imposed by law or official decree. School- An institution for the instruction of children or people under college age. (Grades K-12)To better scope the resolution, I'd also like to add (with the permission of my opponent) that we make the "foods" foods found in school, rather than home-made lunches, we will be debating foods actually served and given out to students as school. Without further adeau, let us begin!
The Boston bombing was a false flag operation perpetrated by the US government

Evidence continues to accumulate across the internet from vigilant free-thinkers and conspiracy researchers proving that the Boston marathon bombing, just like the Sandy Hook and Aurora shootings, just like 9/11 and 7/7, was a false-flag operation carried out by the government. I've compiled the following key bullet points, pictures and videos which completely blow open the mainstream media version of this event: -The two suspect's backpacks aren't even the same color or design as the exploded backpack-Two other men with the same color and design backpacks as the exploded backpack have been completely ignored by the "investigation" and mainstream media reports. They are wearing wires, built and dressed like military, and wearing the logo of a private security firm (like Blackwater) called Craft. Not only that, but one of them is on film running away from the explosion with his backpack missing!-Several of the suspect's family members including their parents said they were being set-up and that the FBI had been controlling them for years-The Boston Bomb squad was there at the marathon running bomb drills, just like 9/11, 7/7, Oslo, and other false-flags where they "coincidentally" just so happened to be doing terror drills. This "simultaneous drill" excuse has been used again and again in false-flag operations-The wheelchair double amputee victim "Jeff Bauman" has been positively identified as being Nick Vogt, an Afghan war vet whose legs were already blown off!-Three of the same policemen at Sandy Hook have also been positively identified at the Boston bombing-While being interviewed the Boston police chief in a likely Freudian slip referred to the suspects as "actors"-The predictive programming cues were there with an in-depth Family Guy reference to bombings at the Boston marathon and a "Joggers" Illuminati card-There was even a Boston bombing facebook aid page set up two days before it happenedhttps://youtu.be...https://youtu.be...https://youtu.be...https://youtu.be...
does the god of the bible exist

Virtual particles are extremely short lasting, and it would be extremely unlikely for the universe: being 8 billion years old, to be the result of a quantum fluctuation. The quantum vacuum is not nothing, rather it is a fluctuating sea of energy governed by physical laws. [1]. If the universe, the entirety of space time and matter, had a cause, then that cause must exist independently of time and space: immaterial, timeless, and spaceless. There are 2 things which could fit into this conceptual category: abstract objects like numbers, and a disembodied mind. Numbers cannot cause anything, so it must be a mind. Furthermore: there are problems with an timeless and spaceless impersonal cause: the cause would have to have the necessary and sufficient conditions to create its effect existing timelessly with it, and if the right conditions for the effect exist coexist timelessly with the cause: why isn't the effect also timeless and spaceless as well? Chance fails as an explanation because it is far too improbable that we would just randomly have a life supporting universe. Odds of 1 in 10^10^123 is There are more constants than just the level of entropy which would have needed to be adjusted: the gravitational constant[2] and the weak force[3] constant each must be fine tuned to a degree of 1 in 10^60. The cosmological constant must be fine tuned to one part in 10^120 in order for life to exist. [4] The reason why necessity is not a valid explanation is because these values are independent of the laws of nature: they are entirely arbitrary. It is perfectly conceivable and possible for there to be a universe which had different constants and quantities. Time limitations and classwork have prevented me from going over the evidence for the resurrection in this post. [1] [2]http://library.thinkquest.org... [3]http://www.is-there-a-god.info... [4] Susskind2005, pg. 80-82
does the god of the bible exist

My refutation: 1) you stated, "Whatever begins to exist has a cause", to this I say, quantum mechanics says otherwise in the case of "virtual particles". 2) you stated, "The universe began to exist", why are you so certain. Thus William Craig's conclusion is not "frankly common sense". Unfortunatly your second premise falls to pieces after this. you did not refute the possibilty of chance or necssity for the fine tuning of life, therefore the claim of intelligent design is irrational. plus this argument does not support the existance of god. if roger penroses claim is correct we are very lucky indeed, but alas this doesn't prove that god exists. for your final argument you did not present any sources so these are just empty claims being made.