BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There are no contradictions in the bible

I'll keep this more of an observational round because my opponent won't have a chance to refute my claims. 1. Scientific My opponent has sufficiently refuted this point on his interpretive grounds. It remains up to the voters, whether they believe that denying Ussher's chronology is a defense of "the Bible" in its entirety. 2. Historical I feel like this point has become the grayest of gray area. The bible DOES claim that 'x' event happened, and it didn't according to archaeology. I'll leave it up to the voters. 3. Internal This is a quote from his source. ". .. in the ancient world, this was not the moral or ethical dilemna it would be today. The opposite was the case. Originality was not necessarily a virtue. Writing and editing texts was a specialized art and being able to precisely copy something else or draw on a vast storage of shared literary heritage was considered participating in high craftsmanship. " Just because the morality of an issue has changed (which I disagree with, being a moral absolutist with an appreciation for relativism), it doesn't mean it makes sense to us now. We don't live in those times anymore, so it is hard to accept plagiarism as "Okay". 4. Logical "God is almighty and Satan cant do anything without Gods permission hence i win. " "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. " For the first quote, again, my contention was that Satan's deceptiveness (such as in the story of Adam and Eve) would make it difficult to reconcile. As regarding the second, assuming "my" refers to Him, or God, "your ways" would seem to refer to God's creations, Satan included. I don't see why that refutes the point, Satan remains deceptive. 5. Numerical If the voters agree that NIV is incorrect, I guess the point is null, then. But given there are millions who read the NIV, I doubt that you can simply invalidate it. Again, the definition of "Bible" given at the top of the round was the sacred writing*S* of the Christian religion*S*. Thus, I contend that it was my opponent's burden to defend the NIV, not reject it.
In a fight, Voldemort and Dumbledore would beat Megatron and Optimus Prime.

Challenge accepted! Both Dumbledore and Voldemort are dead, so I assume my opponent means that they will be magically revived and able to fight. Alright there are things I want to clarify: Are the forbidden spells allowed to be used? How long will the fight last? Is it a fight to the death? If it's a fight to the death, technically Megatron and Optimus Prime cannot die since they are not actual living beings, just machines, so please clarify this point for me. Will allies be allowed to be called on? Where will this fight take place? Thanks to Pro for answering my questions.
In a fight, Voldemort and Dumbledore would beat Megatron and Optimus Prime.

I thank in advance to whoever accepts this challenge. Burden of Proof:I must prove the full resolution, which is, "In a fight, Voldemort and Dumbledore would beat Megatron and Optimus Prime."My opponent must negate the full resolution and prove, "In a fight, Megatron and Optimus Prime would beat Voldemort and Dumbledore."Rules:1. There will be no abuse of semantics, loopholes, wordplay, etc. 2. I ask that the person who accepts this knows a little about Harry Potter and Transformers, as these are where the characters are coming from. This is not a required rule, but it is something that would be useful to have in this debate. 3. We will be assuming that all characters will be using the full extent of their powers. 4. Voldemort will be armed with his normal wand, and Dumbledore will be armed with his elder wand. Optimus Prime will be armed with his sword and gun, whereas Megatron will be armed with Optimus Prime's axe and gun.5. Each character can only use their weapons that are listed above. 6. We will be assuming that the characters will be putting aside their past differences and will work together. 7. The first round will be for acceptance and clarification only. 8. Have fun! With that said, I hand over the next round to my opponent.
Businesses Providing Birth Control Products

Large companies get certain perks (tax benefits, bankruptcy protection). In return, they have certain obligations such as mediating between government and employees to make sure that the employees have health insurance. Health insurance are a part of the benefits that an employee has earned. So employers do not have a right to take away parts of the benefits of their employees. Whether the health insurance should have coverage for birth control is a matter between the employee, the insurance company and the government, and is not the business of the employee. The objection of some employers that they would be paying for birth control which is against their religion is misplaced. Health insurance that covers birth control is cheaper than health insurance that does not cover it. My opponent has dropped her argument that such a mandate would lead to discrimination, because, as I pointed out, the Affordable Care Act eliminates gender discrimination by requiring insurance companies to charge women and men the same premiums.
Human Cloning if/when it is achieved, should be legal in the U.S.

First I will address my opponents questions. 1. "Where are you getting information about the possibility of altering fingerprints and inserting a non-active strand of DNA? " My information on DNA insertion came from Nature Magazines website and from the Human Genome Society website, but let me explain it. You take a genetically altered virus and form a non active string of Deoxyribo Nucleic Acid. You infect a host cell with the virus. The virus attempts to replicate but instead releases the DNA into the host cell as a genetic marker. As for fingerprint alteration you could simply tattoo, scar or surgically alter a persons fingerprint in order to identify them separately. 2. "How would one go about enforcing said rule? " There would have to be regulations governing who can get a clone. Everyone who did would have to undergo the DNA insertion and Fingerprint alteration. We would enforce these laws in the same way we enforce any others. 3. " 'be and the two are genetically different while remaining exactly the same person. '—this is a contradictory statement is it not? " This situation is similar to one with a vehicle. If you and your neighbor had exactly the same car, same year, make, model, color, everything even mileage the same, they would still have different licence plates. That little number is a way to distinguish between the two without altering them, it is the same with the clones. I would also like to emphasize the point that distinctions can be easily made between a clone and the original. Things like sunspots, scars, and tattoos are all easy things to document and us for profiling. Even a person's epigenome would be entirely separate from their clones. Once again we cannot allow speculative fear of criminal activity stop us from making scientific and social progress.
Human Cloning if/when it is achieved, should be legal in the U.S.

My opponent says "Imagine if people had thought the same thing about automobiles. We can't make cars because if we do, then criminals will use them to escape. " This is an absurd analogy. A car can be used by both the police and criminals; the same cannot be said about clones. A criminal can make clones in order to hurt the government, but the government can't very well make an army of clones like in star wars. If that eventually occurs, it's just more justification for making cloning illegal from the get-go. Then my opponent says "Not only that but the problem would be easily solved. If a person requested that a clone be made of themselves then we would make it a requirement to alter that persons fingerprints and insert a non active strand of DNA into their own DNA. That way clones are still anonymous if need be and the two are genetically different while remaining exactly the same person. " I have a couple of questions about the above statement. 1. ) Where are you getting information about the possibility of altering fingerprints and inserting a non-active strand of DNA? 2. ) How would one go about enforcing said rule? 3. )" be and the two are genetically different while remaining exactly the same person. "—this is a contradictory statement is it not?
Human Cloning if/when it is achieved, should be legal in the U.S.

It is true that cloning would have to go to another level scientifically before it was legal for humans to be cloned. This, however, is only a matter of time. The issue of clone deformity is a pre legalization problem and has nothing to do with the decision of whether or not to legalize human cloning. Also my opponent has continued to state that we should not legalize cloning because of worries that they will cause problems with our legal system. Imagine if people had thought the same thing about automobiles. We can't make cars because if we do, then criminals will use them to escape. The same thing can be said about every advance in science and technology from the printing press to the cellular phone, something that help good people can also help bad people. If we stop cloning from being legalized on grounds that it will make it hard for us to catch criminals then we are allowing ourselves to be bullied into submission. Not only that but the problem would be easily solved. If a person requested that a clone be made of themselves then we would make it a requirement to alter that persons fingerprints and insert a non active strand of DNA into their own DNA. That way clones are still anonymous if need be and the two are genetically different while remaining exactly the same person. Don't forget that there where also problems when the slaves were freed but since then we have come far. If I need evidence of this you need look only as far as the White House. Once more, acceptance and free thinking are the keys to progress whether you are dealing with racial equality or science. Please vote in affirmation.
Human Cloning if/when it is achieved, should be legal in the U.S.

My opponent starts off by stating that cloning itself poses no problems. This is completely untrue. Cloning has whole hordes of problems. It is incredibly inefficient; only about .1-3% of attempted clones succeed. Of those, many are disfigured horribly or they die early. Making disfigured humans when we know the risks seems vehemently irresponsible. . http://www.icr.org... Also, my opponent says that if a problem occurred in clones becoming an underclass, it would be the fault of society and not science. This is completely irrelevant because we are debating whether or not cloning should be legal, not who's fault the problems with cloning are. Also, my opponent has completely ignored my argument concerning the horrors cloning would do to the legal system. Crimes would become unsolvable on a DNA basis. fingerprints would stop being affective.
Human Cloning if/when it is achieved, should be legal in the U.S.

Cloning itself poses no problems, if problems do arise it will be because of lack of acceptance on the part of ignorant people. There is no need for a clone to be a secondary citizen. If such issue are encountered it will the fault of society, not of science. To allow fear of other peoples flaws stop progress is a mistake. If the United States government made the technology illegal it would only reflect their own bias. The points my opponent made against cloning are not truly against cloning, they all deal with problems that already exist. These problems hurt all of us and the fact that they would affect a clone as well is a non issue. We might as well decide to wipe out the whales because we don't want to hurt them. A persons organs can be harvested and used by another person with the same blood type whether the donor is a clone or not. Fortunately there are laws against forcibly taking someone's body parts. If clones were subject to such horrors then it is clear which law would need to be enacted, not a law against cloning but a law against the brutal treatment of clones.
Human Cloning if/when it is achieved, should be legal in the U.S.

I would like to start by stating that I am on the con side of this argument. I have had two opponents resign on this one, for some reason they confirmed it then never posted anything. So please only confirm this debate if you have intentions to seriously debate it. Thanks you. I will establish the definition of a clone: Clone- a cell, cell product, or organism that is genetically identical to the unit or individual from which it was derived. (dictionary.com) In this debate I am referring to complete human cloning, not just a single organ With that clarified I am going to state the reasons I am against cloning. 1.) The world is full of people, and already we are seeing a strain on our resources. With a population that just keeps growing and growing, we don't have room to feed and house clones. 2.) It would cause problems for the legal system. If you have two people with the same DNA running around it would be nearly impossible to know if the original person or his/her clone committed a crime when using DNA testing. 3.) There is every likelihood that clones would be an underclass, used only for replacement organs. 4.) Creating human life just so you can destroy it for research is horrible and unethical. 5.) If the first attempt at human cloning fails it could negatively affect all of science especially stem cell research 6.) Most animal clones to date have died young, therefore human clones would most likely die young as well. Good luck to whomever decides to debate this with me.
Jesus was not the god of the Bible.

originally God was only with the people of Israel or the Jewish people. There are many prophecies in the Bible that the pagan cultures of the day would come to accept Yahweh for who he is the God of the human race. Judaism has never succeeded at this. Only Christianity has made the large majority of the world follow the Abrahamic religions. This shows that Jesus was God. actually Jesus Christ was stoned for saying he was God or Yahweh. "30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." (KJV from http://www.sacred-texts.com...) John chapter 10 verse 30-33. My opponent stated "He" would be capitalized if Jesus Christ was referring to god or Yahweh when he said 'He" however this is not true because "HE" is a substitute used for the tetragrammaton (יהוה). " the word 'kurios' is a heteronym. a word used to signify different, sometimes related, meanings. This explanation seems to fit the actual usage of kurios in the New Testament." Κυριος was used as a substitute for the tetragrammaton (יהוה). Κυριος (curios) is a Koine Greek word meaning Lord or master. Much as we have in our English bible "LORD". It is a substitute for the 4 Hebrew letters that spell the divine name of God Yodh-hey-Vav-Hey יהוה (YHVH). In the Greek Septuagint the Greek translation of the Hebrew tanakh the word Κυριος is used to replace god's name. The apostle would have been very familiar with this and thus simply called him something else.
Jesus was not the god of the Bible.

Do note that my opponent is not being very clear on every thing he says. He hasn't really said how my 'source' agrees with him (i had more then one source). Also, I am sorry I have apeared to have made a error in the part of my rebuttel concerning David. However, I will just replace it with the fact the word 'kurios' is a heteronym. a word used to signify different, sometimes related, meanings. This explanation seems to fit the actual usage of kurios in the New Testament. Also, it is important to note that if it woere true that Jesus was called God around his fellow Jews they would have surely killed him long before he was executed. However, that kind of trouble never happened to him. Even though there was a few stories in the Bible where certain Jews were on the verge of killing Jesus, it was never for this specific reason. My case still stands.===>Conclusion<===In conclusion, I have shown how my opponent's arguments are not proof that Jesus was the God of the Bible. I have proven to the exact contrary since I proved that God up intill that time always explicitly told the people that he was God, while Jesus never said that. I also proved that Jesus was not all-knowing and therefore, is not the God of the Bible. And since Jesus only came to Israel and not to the whole world this is another proof that Jesus was NOT God. I thank the readers for reading. http://www.questioningchristian.com...
Jesus was not the god of the Bible.

As I already stated the verbs and adjectives are singular so my opponent has still failed to destroy the Elohim (אלהים ) argument. It is pretty clear that Jesus meant God when he said " He" (αυτος ) Jesus meant God. http://www.sacred-texts.com... If the chapter is read in full context it is clear he is talking of Yahweh. 1. This is true 2. Jesus was probably talking about the man part of him. Jesus purposely withheld this information from himself. 1. Jesus was a godly man 2. when people called him "Lord" (κυριος ) he would have rebuked them if he was not god 3 Therefore Jesus is God or Yahweh.
Jesus was not the god of the Bible.

===>Rebuttel<=== My opponnet states the following: my argument relies on one word Elohim (אלהים ) The word elohim means gods. it is however used with singular verbs.But there is a problem with my opponent's translation. If we are to translate the word literally it would mean the word 'Gods', which controdicts the whole of the trinity which states that there is only one God(three in one). My conclusion is that the word Elohim could just as easily refer to a plurality of respect, as it could to a plurality of individual Godheads within one God.My opponnet then brings up John 8:24. However, this could mean anything. It does not clearly state that Jesus was stating that we had to belive he is God.===>My Case<===Contention 1: Jesus Was Not All-Knowing.My argument goes as follows:P1: The God of the Bible is All-knowing.P2: Jesus was not all-knowing.C: Therefore, Jesus was not the God of the Bible.P1: I am sure my opponent will not argue against this fact.P2: Mark 24: 32-36:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. 35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. 36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.By not knowing this he fails to meet the requirement for being God. Contention 2: Jesus was sent to a specific nation only not to man kind, God is for all Man kind.If Jesus was truly the God of the Bible then he would have been sent unto all the nations not just Israel. "I am sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" Matthew: 15:24I will add on to these in my next round as for now I will await my opponent's response.
Jesus was not the god of the Bible.

I will start with this argument The old testament says God is more that one being yet singular The plurality was referring to Jesus Christ Therefore Jesus Christ is the God of the Bible The Old testament says God is more than one being yet singular my argument relies on one word Elohim (אלהים ) The word elohim means gods. it is however used with singular verbs. http://www.hebrew4christians.com... the plurality was referring to Jesus Christ. Jesus says many times in the bible that he is God or Yahweh. Even though it never says in the New testament "Και Ιησους ειπεν αυτων Ειμι θεος" ( And Jesus said to them i am God) there are many other ways he says it. "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."- King James bible from http://www.biblegateway.com...
fashion is everything

I'll begin by noting that I am participating in this debate simply because it was sent as a challenge to me personally (that's the only reason I take debates "like this"), implying that the debater wanted to debate me specifically. So here goes. The instigator of this debate begins by noting that fashion is in you, and that you can't go a day without fashion. First, Pro must prove her statement that fashion is "inside of us." Second, I'll define fashion - a prevailing custom or style of dress [1]. If my opponent disputes this definition, we can take it from there; however, I refute her statement on the basis that one can easily go a day without fashion (wearing clothes) meaning once again her statement is unsupported. So, before we continue any further, I'll ask that Pro clarify or prove her opening statements. As for my rebuttal, I'll begin by defining the word everything - every thing or particular of an aggregate or total; all [2]. Clearly, any definition of 'fashion' that you use does not encompass all things, therefore fashion is not and can not be everything. That said, I'll let Pro respond before continuing any further with this debate. Good luck, Pro. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
no violent video games don't cause violence

So, for clarity, I'm arguing that violent video games CAN lead to violence. Here is an article for you to read http://liti4.wordpress.com... - in the article this 17 year old claims that he thought if he shot his parents they would respawn. Now if this guy is telling the truth, then that proves beyond doubt that the violent video game (Halo 3 in this case) was the cause of the violence, and even if he was lying, the reason that he shot his parents was because they WOULD NOT let him play Halo 3, so he killed them. This shows an addiction to the violent video game that allows for extraneous violence to occur, therefore proving that the violent video game caused violence, thus proving that violent video games CAN lead to violence. That is to say, violent video games do not ALWAYS cause violence, but CAN in some cases. Now, your argument used the term 'psyche', which is defined as the human soul. You claimed that violence is not caused by playing a violent video game, but by the person's soul. Therefore, burden of proof is on you to prove that humans have souls. If you cannot prove that humans have souls, then, as you have not given any other reason that violence may occur, you are accepting that kids who have played violent video games and then become violent are violent due to those violent video games. I look forward to your argument.
no violent video games don't cause violence

if a kid plays a violent video game and then develops violent behaviors its not because of the video game. you need to look into that childs psyche instead of the video games. i personally think that video games give the person an excuse to take action towards the violent thoughts that their minds fabricated on their own. there is obviously something wrong with the person if they go and do these things just because they play a game that does it. take it from me I'm a teenager who has suffered abuse and bullying. i have been diagnosed with major depression, adhd, and ocd. i have been in programs and stuff to help myself. i have performed self mutilation. and i play cod black ops every night. i am more intuned to becoming violent than normal kids without these issues. but I'm not violent aim one of the sweetest people i know