BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible is Unreliable

My opponent is trying to "steal" my stance if possible. He is trying to say The Bible is not Reliable or in other words unreliable. To discredit that I as con want to prove that that blanket statement is not true. He as Pro AND the Instigator bears the burden of proof and must discredit all of my reasoning which he has failed to do. 1. It can be easily discredited as everything can be physically reliable. but that doesn't make it 100% reliable, as shown in the 2nd round. I do not have to validate that it is 100% reliable. As con I must only show why your reasoning is false, as I have remind you of this entire debate. 2. Same is true for every book. This means there are more than one reliable book. Again I am not surprised. 3. This is also can be true for every book. Again same logic from above. However here is where this gets interesting. The resolution which Pro made is The bible is unreliable. I as con must prove that false. He is looking at it as if the resolution was. The Bible is reliable and I was Pro. If this was the case he would be correct. As con you must just shown 1 way in which the presented resolution is false. However, since I am con to the resolution "The Bible is Unreliable" I must show one way in which it is. So in Summary my opponent has not discredited any of my reasoning to show why the statement The Bible is Unreliable is false. Since he has failed this.
The Bible is Unreliable

1. It can be easily discredited as everything can be physically reliable. but that doesn't make it 100% reliable, as shown in the 2nd round.2. Same is true for every book.3. This is also can be true for every book. In order for me to win, I just need to show how the Bible is unreliable in just 1 way. I have done that so vote pro. My opponent forgot that there can be more than just the physical aspects for the Bible to be reliable, furthermore, he did not attempt at any of my arguments so my arguments still stand.
The Bible is Unreliable

Resolution: The Bible is unreliable. Once I find a single way why that is not a valid statement I must be awarded the victory. Let me remind you of that. To prove that the bible is unreliable you must discredit all other reasons why it could be reliable. 1. My opponent has conceded to the fact that the bible is physically reliable. This is no longer a point of debate and is a mutual agreement. Since the bible as agreed by both debaters is physically reliable this discredits the resolution "The Bible is unreliable" This is in agreement from Pro and means he has discredited his own resolution. My opponent has not discredited the reason.2. It is supposed to prove that within the same version the message is the same and words are similar. Which makes it a reliable source and it will not differentiate much. My opponent only questioned this and did not attack it.3. Actually he hurts himself here. Again to show how reliable the good ol bible is we see it can provide a reliable laugh too. Again, he hasn't attacked this. Even though I have not attacked any contentions I have more than a plethora of reasons why the resolution is false.
The Bible is Unreliable

Just as an opening note I came for a serious debate. Not a laugh. YOU left the resolution so open ended. Also in your rules I am not supposed to respond to your arguments until this round. Please read them. All what I have to do is show how there is one part in the Bible that is unreliable, then I win. Remember, your definition of unreliable is not able to be relied upon. Therefore, if I can show how just one place it cannot be relied upon, then it is a win for me.On my first contention my opponent said that the Koran has never broken on someone reading it. Well this means there are two physically reliable books in the world, not too surprising. This is not a valid attack. Just because a book is physically reliable, does not mean that it is completely reliable.Next to my second contention, he stated that different bibles have different words. Of course. Italian and English books have different words. Within the same version the words will be very similar and convey the same message. I stated that the literary aspect (meaning punctuation, capitalize, and grammar) will be the same, and they are. What is that suppose to prove? Lastly to my third contention, he said he can also rely on his sacred writings that means we have both found reliable sources. I am very glad. I never stated that I have my own sacred writings. I stated I can take other sacred writings and get a good laugh.I have another rebuttal and I have shown three valid reasons why the resolution as standing is false.I'd like to see that.My opponent fails to realise that there are more than one way for it to be unreliable. Furthermore, my opponent still has not rebuted ANY of my round 2 contentions.I never stated that the resolution was that the Bible is COMPLETELY unreliable.
The Bible is Unreliable

Just as an opening note I came for a serious debate. Not a laugh. YOU left the resolution so open ended. Also in your rules I am not supposed to respond to your arguments until this round. Please read them. On my first contention my opponent said that the Koran has never broken on someone reading it. Well this means there are two physically reliable books in the world, not too surprising. This is not a valid attack. Next to my second contention, he stated that different bibles have different words. Of course. Italian and English books have different words. Within the same version the words will be very similar and convey the same message. I stated that the literary aspect (meaning punctuation, capitalize, and grammar) will be the same, and they are. Lastly to my third contention, he said he can also rely on his sacred writings that means we have both found reliable sources. I am very glad. I have another rebuttal and I have shown three valid reasons why the resolution as standing is false.
The Bible is Unreliable

RC1) I've never heard of a case where the Koran broke on a person while he was reading it! Therefore, this Koran is reliable. RC2) Actually, no KJV bibles are similar! There are lots of different versions of the bible. KJV, NASB, NIV, Catholic Bible and so forth. Therefore, his assertion that little difference is absurd. RC3) this is most laughable. I can also rely on other sacred text for the same thing. There are errors in the bible as I pointed out in round 2. Thank you for not responding to a single argument I made. The resolution is calling to see if it can be relied upon in ways such as: 1) is it trustworthy 2) Is it a good source? 3) Are there any mistakes? By me stating that the bible is unreliable, I am putting the bible to the test to see if there are any mistakes found and if it can be trusted. Back to you
The Bible is Unreliable

As long as I can prove a reason or reasons why the resolution as stated is invalid I have won the debate. OPENING ARGUMENTS: 1. As stated by the resolution the resolution has only been restricted in terms of the bible being a sacred collection of writings. It is also of course a book. Keep this in mind. I: The bible ,in terms of physical reliability, is very sturdy. Over the course of my life I have not had an incidence where a bible has ever broken on me even though rigorous reading. I read the bible semi regularly and I am a practicing Christian. I posed the question to my pastor and he said he has never had a case of an unreliable build of a bible. II: Little to no errors exist in the literary aspect of the bible. They also do not differentiate much. This makes each bible reliable because we have the assurance that one bible will not have different text than another one. Since they will not have a different wording we can depend and rely on the bible in this aspect. III: I can always rely on the bible for a good source of entertainment and spiritualist-ism. Whenever I need to hear a story about my God or just a bedtime story I can always rely on the bible. Thanks. I turn it over to my opponent.
The Bible is Unreliable

In addition, I agree with my opponent’s definitions. Opening Arguments Contention 1: The Bible is unreliable because of the historical inaccuracies and contradictions. Many Christians like to pretend that the Bible is the Word of God because of the reliable history. Well, my friend, I’m here to tell you that it is not a good historical book. Evidence 1: Jesus’ birth 1 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying…-Matthew 2:1 NASB . http://www.biblegateway.com... The verse makes it very clear that Jesus was born in Bethlehem when Herod was king. We must understand when Herod was king. King Herod was king from 30 BCE to 4 BCE. We know from Matthew it has to be at least two years prior to 4 BCE so we can put the date of birth around 6 BCE. (1) However, we see in Luke that it was when Quirinius was governor of Syria. This was the first census taken while [b]Quirinius was governor of Syria. Luke 2:2 . http://www.biblegateway.com... We know from this verse that Quirinius was governor and it was his first census. Where is a problem? Quirinius became governor a decade after Herod’s reign. (2) Therefore, Jesus could NOT have been born both in the days of King Herod and in the 1st census. Furthermore, I would like to see one secular source that shows the nation-wide census where everyone went back to his hometown. Furthermore, if Jesus was born in Bethlehem, what was the purpose of the trip if not the taxes? Contention 2: The Bible is not reliable because of the medical errors. These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover. ” Mark 16:17-18 NASB According to this, a true believer is marked by those who cast out demons, speak in tongues and drink anything deadly, it won’t hurt them. If they lay hands on sick, they will recover. I contend this is an error because many faith healings has failed. (3) This is unacceptable as to why children are dying because they have not received proper medical treatment. The only excuse is because of their parent’s religions. I’m sorry, I believe that the child’s right to proper medicine trumps the right for religion. In addition, I’m curious as to why I have seen Christians in hospitals and calling 9-1-1 instead of faith healings. I have many more arguments that cannot be addressed due to the length. Sources below. Source1. ^ Peter Richardson, Herod: King of the Jews and friend of the Romans, (Continuum International Publishing Group, 1999) pp. xv–xx. 2. Encyclopedia of theology: a concise Sacramentum mundi by Karl Rahner 2004 ISBN 0860120066 page 7313. . http://deism.com...
The Bible is Unreliable

I accept the resolution as is without anything outside affecting it(I.e Comments, Forum discussions, ect) I accept the rules however will submit definitions since they are not arguments and my opponent has not stated any. Reliable- suitable or fit to be relied on [1] Rely- to have confidence based on experience[2] Bible- the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion, comprising the Old and New Testaments.[3] [1]- http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2]- http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3]- http://dictionary.reference.com...
Miracles do not violate science

Main ArgumentsScientific laws are only assumed true through repetition. No finite number of attempts can show that a law is applicable for every case in the universe. For example, long before Australia was discovered, it was believed in the West that all swans in the world were white. But when Europeans landed in Australia, they saw, for the first time, a black swan. What was considered a scientifically violable truth before had to be withdrawn. Let's look at another example. When Newton published his laws about the universe, they were regarded as incontrovertibly true for almost two centuries. They worked very well, and were endorsed as irrefutable. Then, Einstein's theories of relativity contradicted Newton. Despite common belief, Newton's laws were proved in important ways to be wrong or at least inadequate. However, these laws could be, in the future, proved erroneous yet again. By this we learn that Einstein's theories have the capability to be proved wrong and are therefore, not completely true, but our "best guess".So how are scientific laws verifiable? They aren't. As we have seen above, scientific laws are our best guess of what we know about the universe. In this respect, we realize that miracles cannot violate science, because science itself does not verify what each instance will turn out to be. It only assumes what will happen based on previous tries. In his book What's So Great About Christianity, D'Souza writes that "scientific laws are not 'laws of nature.' They are human laws, and they represent a form of best-guessing about the world. What we call laws are nothing more than observed patterns and sequences. We think the world works in this way until future experience proves the contrary."[1] By this we determine that "An effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause."[2] does not violate the assumed laws of science.How do know that light travels 186,000 miles per second? We measure it. But just because it's that speed one time, ten times, or a billion times, does not mean that it's that speed every time everywhere. Miracles aren't 99.9% improbable, or even 50% improbable, because there could be 20 billion cases where a scientific law could be wrong versus 10 billion cases that it is.Another contention I have is that: if miracles by this definition are possible, then there must be a supernatural. In that respect, wouldn't the supernatural have complete control over science? If we assume the Christian God for example, how would he be bound by something he devised? He would have the power to alter the laws of nature if he chooses to, which are the very point of miracles themselves. Sources1. D'Souza, Dinesh. What's so Great about Christianity. Washington, DC: Regnery Pub., 2007. Print.2. http://dictionary.reference.com......
Religion has interfered with the advancement of the world more than it has helped it.

When one thinks advancement, there are many thoughts that advancement could branch from. Most think scientific advancement, but there are also religious advancements and personal advancements... all ruined because of religion itself. Consider the scientific minds of the renaissance, whether it be Copernicus or Da Vinci, both were ridiculed for their position on religion... and subsequently, their doctrines were persecuted as "heretic" and subsequently, brilliant minds of today were slowed and prevented from proliferating and creating works of art for following these ideas. [1]RESOLVED:Religion has interfered with the advancement of the world more than it has helped it.For ideas are merely that. Ideas. Ideas, without action, cannot be used effectively to better the world. Religion itself is an idea, and that idea cannot evolve without people to wield it. Religion is a PRODUCT of the minds of others who have preceded them. It cannot simply be ignored that the minds of others are not perfect, especially when the minds of others have "interpreted" the ideas of whatever deity they so choose to believe.If these interpretations are misguided, then what makes the actions or the principles they believe in any more sound? It makes no sense that Religion is used to the point of bringing wars and massacre along with it[2], and enslaving the "inferior religion" because of their supposed inhereit weakness.Religion, oddly enough, is cannibalistic in nature. It not only consumes the minds of the people it indoctrinates, but it also persecutes those who disagree with them. Galileo immediately comes to mind, as he was imprisoned for disagreeing with the ideals of Christianity. Not enough for you? Then maybe consider the common sentiment of anyone who ISN'T Christian in the Southern United States. Terrorist. Communist. These terms are used every day for those who believe in the Qu'Ran or Buddhism, rather than the elitist proposition of Christianity, reserved for the upper crust of the USA.[1] From the Inquisition's sentence of 22 June 1633 (de Santillana, 1976, pp.306–10; Finocchiaro 1989, pp. 287–91)[2]This point was first made by scholars John and Laurita Hill. Kedar, Benjamin Z. "The Jerusalem Massacre of July 1099 in the Western Historiography of the Crusades." in The Crusades ( Vol. 3). ed. Benjamin Z. Kedar and Jonathan S.C. Riley-Smith. Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2004 (ISBN 075464099X), p. 65 --------------------------------------------------------------------This is an 8K character debate, and this is also a way for me to get practice in for a similar debate. This also happens to be my first debate, so hit me with your best shot. :PIf we could get this done promptly, I'd be very happy, but no problem if you can't. ALL FOUR ROUNDS will be used for debating, since I have already launched my opening salvo.
Everything Stated In the Bible Should Be Taken Literally

The whole purpose of a debate is to DEBATE. Without a person agreeing and a person disagreeing, there is no debate. Because I have actually offered legit arguments and an actual case, I feel that I have won the round. Also, the fact of the matter is that you HAVEN'T attacked me and by what you've said you do agree with me. Therefore, the CON (or negative, or side opposed to the resolution, or however you want to look at it) has won this 'debate.'
The Reason why Christianity is Looked Down Upon...

Rebuttal 1: I did in fact defend my opening opinion in Round 1 based on what I said in Round 2. "I think Christianity is looked down upon by Atheists because too many Christians belief in God only because of faith." In my round 2 argument, I posted a link to a video called "Crazy Christian Nonsense", which depicted the average Christian TV personnel. In that video, there were Christians that believed in God only because of faith. Therefore, I covered the first sentence in my Round 2 argument. "Atheists are very fact and logic oriented people. Since most Christians don't have proof for the existence of God or Jesus Christ, Atheists look at the idea of Christianity as a fairytale rather than a theory with potential to be true." I explained that most Christians don't give proof of the existence of God and Jesus Christ in all three of my contentions. I also stated that Atheists are fact and logic oriented and since Christians don't give proof that Christianity is the superior religion (Which I did explain), Atheists refuse to buy into it. Therefore, I covered everything I said I was going to cover in my opening opinion statement. Rebuttal 2: My Opponent's Response Your response did not fulfill the rules and regulations I set forth in my opening statement. "2nd Round: An in-depth analysis of your opinion (and reasoning behind your opinion)" 2nd Round was strictly supposed to be you giving your opinion on this subject and reasoning behind you opinion. You were not supposed to respond to what I said, because rebuttals are for 3rd round only. "3rd round: Rebuttals and conclusion" Therefore, you did not do what you should've done in the 2nd round. In conclusion: My opponent has not fulfilled his requirements for his 2nd round argument due to the fact that he responded to me, which I said wasn't allowed. Likewise, 3rd round is only for rebuttals and a conclusion. Therefore, any argument he makes for his case in the 3rd round is invalid. I have showed why his 2nd round argument is false by pointing out exactly where I said everything that he claimed I didn't say. I await my opponent's final round statement.
The Reason why Christianity is Looked Down Upon...

You said: I think Christianity is looked down upon by Atheists because too many Christians belief in God only because of faith. Atheists are very fact and logic oriented people. Since most Christians don't have proof for the existence of God or Jesus Christ, Atheists look at the idea of Christianity as a fairytale rather than a theory with potential to be true. Then you said something totally different. You are contradicting yourself. Either Christianity is looked down upon because of Christian conduct or it is not. You cannot have it both ways.
The Reason why Christianity is Looked Down Upon...

Hello, welcome to my debate. http://www.youtube.com... Contention 1: Christians without knowledge If you look at my first video, you will see what I'm talking about. Titled "Crazy Christian Nonsense", it is exactly that, NONSENSE! The highlights of this video include a woman claiming to be a "FOOL for Christ", a man that attempts to heal someone over the phone and fails (as well as making ridiculous screams), several politicians that make nonsense claims, and two men who use a banana to try to prove the existence of God. Simply put, those people are all religious whack jobs who know little to nothing about the truth of Christianity. These are the people that symbolize Christianity in out modern day world. Obviously, the theories and statements made in that video are not in any way tied to Christianity. However, Atheists look at that video and say "If that's what Christianity is all about, then I'm never going to be a Christian". In the long run, the people in that video turn people off to Christianity, which gives the Christian religion a black eye. Contention 2: Personal Experience with Most Christians The area I live in is a densely Christian area. After some personal encounters with these Christians, I can say that most of them know nothing about Christianity. One question I will always ask somebody who claims to be a Christian is " Can you proof that God exists". They tell me "No, I can't prove it, but there's proof out there. I just have faith". That statement is what makes Christianity look like a fairytale, because 99.9% of all Christians have no clear proof as to why God and Jesus Christ are real. Therefore, if Christians can't prove the Christian theories to be true, then no Atheists would be willing to convert. Contention 3: Atheists' Opinions of Christians http://www.youtube.com... My second video pokes fun at religion through comedy. The two actors in that skit is what most people of religion sound like in the perspective of Atheists. Atheists, as I've said before, are very fact and logic based people. When someone who is looking for proof of Christianity wants facts as to why God and Jesus Christ exist and they hear "The things in the Bible are true because the Bible says the Bible is true...", they don't buy into it. The fact is, most of the things said in the video sound like a fairytale. Atheists won't buy into it because they are looking for a logical explanation as to why they all are here. In conclusion: I have presented my argument as to why Christianity looks like a ridiculous religion because most Christians don't know what they're talking about. The more Christians continue this behavior, the more ridiculous the Christian religion will look. However, if Christians prove their religion is true factually and logically, then there will be a lot of Atheists who "see the light" and convert. I await my opponent's 2nd round argument.
The Reason why Christianity is Looked Down Upon...

I except this debate challenge and I am a Christian. I will give a brief overview of why I think Christianity is looked down upon. In short: it is the character and conduct of some Christians themselves. Too many Christians abuse, bully and sometimes commit atrocities. Have you heard of the Crusades? Also, many Christians preach so called holy hate like Westboro Baptist Church. Before Christians bother with other people's sins, they need to deal with their own sins. I used to bully in the name of religion, and that is my biggest regret. How many people have a turned away from Jesus? May God have mercy on me.