BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mormonism is not a part of Christianity

Hopefully we can continue this discussion in the future :) I'd also like to respectfully disagree with my opponent's suggestion. So far in this debate we've each presented a round of argumentation and had the opportunity to make a case and present sources. Why should the "sources" vote remain a tie when I have provided sources to back up my case and Pro has not? That seems a little unfair. The audience should have the opportunity to judge the debate so far as it's presented keeping our one round of arguments in mind. However I don't really mind either way. Regardless, thanks again for the opportunity, good luck in classes and maybe we'll meet again.
the story of noah and the references from those in the NTestament add to discrediting the bible

the story of noah and the references from those in the NTestament add to discrediting the bible here is the text,which argues the flood was world wide, and wiped out every creature alive that was not on the boat. "The clearest verses that show the extent of the flood are Genesis 7:19-23. Regarding the waters, "They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. Every living thing that moved on the earth perished"birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark." Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org... Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." see also Luke 17:26 clearly, the scientific evidence indicates the flood being global and killing all the animals, was false. the best a person could argue, is that the story was a myth. and the people of hte new testament didn't necessarily say that it was true that it was a global flood, and that animals were all killed. but they did, however, give credence to the story of noah, a story that is basically a myth. even if the flood wasn't worldwide, it is still said to be in the OTestament. that alone is discrediting. ------------ more reference to noah in the bible: (Isaiah 54:9; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5; Hebrews 11:7) ""This is like the days of Noah to me: as I swore that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so I have sworn that I will not be angry with you, and will not rebuke you. "because they formerly did not obey, when God"s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. "5 if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;" "7 By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
the story of noah and the references from those in the NTestament add to discrediting the bible

I am going to begin this and end this succinctly and I hope to keep this to the point. 1. There is always a possibility for anything. A flood covering the world really is not that big of a leap to take considering that we can look out in the universe and see holes that literally suck in all light. 2. The topic here is debating whether or not Noah and the flood discredit the Bible. Quite plainly, I have seen nothing to the contrary here. If a flood is possible of that magnitude then how would it discredit the Bible? 3. This is the answer to your problem with the flood being how can God kill all those people is this. Noah went around and preached, asked people to repent, and nobody did. Then he said if you simply get in the boat you will live and nobody did. Then the flood came, and they were drowned because of there own stubbornness. As for the debate, thanks for a good topic!
the story of noah and the references from those in the NTestament add to discrediting the bible

the earliest known references to a flood event came from pagan religions. we have no reason to think it was noah. i'm sure there's tons of scienitific impossiblities that would have prevented a flood in that middle easetern region anyway. lack of geology evidence, water that would escape before bein built up like that, especially to the tops of moutains like the bible and folk lore say. the wiki link has plenty of outside verifiable sources in it about the science. that is a cop out argument by con. wiki isn't always eligable, but it's always verifiable. and it actually is usually reliable. con simply gives up on arguing his main point, that we should expect GOd to have wiped out mankind and animal kind like hte did. i do still contest that he would do that genocide, but it's above my pay grade to say. con also simply gives up on the point that a world wide flood would have occurred. he actually has teh audacity to think that it really did happen that way. the least someone could do is try to rationlize it or limited the scope. the wiki link though, shows plenty of proof that a world wide flood did not occur. there would be geology evidence, etc. plus it would be next to impossibe to literalget two of every creature on the earth. i might suspect that con is still developing into a realistic world view, as he needs to break off those shackles of mythology but doesn't seem ready to do it. at least the mythology of a truly literally world wide flood. maybe it's cognitive dissonance or something. i must suppoose he is still developing, because it wouldn't be realistic to give any serious conideration at all to the extent of the ideas he's suporting.
the story of noah and the references from those in the NTestament add to discrediting the bible

To start, I am going to use the very source that you did. It says, "Proponents of Flood Geology state that "native global flood stories are documented as history or legend in almost every region on earth". "These flood tales are frequently linked by common elements that parallel the biblical account including the warning of the coming flood, the construction of a boat in advance, the storage of animals, the inclusion of family, and the release of birds to determine if the water level had subsided." They suggest that "the overwhelming consistency among flood legends found in distant parts of the globe indicates they were derived from the same origin, but oral transcription has changed the details through time." So, the very source you said was to prove me wrong is saying the opposite. Also, this is Wikipedia and so cannot be used as a reliable source. As for what I was saying about Pangaea was my personal opinion on one of the reasons why Pangaea was split apart and was simply a tangent. So to conclude, the Pro has still not fulfilled the burden of proof and has used an unreliable source that is contradicting in itself. So far, nothing concrete. Over to you Pro!
the story of noah and the references from those in the NTestament add to discrediting the bible

" It is wholly possible that a flood of that magnitude is possible and that it happened. Personally, I find it helps us understand the separation of Pangaea" first, con must be arguing that a truly literal world wide flood was possible and that it happened. this flies in the face of science, mentioned later. next con argues about tying the flood to pangea. i have no idea why con makes this connection. pangaea was a continent billions of years ago, and has no bearing on the flood of noah. even if there was a tie to continental drift, this hasn't been shown, and it's improper to say it's tied to pangaea. con seems to be content ignoring scientific evidence in his arguments. but here's some "The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community.[16][84][85][86][87]" for more on the lack of evidence, see http://en.wikipedia.org... con simply tries to argue that it would be permissible for God to wipe out mankind, and that we shouldn't judge the situation by what we might perceive as overkill and genocide. i do take issue with this, but the main points given pro's assertions are that teh flood didn't happen like it looks to eb said to ahve occurred, and that alone is discrediting.
Religion only causes harm

Maybe it will be easier to get votes if you didn't insult the voters My opponent states that Religion has never done any good. So in order to prove my case I would just need to show a group of religious people doing good. Here's an article from 2007 http://www.christianpost.com... that states that Christian charities made up nearly a quarter of the 100 best nonprofit groups for financial integrity in the United States, according to a leading nonprofit management magazine. Charity is normally seen as a good this. So this is religion doing something good. Look forward to my opponents rebuttal.
Religion only causes harm

"Religion is the tie that binds good and bad ideas together it is no single idea. The bind does no good. It only harms." This is what my opponent claims. http://www.debate.org... . I just want to see him back it up. The debate will be 4 rounds. No new arguments in the last round only rebuttals. As usual round 1 is for acceptance and clarification of terms only. Definitions Religion 1. reï¿½liï¿½gion noun a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. Harm 1.harm noun physical injury or mental damage; hurt: 2. to do him bodily harm. moral injury; evil; wrong. 3.verb (used with object) to do or cause harm to; injure; damage; hurt: to harm one's reputation. I hope my opponent does realizes he carries the burden of proof
Religion only causes harm

Ok, it has been clear the readers and my opponent are not able to understand my argument. I have established that religion is the set of beliefs(plural). Not a single idea. We must look at the impact of creating that set to see if religion is good. As I have said religion is like creating a set of (text books, e-cards and and angry gaboon viper) and giving it as a gift. Or maybe a clearer example, take this salad: Lettuce, tomato, onions, bread crumbs, fat free ranch dressing, and rat poison. It would be retarded to argue that because the salad contains lettuce it is good for you. The overall impact of putting these things in a take all or nothing package is clearly bad. Religion never fails to add the rat poison, by adding gullibility to believe nonsense. My opponent is clearly trying to argue the salad is good because it adds lettuce. The only failure to this analogy is it would give religion too much credit with the amount of good ingredients, but it gets the point across.
Religion only causes harm

As this is the last and final round, I will not make any new arguments but I must state some facts. My opponent has accepted knowing he had the burden of proof My opponent has FAILED to list one single bad act that religion had caused. I am not naive. I know religion has caused several atrocities. However I will not help my opponent beat me. My opponent has FAILED to say what it is that religion does that causes charity to be bad. My opponent has FAILED to show that the bundling of ideas makes everything bad instead of neutral. In fact as he didn't refute that point it should be taken as a CONCESSION on his part. My opponent has FAILED to prove that witch hunts in Africa are started because someone brought a bible with them. My opponent has FAILED to prove that the existence of a higher power is nonsense, and therefore bundling it with charity CAN NOT be considered a bad idea. Due to my prior point My opponent had FAILED to list one idea that of religion that instantly causes all other ideas to be bad. I ask that you put aside your personal feelings towards my opponent when you cast your votes. He has insulted many people on this site but I don't want to win because people wanted to spite him. If you feel he mad the better arguments, than by all means vote for him. Thank you
Religion only causes harm

My opponent continues to not grasp my position. He thinks I am saying that religion makes charity bad. I am not saying that at all, I am saying that attaching religion to charity makes it worse then it would have been if it had not been attached to nonsensical ideas. Remember religion as defined is a set of ideas, not just one. My opponent continues to commit the fallacy of composition over and over again. He points out that charity is good and asserts that the set must be good. I on the other hand have argued that forcing charity into a set of other ideas that are both good and bad, is harmful because it would be better to allow charity to stand on its own merits. I don't think my opponent is grasping this. Its this simple: I give a college student a bag of presents, here is what is in the bag: text books for his next set of classes, a e-card for the caf, and a uncaged angry gaboon viper. If I asked if the present was overall good, it would be a no, as the uncaged gaboon viper being wrapped up in the deal makes it worse then it would have been had that gaboon viper not been included. Including unnecessary bad things into a package always brings it down compared to what it would have been if you allowed the person to accept each one on his own.
Religion only causes harm

I understand what you're saying. It just doesn't make any sense. It's supposed to be "Religion corrupts good things and make them bad" but as you have yet to provide any evidence of this it just comes out as "I don't care if Religion does good, them doing it makes it bad". You mentioned Witch Hunts in Africa. So I looked it up, and the most recent article( http://www.thedailybeast.com...) mentioning African witch hunts, doesn't mention Christian charities being at fault. If you have the evidence please present it. Otherwise please tell us why the millions of dollars raised by Christians each year are considered evil. "My opponent missed the point of my example. It was not necessarily a set based on religion, but instead a sample set to show that bundling good and bad ideas turns the whole idea of bundling the ideas bad. That is what religion does. I have already argued at the very least religion ties these acts to the belief in unjustified nonsense claims. That by itself, makes the effect of religion bad, while the idea of giving tocharity is good, and would be better if not attached to religion." So us believing in God, makes charity bad? Thats.......interesting. I asked that you provide me with a better example than this nonsense. "As for his example of comforting during death,itseems tome religion provides a coverforthis, yetwe would be better off accepting reality. What really useful does the idea oflying tooneself about any knowledge about after death do. It certainly doesn't help in accepting reality." Where is your evidence that is a lie? And if we accept that God is not real what usefulness is knowledge while dying? My opponent says that religious does no good because it is tied to bad idea. If his logic were true I'd still win because under his logic,religion is neutral and causes no harm.
Religion only causes harm

My opponent does not seem to grasp anything about this debate. When we talk about the idea of giving to charity, we have to look at what tying it to religion does vs allowing it to be an individual idea. It being associated with religion does harm, as it ties it to bad ideas. My opponent missed the point of my example. It was not necessarily a set based on religion, but instead a sample set to show that bundling good and bad ideas turns the whole idea of bundling the ideas bad. That is what religion does. I have already argued at the very least religion ties these acts to the belief in unjustified nonsense claims. That by itself, makes the effect of religion bad, while the idea of giving to charity is good, and would be better if not attached to religion. As for his example of comforting during death, it seems to me religion provides a cover for this, yet we would be better off accepting reality. What really useful does the idea of lying to oneself about any knowledge about after death do. It certainly doesn't help in accepting reality.
Religion only causes harm

Not sure if my opponent understands the debate. It appears that he believes that the religious only believe in charity and that doesn't make it that they are doing good. Unfortunately for him, the article gave is about people actively participating in charity. Which is good. So religious people,under the influence of their beliefs, are doing good. But to humour him I'll play along. He gives a set (charity, love, kill all who don't belong to your group, friendship). He then says that religion forces us to take all those at the same time. Meaning every religious person is a murderer. I ask that my opponent explain that with 4.6 billion religious people worldwide (http://en.wikipedia.org...) why he even has a pulse? I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and maybe he's talking about other bad ideas that religion does. But I would need him to elaborate in his next argument. Btw I was thinking about what Geo said " As Christopher Hitchens rightly challenges, show me a moral action that a religious person can do that an Atheist cannot." The only thing I can come up with is comfort during death. Especially if someone is dying. People want hope that they will see their loved ones again. Religion gives that. People don't want to believe that they will die and....that's it. They want to see what impact they left on their family and on the world. Atheism doesn't allow that.
Religion only causes harm

"Religion is the tie that binds good and bad ideas together it is no single idea. The bind does no good. It only harms." This is what I have to back up. My opponent defines religion as a set of beliefs, which means plural beliefs. Then goes on to give one belief. My point is that belief is not the religion. That is one belief. A belief that secular countries tend to be better at, charity. So, where does religion come in? Well religion is not that individual action, but the tie that binds it to many harmful actions. When you get religious charity often times the charity is tied to their religion. They waste resources of charity on proselytizing and bringing bibles. In many cases such as missionary work in Africa the charity can go awfully wrong by bringing the bible to them. It inspires witch hunts and burnings and more. Yet, I will digress. Let me show a set: (charity, love, kill all who don't belong to your group, friendship) Now yes you can take out each individual action and say it is good or bad, as well we should. We would say charity, love, friendship are all good and kill all who don't belong are bad(accept retard cerebral, who doesn't grasp morality). Now if we had a belief system that tied all these together as one(the set) group that was take it or leave it. That would be negative. The reason is it has good ideas and bad ideas, the grouping of ideas like that into a take all or none is inherently bad. It would be much better if we could take each idea on its own merit. Yet, this is exactly what religions do, they tie good and bad ideas together and indoctrinate people into thinking we should take all the ideas, and buy them as a set rather then to take each idea on its own merits. At the very least religions promote tying a good idea to the idea that we should believe without evidence. That on its own corrupts the good idea and makes it lesser then it would have been without the religion. In conclusion, Good ideas are better when not forcefully tied to bad ideas, like religion always does. So the end result is religion harms always by tying good ideas to bad ideas in take all or nothing package.
White rappers are taking over

Ok first of all how can you compare Mac Miller and Wiz Khalifa. Also who the fluff is tech 9 how can you say that they are like Eminem no one is like him. The only people who rap about the same stuff are most of the black rappers Wiz Khalife, ScHoolboy Q, Rich Gang, ASAP Mob there's tons of them and they all rap about the same stuff.
United States should keep a military presence I'm the Middle East.

In round 2 the first thing I do is apologize for my tardiness. Now here I am being even later. I am very sorry and thank you for the support! I think I have a long way journey ahead of me to become a good debater though. Great debates like this I think are the best way to continue on that quest though, thank you for the great challenge! In conclusion I think that the military presence in the middle east apart from the lawful occupation of the U.S and U.N bases such as in Saudi Arabia is unlawful. Unlawful being defined as, "not conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules". This is do to the fact that the justification of the mass amount of troops in the middle east is due to the wars that the U.S has engaged in, do not adhere to the principles of a just war as set in the constitution of the United States. Therefore the mass presence of the U.S troops in the middle east is illegal by law. As to the presence of small contingents of troops in the middle east I believe they should be restricted to observation and a skeleton crew of essential operating bases, essentially removing the military presence in the middle east. I believe this because on the whole, the military by direction of the U.S government has made the situation of middle easterners in particular Iraqis, Iranians, and Pakistani people, worse. The military presence is unlikely to change its ways to the effect that it provides more good than harm to the majority of the middle eastern people and should therefore be removed except for the above mentioned personnel thus essentially negating the U.S military presence in the middle east. I would like to thank my fellow debater Andrew.Cerean. He has put up a good opposition and helped hone my debating skills. Whether I win or lose this debate I will be happy because the true purpose and happiness is knowledge which I have attained. P.S thank you to ararmer1919 for the tip Sources: https://www.google.com...
United States should keep a military presence I'm the Middle East.

I think that it is great you're in High School and doing this type of stuff. You agreed with a lot of information I posted in the second round, however you did mention you believe the U.S. Is going about it all wrong. So I take it we both agree a military presence should be kept, but a different strategy should be used. Conclusion: In conclusion I wanted to point out regional stability is extremely important as a lot of the global economy requires stable oil prices. When we came to the defense of Kuwait during Desert Storm, we helped stabilize oil markets around the world. Lastly we must remember one of our closest allies, Israel is always under constant threat. Our presence in the Middle East gives us tactical advantages to come to the defense of our allies. Thanks for the debate!