BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible Has No Contradictions

Rebuttal Even if death was not eminent on that day, Which I still disagree with, Death was not eminent at all because Adam and Eve ate the apple and did not die. The reason I disagree with your point is because this story is literally read the way I proposed it, And that is how the lay man would read/understand the story and form their Christian framework. This is important to note, Because almost no Christian reads the original texts (or copies of) - they read the translations. All of their Christian views and frameworks are formulated from their interpretation of the translations they read. This story reads the way I proposed it. That being said, The talking snake was correct, The apple did nothing to them, God lied. It wasn't until a vengeful curse from God that caused their loss in immortality. Eating the fruit did not kill them, Therefore, Contradiction. Next Contradiction - Free Will It's common Christian belief, Inspired by doctrine, That God is omniscient and prophecies were foretold in the Bible. I'm excluding Bible verses here because I don't think I need them for this contradiction. If you intend to argue that God is not omniscient and prophecies were not in the Bible, I will provide verses. How is it possible for free will and prophecies to coexist? I would argue it's not and this is a logical contradiction. For example, If the future is a product of many cumulative free will based decisions, How can God or anyone inspired by him possibly know the future? In order to know the future, The future would have to be pre-determined, Which would render free will impossible.
The Bible Has No Contradictions

"God mentioned that Adam and Eve will die, on the same day, If they eat the apple. They ate it, And lived. "It never said that they would die on the same day:"With regards to the Hebrew word yom for day in Genesis 2:17, It refers specifically to the action of eating and not “dying die. ” Solomon used an almost identical construction in 1 Kings when referring to Shimei: “For on the day <yom> you go out and cross over the brook Kidron, You will know for certain that you shall surely <muwth> die <muwth>; your blood shall be on your own head. ” (1 Kings 2:37) This verse uses yom (day) and the dual muwth just as Genesis 2:17 did. In Genesis 2:17, yom referred to the action (eating) in the same way that yom refers to the action here (go out and cross over). In neither case do they mean that was the particular day that death would come, But the particular day they did what they weren’t supposed to do. Solomon also understood that it would not be a deathon that particular day but that Shemei’s days were numbered from that point. In other words, Their (Adam and Shimei) actions on that day were what gave them the final death sentence—they would surely die as a result of their actions. Therefore, The day, In Genesis 2:17 was referring to when Adam and the woman ate, Not the day they died. "https://answersingenesis. Org/bible-characters/adam-and-eve/why-didnt-adam-and-eve-die-the-instant-they-ate-the-fruit/Over to you!
The Bible Has No Contradictions

Hahaha, You probably should have clarified that from the beginning. Ok, Let's tackle the apple! (Genesis 2:16-17 KJV)I know it's not specifically mentioned as a literal apple, But the forbidden fruit is labeled as such among most contemporary scholars. I will refer to it as the apple, But it could very well be a peach or anything else - it won't affect my argument. God mentioned that Adam and Eve will die, on the same day, If they eat the apple. They ate it, And lived. I have seen people argue that Adam and Eve were cursed and no longer immortal, Which is what God meant by dying; however, This is not consistent with literal interpretation. God specifically says "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die".
The Bible Has No Contradictions

"1 Kings 4:26 - And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots…2 Chronicles 9:25 - And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots…"This is quite obviously a transcription error. They've even fixed it in versions such as the NIV. Allow me to clarify what I mean by contradiction. Contradiction: the statement of a position opposite to one already made. Transcription/translation errors do not fit that category. Nice try, But you're gonna have to try harder than that. :)
The Bible Has No Contradictions

I will be arguing that the Bible has no contradictions. Please mainly use the KJV Bible, But other translations can be used for clarification. This is specifically about the Bible, So any outside source is irrelevant. Also, Please keep the number of contradictions to a minimum so that I can respond to them all (about 20 or less in the original round and 15 or less in the later rounds because I'll have to disprove those contradictions AND respond to what you say)Have fun!
The Bible Has No Contradictions

This is what the verse said, So no, There was no contradiction. How it's read by the lay man is irrelevant; it's the purpose and person behind it writing it that matters, And that person did not make a contradiction. What does the Bible say? The exact words are:Genesis 2:17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. That is the translation. If the Bible is wrong, Like you want to claim, Then why even bother reading it? This debate is on whether or not the BIBLE has contradictions, Not the underlying language. Some guy (Bob) can travel through time. Let's just say Bob goes into the future to see all of the questions that his teacher asks in class and what the answers are. Then, He travels back and answers every single one correctly. Bob obviously did not decide what the future would be, However, He still KNEW it before it happened. This is what I'm talking about. This scenario is entirely nonsensical. How can Bob see a future if the future has not yet been decided by the free will agents? It's impossible to have a "future" when free will is involved, Because the future is dependent on the decisions made using free will. Here is a better example:Larry (free will agent) has a decision to make - A, B, C, D, E or F. Kent (free will agent) has a decision to make - G, K, X, G or P. Cindy (free will agent) has a decision to make - H, M, A, L, D or Y. Kathy (free will agent) has a decision to make - J, D, R, C or M. There are multiple combinations for futures here, Depending on what each of these 4 people choose (free will). How can Bob "travel to the future", When there are multiple futures?
The Bible Has No Contradictions

The AppleHere is the Genesis verse since you seem to have misread it haha:Genesis 2:17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. This clearly and unequivocally states that "in the day" you eat the apple (not years later; that same day), You "shalt surely die". The talking magic snake said this was bs, And he was correct. They ate the fruit and the fruit did not kill them. They did not die "in the day" of the fruits consumption; therefore, Contradiction. This is the literal reading of this verse. I haven't forgot we are arguing the Bible's contradictions, I think you have. Is this not a verse directly from the Bible? I even used your preferred KJV. Free WillPerhaps you didn't understand what I was saying, Or I didn't phrase it clear enough. I'll reword it:If the future is a composition of compounding free will directed decisions, Then no one can logically know the future, Because the future is the result of free will choices that have not yet been made. It's impossible for someone to have knowledge of the future if the future can have an infinite amount of possibilities, And those possibilities are directed by numerous agents operating in a free will capacity. The only way someone can know the future is if it's pre-determined and free will does not exist. I can even simplify this further by removing humans as free will agents; God itself cannot be omniscient and have free will simultaneously. Logically speaking, He cannot both know his choice and freely choose it. This in itself is a logical contradiction.
The Bible Has No Contradictions

"Even if death was not eminent on that day, Which I still disagree with, Death was not eminent at all because Adam and Eve ate the apple and did not die. "Well, For one, What you agree or disagree with is irrelevant. Second, They did die. I'm not sure where you got the idea that they're still living from. "The reason I disagree with your point is because this story is literally read the way I proposed it, And that is how the lay man would read/understand the story and form their Christian framework. This is important to note, because almost no Christian reads the original texts (or copies of) - they read the translations. All of their Christian views and frameworks are formulated from their interpretation of the translations they read. This story reads the way I proposed it. "The way it reads is irrelevant. What matters is the intent and purposeful meaning behind it, And them dying that day was not part of that intent. Remember, We are arguing whether the Bible has contradictions, Not Christianity and/or Christians. "That being said, The talking snake was correct, The apple did nothing to them, God lied. It wasn't until a vengeful curse from God that caused their loss in immortality. Eating the fruit did not kill them, Therefore, contradiction. "My personal understanding (and this is me digressing) is that they died spiritually, In that they became disconnected from God in a way that had not happened before. Besides that, I already explained that they DID die, So no, That's not a contradiction. "How is it possible for free will and prophecies to coexist? I would argue it's not and this is a logical contradiction. For example, If the future is a product of many cumulative free will based decisions, How can God or anyone inspired by him possibly know the future? In order to know the future, The future would have to be pre-determined, Which would render free will impossible. "This makes no sense. Why would knowing the future mean you caused the future? To be pre-determined, The actions that everyone takes would have to be CHOSEN by God. He did not choose our actions, He simply knows them before they happen. You offer really no evidence that it is a logical contradiction. Also, I would like to mention that you're not allowed to post any new contradictions claims in the fifth round since, Obviously, That would be unfair to me. Over to you! :D
Due to his Utter Existential Hopelessness the Believer in atheist Dogma Should Commit Suicide

All of my points are valid, true, and unchallenged, and all of my points have been proven conclusively with solid evidence. My opponent provided exactly zero evidence for any of his silly and untrue atheistic claims. Therefore I won this debate. Here are the points that my opponent utterly failed to counter: On his crippled and ignorant atheistic worldview, the believer in atheist Dogma faces utter existential hopelessness: All the believer in atheist Dogma has to look forward to in the future (on his crippled and ignorant atheistic worldview) is disease, old age, and death. On atheist Dogma, your death is inevitable and irrevocable, and before your death occurs, your disease and your old age (and thus your suffering) will only increase, on balance, as time passes. According to the belief in atheist Dogma, there is no afterlife, and thus on atheist Dogma there can be no lasting reward for any virtuous act that may be performed during this lifetime: On atheist Dogma, the only possible permanent cessation to your suffering would be your own death. Therefore the believer in atheist Dogma should commit suicide as soon as possible -- while he is still young and healthy -- in order to avoid his future suffering by dint of his inevitable old age, disease, and death. Of course he will not do so BECAUSE HE KNOWS, JUST AS ALL HUMAN BEINGS KNOW, THAT THE BELIEF IN atheist DOGMA IS ACTUALLY A FALSE BELIEF SYSTEM. His failure to commit suicide betrays his actual acceptance of God"s existence, and it also betrays the fact that he is just lying about supposedly believing in atheist Dogma. Committing suicide " today -- would actually be consistent with the atheistic position, whereas failing to do so is consistent with his concrete and provable acceptance of God"s factual existence (whether he denies this fact or not). Incidentally, believers in atheist Dogma do in fact commit suicide at much higher rates than people who honestly and straightforwardly accept God"s factual existence. Camus, a believer in atheist Dogma (now dead), concluded that on atheist Dogma, life is 100% absurd and not worth living. Serious question: If you are a believer in atheist Dogma, why don't you just kill yourself today? (Four related atheist/death videos): I won this debate: Thanks for your time! =)
Due to his Utter Existential Hopelessness the Believer in atheist Dogma Should Commit Suicide

PRO has made no debatable points in round 2. PRO has simply denied saying things they, in fact, did say. Anyone who follows this debate closely will realise that. It would be superfluous on my part to argue against the substanceless assertions made in round 2 by PRO as I have addressed them in round one. My arguments from round 1 still stand, unchallenged. I urge PRO to make actual arguments in Round 3 if they have want to have even the slightest chance of winning this debate. Until round 3, au revoir.
Due to his Utter Existential Hopelessness the Believer in atheist Dogma Should Commit Suicide

On his crippled and ignorant atheistic worldview, the believer in atheist Dogma faces utter existential hopelessness: All the believer in atheist Dogma has to look forward to in the future (on his crippled and ignorant atheistic worldview) is disease, old age, and death. On atheist Dogma, your death is inevitable and irrevocable, and before your death occurs, your disease and your old age (and thus your suffering) will only increase, on balance, as time passes. According to the belief in atheist Dogma, there is no afterlife, and thus on atheist Dogma there can be no lasting reward for any virtuous act that may be performed during this lifetime: On atheist Dogma, the only possible permanent cessation to your suffering would be your own death. Therefore the believer in atheist Dogma should commit suicide as soon as possible -- while he is still young and healthy -- in order to avoid his future suffering by dint of his inevitable old age, disease, and death. Of course he will not do so BECAUSE HE KNOWS, JUST AS ALL HUMAN BEINGS KNOW, THAT THE BELIEF IN atheist DOGMA IS ACTUALLY A FALSE WORLDVIEW. His failure to commit suicide betrays his actual acceptance of God"s existence, and it also betrays the fact that he is just lying about supposedly believing in atheist Dogma. Committing suicide -- today -- would actually be consistent with the atheistic position, whereas failing to do so is consistent with his concrete and provable acceptance of God's factual existence (whether he denies this fact or not). Incidentally, believers in atheist Dogma do in fact commit suicide at much higher rates than people who honestly and straightforwardly accept God"s factual existence. Camus, a believer in atheist Dogma (now dead), concluded that on atheist Dogma, life is 100% absurd and not worth living. Serious question: If you are a believer in atheist Dogma, why don't you just kill yourself today? (Four related atheist/death videos):
Hillary Clinton would get more support if she wore skirts more often.

"Then why did Hillary Clinton and John Edwards both spend 500+ on haircuts? " Like many rich people, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards get expensive haircuts because they personally want to look good. Not for because of how voters view them, but because of how they view themselves. These expensive haircuts make them feel confident. Also, they probably got 500+ haircuts even before they were running. 2. "Now if she would where skirt here and there it would exemplify the fact that she is a woman and I think it would help her allot. " Although not all of Hillary's supporters are women, I agree that a vital potion are. However, again I would like to point out that the VERY few women in this nation who vote honestly are smart enough not to confuse how someone dresses with good leadership. The type of woman in America who would vote doesn't care about whether Hillary Clinton wears a skirt or pants. This type of woman won't think that a person is better equiped to be President because she wears stylish skirts. However, they probably would rather not have to stare at Hillary's flabby legs for the next 4 years. 3. "It's odd you say that, if I am not mistaken in the very same argument you made the statement: ""The average person who actually takes the time to vote doesn't care about how their candidate looks. " So how dose that make sense? " What I meant was that, the INCREDIBLY SMALL portion of voters who might care about looks would hate to see Hillary's legs for the next 4 years. They would much rather her wear pants to cover them up. P. S. You failed to address the picture of the last time Hillary wore a skirt in your last argument, so I take it that you agree that they are unattractive. They why would "flaunting" them help her.
Hillary Clinton would get more support if she wore skirts more often.

Well this is almost a ridiculous topic but it looks interesting enough. Lets take a look here, 1. "The average person who actually takes the time to vote doesn't care about how their candidate looks." Then why did Hillary Clinton and John Edwards both spend 500+ on haircuts? http://www.washingtonpost.com... 2. "The VERY few people who vote in this nation honestly couldn't care less whether Hillary Clinton wore a skirt or a pant-suit." I disagree I think that allot of Clinton supporters are simply there because she is a woman. http://www.americanthinker.com... Now if she would where skirt here and there it would exemplify the fact that she is a woman and I think it would help her allot. 3. "Hillary Clinton's legs are not shapely or attractive enough to wear skirts in. The only way skirts could SLIGHTLY HELP a female politician is if she had attractive legs." It's odd you say that, if I am not mistaken in the very same argument you made the statement: ""The average person who actually takes the time to vote doesn't care about how their candidate looks." So how dose that make sense? All I see here are opinions, polls show Hillary gets a large portion of votes from women. So why not flaunt it?
Hillary Clinton would get more support if she wore skirts more often.

I have two main points. Point 1: The average person who actually takes the time to vote doesn't care about how their candidate looks. The VERY few people who vote in this nation honestly couldn't care less whether Hillary Clinton wore a skirt or a pant-suit. Point 2: Hillary Clinton's legs are not shapely or attractive enough to wear skirts in. The only way skirts could SLIGHTLY HELP a female politician is if she had attractive legs. However, Hillary Clinton does not. Below is a picture of the last time Hillary Clinton ever wore a skirt. Notice her unshapely legs. http://www.nohillaryclinton.com...
Rats are related to stars

According to http://en.wikipedia.org... , cosmic dust has answered the question of evolution in Earth. Actually in the Smithsonian's Nation Museum of Natural History, they talk about how cosmic dust has organic matter that was brought down to Earth, and the first mammal EVER was a rat. Even our Milky Way galaxy has cosmic dust. The cosmic dust was brought down to Earth. Due to the perfect conditions, bacteria started growing, and mutations made the bacteria to protozoa, and then the protozoa evolved to plant species or animal species. And since rats were the first mammals on Earth, they have a closer relation to the cosmic dust in the galaxy.
Rats are related to stars

In no universe is there any relation between Rats and Stars. While Rats live in the deepest holes of the earth, Stars live high up in the Sky. Its is no anomaly to the fact that there is a huge gap between Stars ( The achievers of different fields ) and Rats ( sole failures ) . Again when was the last time Rats did something that anyone praised !? All I have heard in the literal form is only abuse words for this creature. Well as for Stars they provide us with pleasant nights, picturesque views everyday. As for Rats all they provide is torn pieces of useful goods. Even in its absence Star does good to people. They bring in us the Hope that there might be rain ( Imagine a Farmer's happiness then ) . And there is no bigger power than the power of hope.
You should vote for me.

Consider this, with just a little bit of lime juice and some finely chopped cilantro, any plain ol' cucumber can become a delicious treat. Although I do suppose we ought to consider that cucumbers are pretty good by themselves as well. In this debate I will aim to show that I, Whataburger, should get the vote in this debate. Now remember to brush your teeth people. Cavities will form if you don't, and it'll be difficult to enjoy a Whataburger without anything to chew with.
You should vote for me.

1) Con drops that the universe is based on Chaos. 2) You can't claim debate is about just one thing. Some of the most break-neck policy debates are far from logical and many public debates are pure pathos. Debate is not inherently s logical entity. 3) Remember the role of the ballot. Break away from these arbitrary metrics and promote real education. (also, Con's last argument is about as circular as it can get. There's never a warrant offered as to why debate is a discussion of logic.)
You should vote for me.

The universe is based on chaos. Everything is arbitrary and logic is the flawed method people used to make sense of a senseless world. I'm not saying logic is bad, or that I don't use logic, instead that you should not assume this debate should be weighed on logic. What Con is doing here is flat-out boring. He's making assumptions about how debate operates and to default that those assumptions are truth harms our activity. Con never contests that this harmful.
You should vote for me.

There's no reason to believe that the debate had started before Con posted his argumentActually, the debate has started as PRO has already typed an argument for his case.The role of the ballot is to break away from boxed out methodologies and change debate for the better.This is untrue: voting is for getting the general opinion on something, not to change opinion. Also, logic is not a boxed-out methodology; everything is based on logic, so pro needs to destroy everything in order to win.
You should vote for me.

(a) There's no reason to believe that the debate had started before Con posted his argument, and (b) the weighing mechanism of this debate isn't logic. The cucumber talk was just for fun. Also, they're delicious There are some basic assumptions about debate underlying Con's advocacy that need to be questioned. You question those assumptions by voting against him in this debate. The role of the ballot is to break away from boxed out methodologies and change debate for the better.
You should vote for me.

Pro states that he should get the vote in this debate, yet he does not provide any logical reason for why that's the case. Let's attempt to analyze pro's arguments to see if they are valid. Argument 1: P1. Cucumbers are delicious C. Whataburger should get the vote The conclusion does not follow from the premise: whether or not Whataburger should get the vote has no relation to whether or not cucumbers are delicious: cucumbers were always delicious, before Whataburger was even born.