BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God broke his promise to Abraham and the Bible admits it

I will post mine all in bold to distinguish from your side. "The LORD said to Abram after Lot had parted from him, 'Lift up your eyes from where you are and look north and south, east and west. All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring forever. I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust, then your offspring could be counted. Go, walk through the length and breadth of the land, for I am giving it to you'" (Genesis 13:14-17). This is one of the biggest promises in the entire Bible. It is important to both Jews and Christians even today. This prophecy was not conditional on anything Abram had to do. As far as God was concerned, Abram’s previous faithfulness was enough for God to tell him that he and his descendants were going to be given the land of Canaan. God repeats the promise again in Genesis 15:18. This promise was never fulfilled to Abram, later named Abraham. The Bible admits this twice in the New Testament: He gave him (Abraham) no inheritance here, not even a foot of ground. But God promised him that he and his descendants after him would possess the land (Acts 7:5). All these people (Abraham and descendants) were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance (Hebrews 11:13). “They did not see the things promised.” Today, Christianity and Judaism teach that the promise was not fulfilled "yet." They look at it as some kind of futuristic fulfillment that will happen someday. The problem with this is that as mentioned, the Bible writers in Acts and Hebrews disagree. They flat out stated that the promise did not come to pass. There is no indication that God's promise to Abraham would not happen immediately and even the writers of Acts and Hebrews failed to mention what Christianity teaches now - not "yet." If the OT were true, God broke his promise to Abram. He said "I am giving it you," not "Someday thousands of years from now, your descendants will get this land."
Origin of Government

Following the rules of this debate, Round 5 “Concluding statements ... with an opinion on the best form of government.” In Round 1 Con took the evolutionary approach by selecting “theory IV,” with emphasis on a slow and conservative development, via the physical Laws of Nature.In our modern age, the scientific method became inseparable from human endeavor, where many of faith feel threaten. On the contrary, both those of faith and seculars should unite around the scientific method. Those of faith should view the Laws of Nature as the handwriting of God, where seculars view those laws, simply being the Laws of Nature. And in saying that, it is through the Laws of Nature, or God's handwriting, we come to realize the “Origin of Government” blossoms from a recurring pattern found throughout nature governed by the Constructal Law. This pattern is tree shaped and commonly known as a hierarchy. “In regards to the best form of government,” that would be a limited constitutional republic institution of governance morally embracing and protects the individual's Unalienable Rights (“Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”) from the crimes of others and from the crimes of government. This rare form of government historically and empirically is the most efficient in the fruits of, economics, technology, food production, and medicine, the stables of human existence throughout the world today. A compelling example of what happens when our Unalienable Rights are free to flow, having minimal resistance (Constructal Law), within the awesome machinery of nature.Too bad a limited constitutional republic is not a stable form of governance as it eventually morphs into a tyrannical oligarch due to the morality factor. For example, John Adams, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, once stated:“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other” (http://www.john-adams-heritage.com...). On that note, from the wisdom of John Adams, let me (Con) take this occasion, to express the vital importance of education on that Universal Moral Thread, not to be confused with cultural norms or some “code.” But a Moral Thread that is part of the physical Laws of Nature. A subtle Thread found throughout the mutual positive-feedback relative to life's Unalienable Rights going with the flow, minimizing resistance, in beneficial configurations throughout the living spectrum from schools of fish, to flocks of birds, to packs of wolfs, to tribes of humans, etc. Preserving those configurations, while advancing and improving the group, aka, that ever ending road to utopia. On the other hand, who could argue, perhaps, a flock of doves may have found their utopia, while most humans are confused over morality trapped in “metaphysics” with dialectic spin. In closing, Con wishes Pro a long and healthy “Live,” with ample freedom (“Liberty”), in the Moral “pursuit of Happiness.”
Origin of Government

Con: "information is represented in matter, otherwise, we will not be here. It takes matter and energy to generate and transmit information. Therefore, information is a manifestation of matter and energy, there is nothing “metaphysical” about it!"This is completely wrong. Information is not a manifestation of matter and energy. Information can use matter or energy to convey a message. But, suppose we were in a different universe, where matter and energy were non-existent, but some other physical forms existed. The ways that those forms were arranged could be used to convey information. This is why information is beyond matter and energy, because it uses them, but does not require them. Therefore, information is metaphysical. Because my opponent completely misunderstood my metaphysical argument, the rest of his argument is fundamentally flawed. He attempts to say that physical laws cause moral guidelines, which goes against the law of causality.Con gave an example of sacrificing as a moral necessity, but that is still only a subjective opinion. Others would not agree the sacrifice is good. This can't be justified to an objective level.Con stated, "if all cultures requires a language to begin with, logic dictates all cultures will have the same language." This argument is demonstrably false. Languages change over time. One group of people could start with the same language, and over many generations and with people moving to separate parts of the world, the language would eventually change into different types.Con showed that different cultures will have different views on morals, like with abortion, but he still hasn't really shown the difference between that and what the universal moral thread is.Barbarous and civil are only relative terms if one does not agree that there is an objective moral standard with which society should be based off of. My argument is that, how did that first society learn to become civil all on their own? We do not see societies nowadays becoming more civil unless there is an external influence. Therefore, there must have been an external influence with the first society.
Origin of Government

Con states that "the Laws of Nature are the handwriting of God and the scientific method is a way to read God's handwriting."I completely agree with this.Con also states: "man is fallible, and those who study or wite such scriptures may misinterpret of what God wants"I also agree with this. There are many books that were collected into the canon of what is now known as the Bible. Clearly, there are some minor errors in the Bible, but this does not show that the entirety of the texts are not historically accurate. However, the extent to which the Bible is accurate is mostly irrelevant to this particular debate.Con argues that the origin of government is one of evolution, and it matches the foundational structure of hierachical symmetry. Again, Con is correlating the physical- the hierarchical symmetry of nature, and the metaphysical- a moral framework for human government. But my opponent does not show how the physical can cause the non-physical.Con argues that I cannot say what is meant by "metaphysical." However, it is quite simple. Allow me to give a demonstration: "owh aer ouy?" I used letters (matter) and assembled them into a form, but it should not mean anything to anyone. Now, using the same letters (matter), I will arrange them differently: "how are you?" Information is metaphysical, because it is neither matter or energy. Rather, information uses matter to convey a message. A moral system, or a moral philosophy, is a system derived from information, which goes beyond matter and energy. So, my opponent still needs to prove that because matter acts in a certain way, it should also mean that information must act in a similar fashion. I argue this is a non-sequitor. Matter and information are two separate things.My opponent agrees that the term "happiness" may require certain aspects in a moral system, like sacrifice. I question how my opponent justifies the moral necessity of sacrifice in his system.My opponent argues that langauge developed because of culture. However, a culture requires language to begin with. This is a chicken and egg scenario. You can't have one without the other, so how does it originate? He has not adequately explained this.My opponent states that the "Universal Moral Thread" is something that follows each culture. So, it seems that he is saying that there is no objective right or wrong. So, if one culture determines that it is morally correct to murder people, who or what is correct in saying that they are absolutely wrong?Con criticizes my barbarous tribes argument, but he seems to misunderstand it. I am arguing that, since we have never seen a barbarous tribe become civil on it's own, it is then likely to conclude it would have been impossible for the first human society to have become civil all on it's own.
Origin of Government

Thank you, Con, for your arguments.RebuttalsPhysical vs. MetaphysicalMy opponent argues that morality is a product ("outgrowth") of the laws of nature. My opponent is confusing metaphsyical principles with physical laws. (By physical, I mean both matter and energy, and by metaphysical, I mean anything that is besides matter and energy.) Mathematics is a language that humans have created in order for them to understand the physical universe. Every equation can be linked to the physical world. However, morality, even though it is also a concept that was created by humanity, is a principle that cannot be linked to the physical world. We can not measure love, or quantify the exact happiness of one person to the next. An important rule in causation is that every cause can only have certain effects. So, a physical effect requires a physical cause. The physical laws of nature cannot cause metaphysical laws of morality. My opponent most definitely shows a correlation, albeit a very loose correlation, but he does not prove that one affects the other. As my opponent's argument rests on the foundation of morality being an outcome of the physical laws, he must then show how a physical law can produce a metaphysical law. If he cannot do this, his entire thesis breaks down. HappinessMy opponent argues that the absolute value of right is happiness. But, what does he base this argument off of? Why should happiness be what dictates as the right thing to do? Many times, humans must make tough sacrifices in order to do the right thing, which would go agains their happiness. And, as this is the case, where would the first humans get the sense of needing to give up their happiness in order to do the "right" thing? My opponent's argument that happiness is on the spectrum of Right is a baseless and unproven assertion. Origin of LanguageMy opponent states that as soon as two humans form a group, it becomes alive. But how did two humans ever manage to effectively learn to communicate with each other? Thought does not create language; rather, language is a tool for thought. If my opponent wants to argue that the first humans that communicated together eventually formed a government, he must explain how language could have originated. If he is unable to do this, his argument on the formation of government is unproven.Unviversal Moral ThreadMy opponent argues that empirical evidence shows a universal absolute moral thread that runs through the tapsetry of humanity in the evolution of civil societies. How does he determine which society is more civil than others? Are you arguing that the universal opinion of mankind defines what is morally correct? What if the Nazis had succeeded in their goals to exterminate the Jews, and eventually convinced everyone that it was the right thing to do? Would that have made it morally correct if everyone in the world agreed to it? This proposition of universal morals has major problems, unless the objective of morality lies above humankind.ConclusionMy opponent has quite a few stumbling blocks in regards to proving his thesis, and I look forward to him improving his arguments. I wish him the best of luck. Cheers!
Origin of Government

Thank you Lupricona (Pro) for bringing an important subject to the debating floor. I (Con) is looking forward in a learning experience from a constructive debate.Con will take “theory” IV. “Government springs from the spontaneous development of nature.” This theory is the closes to my thesis based on evolution, which presents a slow and conservative development, via the physical Laws of Nature, therefore, not a “spontaneous development.”Thesis: I argue that the origin of most governments exist on a Moral Order. The purpose of government is to embrace and protect the individual's Unalienable Rights (“Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”) from the crimes of others and from the crimes of government; no more, no less.
Origin of Government

The Origin of Government This debate will focus on the theories of the origin if government. The theories are: I. Government originates in the right of the father to govern his child. II. It originates in convention, and is a social compact. III. It originates in the people, who, collectively taken, are sovereign. IV. Government springs from the spontaneous development of nature. V. It derives its right from the immediate and express appointment of God VI. From God through the Pope, or a visible head of the spiritual society VII. From God through the people VIII. From God through the natural law My opponent may use any of these theories, or a combination of them. My opponent must argue why the theories he/she has chosen best explains the origin and purpose of a government. I will combine theories I, VII, and VIII. Thesis: I argue that the origin of government is only possible through the existence of a Moral Lawgiver. The purpose of government is for humans to interact with each other in good manner, as we are designed to belong in a community. I would like for an a opponent that is against any theory that necessitates God for the origin of government, but anyone is welcome, so long as their combination of theories contradicts mine. This will heavily be a philosophical debate, so general inductions/deductions will be the main part of the arguments. However, citing sources for studies on societies and appealing to historical law documents are encouraged to help strengthen the arguments. Round 1- Acceptance and stating the theory/theories, while combining them into a thesis. Round 2- Argue why your thesis is correct. No rebuttals. Round 3 and 4- Defend your thesis and attack the opponent's thesis. Round 5- Concluding statements of the debate. AT THE END OF THIS ROUND, each person MUST reflect on the entirety of this discussion, and in a paragraph, given their view on the origin of government, will explain which type of government they think is best: aristocracy, democracy, monarchy, republic, or some mixed form. Once concluded, my opponent may wish to further the discussion by setting up another debate with me in regards to the best form of government. I look forward to an engaging and thought-provoking debate with clever arguments, very long responses, and relevant sources. If you do not have the time or stamina for this debate, do not accept. Thank you. I welcome anyone to take down my thesis.
Free Will cannot exist as defined by Christians. Especially as relating to the Garden of Eden.

I am at quite a disadvantage as my understanding and memory of Mormon documents is very limited, and despite reading several passages over the weekend, I cannot hope to gain a full understanding of the LDS doctrine of free will from the pearl of great price and D&Cs without years of study. I will however continue this debate and attempt to argue using my understanding of the bible alone, with the expectation that my opponent will not agree with my contentions due to an extra biblical doctrine. That being said, lets plow forward. .. .. . 1. Freedom of choice cannot be lovingly provided without a prior knowledge of good and evil. Proper/perfect choice requires understanding and full disclosure of what is at stake. I argue that God could not have provided perfect 'freedom of choice' without first equipping Adam and Eve with a knowledge of good and evil and that God's allowance of the temptation of Eve, was an intent filled introduction of sin into the world. 2. I agree with con on this point, but he neglects to add that they were tempted by the snake to make that decision. Allowance of temptation without a foreknowledge of good verses evil is indefensible. 3. This is a slight shift from mainstream Christianity and the doctrine of inherent evil. I argue that perfection is impossible for human beings because of culpability of thought sin, as proposed by Jesus. (Matthew 5:21-48) Thus, the introduction of sin into the world disallows humans to live perfectly. 3+. The problem inherent with this argument is that God's foreknowledge of the pain and suffering that would occur as a result of our temptation and submittal to our nature as humans is unclean. God cannot have thought an impure thought, and remained pure, yet somehow he is capable of doing that, while not capable of being in the presence of the people who were allowed to behave that way? It doesn't hold with reason. God cannot think about introducing sin to the world without being complicit in it and therefore unclean. 4. The Jesus plan requires the utility of sin for fulfillment. Judas was required, as were the Romans and High Priest and Herod and every naughty character he encountered that contributed to his death on the cross. God is required by omniscience to not only know about the pain and suffering that Jesus would endure, but would be responsible for ensuring that it occurred. 5. While this is a nice way to look at it, I believe God's choice of punishment for sin negates the need for the plan in the first place. God knew that his Son would need to be horribly murdered before he chose to allow the serpent into the garden. The allowance of that temptation and the obvious result make him culpable. The fact that he then provides an 'out' through the terrible suffering and death of his perfect son, doesn't support the theory that he is loving or merciful. Feel free to utilize pearl of great price and Doctrines and Covenants in reply. Thank you.
Free Will cannot exist as defined by Christians. Especially as relating to the Garden of Eden.

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. We have a different interpretation of free will than the one you have described. 1. We believe that it was in God's eternal plan for our happiness to have freedom of choice. This freedom of choice is what I will define as "Free Will." 2. We believe that Adam and Eve chose to partake of the friut of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, because they wanted to have the ability to gain knowledge and to choose good or evil. Genesis 3: 6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. 3. We do not believe that we will be punished for anything that Adam or Eve did. Only what we ourselves do. 3. We believe that God in his love for mankind knew that we would sin, and that all sins would have to be paid for. No unclean thing could enter his presence (In other words ... if you sin, you are unclean). Because of this he provided a way that we could gain experience and make mistakes and yet still return to him again. 4. This plan called for a Savior. Jesus Christ was chosen to be that Savior. It would require him to live a perfect life. This is the reason that Jesus Christ was not only the Spiritual son of God but also the Physical one as well. This allowed him to have the ability to live a perfect life, and to atone (pay for) our sins. 5. Though he paid for our sins, we are not off the hook. He only pays for them if we repent of them. This means that we recogize that we have done wrong, feel remorse, and try to fix any wrong we have caused. Finally we must do the sin no more. Any less effort on our part would be a sham to what is owed Justice, and totally un just to Jesus Christ who paid for our chance to return to God with his life. Therefore, from the beliefs I have stated above, your arguemnt that God is unjust and unkind are not true. In God's infinite mercy he provided a way for us to become like him and to return to his presence someday. I also contend that the doctrine that all men and women will be punished for Adam and Eve's sins is false. I would like to have the right during this debate to use the scriptures that I believe in. This not only includes the King James version of the Bible, but also the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine & Covenants. I invite you to use these same scriptures by providing a link for you to use that will bring up all of these books of scriptures for your use.
Free Will cannot exist as defined by Christians. Especially as relating to the Garden of Eden.

I contend that the use of 'free will' to excuse God of his behavior towards a majority of humanity is built on a false premise. Christians claim that humans are innately evil based on the introduction of sin through the actions of Adam and Eve. They utilize this claim to excuse God of his plans to destroy sinful humans and submit them to hell, and call it free will. For this debate I would like to make the following assumptions: 1. God Exists 2. Hell Exists 3. The Bible provides an accurate depiction of the Garden of Eden and the introduction of sin. I contend that free will cannot exist as promoted by the introduction of sin, listed in Genesis, and that God himself is culpable as a result. It will be beneficial for this debate for Con to initially define his/her definition and utility of free will as it relates to humans and God. There are varying applications of free will doctrine, and it will be helpful to discover which flavor we are dealing with right from the start. I look forward to exploring this topic with any who accept the challenge.