BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The new testament is without contradiction.

I am going to merely stick with the new testament as J,E,P, and D just make the whole bible too easy. OK so I am going to start with a dichotomy, Either Jesus was born on or before 4 bce or not. If I can demonstrate that the new testament says that he was born both on or before 4 bce and also that he was not this will show a contradiction. Ok so we take Matthews account of the time frame in which Jesus was born, Matthew has Jesus born during the reign of Herod, who according to historians such as Josephus died in 4 bce. Now, when we move onto Luke the only other gospel to discuss the birth narrative, we get that Quirinius was governor of Syria, history shows this happened in 6 ce, which is after 4 bce. So we have on or before 4 bce in Matthew. Where as we have not on or before 4 bce in Luke. If one is right the other is wrong. We can continue right along with the birth narrative though. This story is full of them. Lets take a look at both Luke and Matthew and how they both internally contradict themselves. Both Matthew and Luke have Jesus born of Mary who is a virgin. Which would make him not the blood of Joseph. Once you admit this, you can't then turn around and have him be the blood of Joseph, but when we look at both of their genealogies, we find that both take Jesus back to David through Joseph. Which makes him the blood of Joseph in order to get the Davidic Prophecy fulfilled, but if Mary was a virgin he was not the blood of Joseph. Yet another contradiction. Further contradictions occur here as the genealogies are not the same. Either Luke's order is right or it is not, and ditto for Matthew, so if Matthew and David have 2 different genealogies then it becomes a problem since both can't be right. That is a contradiction. Further more Matthew and Paul would not agree if the law was to be followed, Matthew clearly says yes(Matthew 5:17-20) Paul says no. To quote a new testament historian: "I have often wondered what would have happened if Paul and Matthew had been locked up in a room together and told they could not come out until they had hammered out a consensus statement on how followers of Jesus were to deal with the Jewish law. Would they ever have emerged, or would they still be there, two skeletons locked in a death grip? If Matthew, who wrote some twenty-five or thirty years after Paul, ever read any of Paul's letters, he certainly did not fi nd them inspiring, let alone inspired." Bart Ehrman Jesus Interrupted pg 89. So in conclusion for the first actual round we have several mutually exclusive dichotomies. Born on or before 4 bce or not. Matthew takes on or before, luke says not. Both Can't be right, they contradict. Jesus either was a relative of Joseph or not. Both Matthew and Luke clearly try to have their cake and eat it too, to get 2 prophecies filled. Either Luke's order of the genealogies is true or it is not. Luke obviously says it is, Matthew's genealogy is not the same so he disagrees. Either we are to follow the law or we are not to follow the law. Matthew says we are, Paul says we are not to follow the law. Thank you I rest my initial case here.
The new testament is without contradiction.

The way this debate will go is I will show that there are contradictions, the person I am debating will attempt to show that there are no contradictions in the bible. Round 1 will merely be accepting the challenge. In round 2 I will begin my arguments for a contradiction. I define contradictions in the bible a the bible taking both sides of a mutually exclusive dichotomy. Mutually exclusive meaning that if one is true the other is by default false. Good luck to my opponent.
Dylann Roof death penalty

Like you said we don"t know "he may not care if he dies" but on the other hand we don't know if he does care if he dies, because we don't know what is going on in his head we don"t know what he exactly feels about his situation. And we still don"t know for sure that he will feel this emotional breakdown either way his "world shatters" as he is put to death slowly fading off because he can no longer carry out his plans to begin this war against blacks and whites and he can no longer achieve this evil goal of his. Also even if he is in prison we are not sure he will ever feel this "hatred" for what he has done or regret for what he has done for all we know he may not regret what he did he might feel like he did a good job on killing these people he is still alive he might think "hey look at this I killed these black people and you know what I don't care" we honestly dont know what will happen if he does go to prison and what will happen if he does go to the death penalty, but in the end he deserves to die because of all the pain he has caused and the fact he can be a symbol to other people and if he does not get what should be given more of these tragedies will happen and there will wind up becoming a war of races and his evil goal will wind up being achieved by a follower who was inspired by him and was not shown the consequences that will come by doing following this man.
Dylann Roof death penalty

First, he may feel physical pain but how about mental pain? For all you know he may not care if he dies. If he dies he feels physical pain for a short or long time then doesn't feel anything after that . He needs to feel more consequences then physical ones. He needs to know that what he did was wrong. And if he doesn't he needs to feel the consequences both physically and emotionally killing him does one of those ,the more unimportant one. And if you kill him he won't feel the hatred and humility that comes with doing something so terrible if you keep him alive you can have his time in prison be worse then death and make him wish that he'd die while he watches his world shatter into a million pieces. Now what option is worse?
Dylann Roof death penalty

It is quite alright thank you for apologizing though i appreciate that. I see what you are saying, however he can also become a symbol to people who are similar to him and want a race war against blacks and whites or any other race in general to let him live is showing in a way that you can kill people and in a way get away with it I say this because if he does get life he is still alive and is not getting any harm done to him but if he gets the death penalty it shows people that you can"t get away with murder and you can"t do crimes like this because you hate a race or something like that, and the death penalty was said to be a lethal injection and lethal injections can at time cause harm because it can be repeatedly applied to the person and it stops the breathing then the heart. There still can be pain given to him. (source of how lethal injection effects the body https://en.wikipedia.org...) (source of the death penalty Dylan Roof will get http://www.washingtonpost.com...)
Dylann Roof death penalty

First, I would like to apologize for replying so late I was not on debate.org at that time and did not see that you responded. I would also like to say thank you for being respectful and understanding my side of the argument, I do understand why you stated the things you did and fully respect your view on the discussion. Now for the actual argument, your opening statement is that Dylan Roof has killed 9 innocent black people solely because of the color of their skin and that he committed a hate crime. The fact he did something like that is intolerable and wrong and to kill him would be almost be just as bad. I say this because if you have the choice to give a major criminal the worst punishment possible out of the choices of killing them and shorten the persons life span and after they're dead not feel any pain or suffering even though they did something incredibly wrong, or keep them alive and have them feel the wrath of justice harsher then they could have ever fathom . After that you said the things I said about him in the life sentence being "isolated" and get a "beating every once in a while" may not happen if he was not killed which I understand but if he didn't get killed they do the worst things possible to him. Again I do see your points and fully understand your opinion. Thank you for having an opinion on this topic.
Dylann Roof death penalty

I accept your challenge. To start off I would like to state Dylan Roof has killed 9 innocent people who did not deserve to die, and his reason for doing so was because he hated black people and he felt they didn"t belong here on earth and so he murdered these people. In other words he committed a hate crime. You stated in your argument that in a life sentence he would be "isolated" and get a "beating every once in a while" but we do not know this for sure that this is what will happen if he were to be sent away for life. Also you say how he will feel insane, but in order for that to happen it does take time for a person to start to start to feel insane. Lastly if he does get the death penalty it will serve justice for the families because with the death penalty he is dead but if he is in prison he is still alive and breathing unlike his victims who are dead, but I do see the points you make and I understand your side to this argument.
Dylann Roof death penalty

I understand that the person killed innocent people and that is a serious crime against humanity, especially the victim's close relatives and loved ones , but in the long-term putting Dylann Roof in life imprisonment is the best resolution. The way this would be best sentence instead of a death sentence is because if you were to sentence him to death he would feel only physical pain for a certain amount of time depending what type of way he dies ,while if you imprisoned him for life isolating him from other people while receiving a physical beating every once in a while not only would it mean him feeling physical pain but with him being in prison isolated from other people and also doing the same thing everyday continuously would surely make him fell insane which would bring mental insatiability as well. As a conclusion , while a death penalty will only bring pain for a few seconds while an imprisonment for life would bring a life time of torture and suffering to criminals and justice to the innocent.
The morality of man has gone astray since the 20th century.

Women Pro says women were never second class citizens. My argument does prove women were not looked at as equal. If women weren’t looked at negatively, why does there have to be Gender-Based Asylum [1]? Pro never goes after my argument, but talks about what he believes to be the woman’s role is. However, his argument assumes that a women must necessarily be a wife, have children, and other views like they are soft. This commits the hasty generalization and straw man fallacy. Even if this was true, it doesn't refute my argument, that there was a moral progression. A woman's mood during menstrual cycles are completely irrelevant. It doesn’t mean we should treat them poorly. Slavery It would also be an individual advancement too. The majority of individuals use to accept slavery, now the majority doesn’t. Pro’s Arguments Pro says success is moral success. This clears it up, but it would make his statement “you can't have success without morality” a tautology. Pro links ambition to morality, but saying if we don’t have ambition we don’t have morality, because we have no ambition to be good. However, this goes into the thing I’ve been saying from the start, there needs to be evidence that people are lacking ambition. Pro’s argument has been nothing but a proof by assertion. Even if it’s proven people are lacking ambition in one area, it doesn’t mean they’re lacking ambition in all areas. T.V. Violence Even if everything on TV is immoral, it doesn’t people accept this kind of stuff or let it affect them. Someone could easily watch a simulated murder scene and not let it affect them in any way because they would understand it’s fiction. As I’ve shown in the previous round, a majority of people agree with Pro here, that there’s too much immorality on TV. So, how could it have overtaken the world if a majority agrees with Pro? Thanks, back to Pro. [1] http://www.stopvaw.org...
The morality of man has gone astray since the 20th century.

Indeed, I wanted a shared burden of proof, excuse me that I did not make it clear.WomenI do not agree with Con's statement. Throughout history women were looked at as second class citizens.I believe that women were never 'second class' citizens. The only point is that more responsibilities were given to the male gender.Mostly, the mother is more soft to her children than the father. And for children are in need of softness, the mother is most capable of spending time with the children. Now kids need a awful lot of time, so only being mother would fill al the days of the woman. If mom goes to work (what is no longer rare these days) and dad goes to work, what will the children do? Hang out? Watch TV? How many kids go to the library when their parents are absent?Moreover, if a woman is in her menstruation period, it is scientifically proved that her temper gets higher, and she will often have concentration problems. So if a woman is prime minister, for example, and she is so unlucky that an important gathering happens within her period, it'll be hard for her to endure with quality.SlaveryThe abolishing of slavery was indeed a step forward. As well in morality, but then we talk about federal morality.As you might have noticed, with my continuous arguments of ambition, I rather directed the debate towards individual morality. And most especially with young people. My apologies if I was not clear enough.Defending of my own argumentsIf I say success, I mean moral success. I don't think making much money out of drug dealing is real success.So to acquire the right morals, you need to have ambition. Speaking the truth is a part of morality.Why would you speak the truth? There are many reasons. If one does it to please God, it is an ambition. If it is to please your mother, that is ambition. See? There is a link.Now, ambition => goal.This can be any goal, and with some people, the goal is to obtain morality. That might be for another reason, as stated above. But the point is, without ambition, no morality.TV ViolenceIt certainly does reflect upon the overall morality of men, if every kind of immoral TV broadcast, or modern music, which in most cases promotes immorality too, is widely spread. Everyone is being exposed to such evil. And if I say that morality has gone astray, I do not mean that there are no longer moral men on the earth.But in general, immorality has taken over the world. The pivot point of this 'revolution' was mainly with the coming of the TV. Could you give anything to fight that, Sir?Peace upon all who read this.
The morality of man has gone astray since the 20th century.

And meanwhile, I apologize for my irony. Ambition, Sir, is not just about wanting to have fun. It is about being prepared to put real effort to achieve pleasure. And what morality has got to do with morality is quite simple. The way of learning good and bad (what morality is all about) is trough experience. What one sees, especially as a child, has an effect upon the way one looks to the world. I took the lack of ambition as a starting point. People only know success if they have ambitions, many poets and philosophers would indeed agree with me. But you can't have success without morality either. Please do not accuse me of argumenta ad hominem again, I do not link these two. It is just co-incidence that both lead to the same thing. Anyway, most of the TV-shows display inappropriate cases of violence, intimate handling an other things one should not see before a certain age, when the morality is already fixed in. Even, many of those cartoons that appear very innocent, have an indirect or direct effect upon a child's mind. Tom & Jerry, for example, teaches pain, hatred, discrimination, perhaps even racism. .. Do feel free to oppose. I do hope, dear rival, that the above will suffice to bring up some arguments from your side. I wish you all the luck and encourage you to forget about my disgraceful language from our last debate. Peace upon all who read this.
The morality of man has gone astray since the 20th century.

The problem with Pro’s case is that it’s a big proof by assertion fallacy. Pro hasn’t given a shred of evidence to support his case. People still have the ambition to draw, ride, take pictures, ect. Pro states “Since the coming of television and internet, you were not forced to have ambition in order to have fun any longer. But without this ambition, the whole society falls...” How did TV and internet do this? In order to have fun, you must want to have it first. People still have the ambition to work, watch, and play on TVs and computers. The debate title is “The morality of man has gone astray since the 20th century.” What does ambition have to do with morality? Pro needs more evidence for his claims in order for this debate to continue.
The morality of man has gone astray since the 20th century.

In the name of God, Most Beneficent, most MercifulThe topic of the debate I start is the morality of our society nowadays.We see that, most specifically the youth, have no more of ambition.Ambition is defined by Cambridge Dictionary thus:-something you want to achieve in your life-a strong feeling that you want to be successful or powerfulIn the early days (referring to the 19th century and earlier) you had to have ambition to have fun.Drawing is fun, is it not?Well, not for all, thus one could say. Of course not. It has to be an ambition.Writing is fun, is it not?Horseback riding is fun, is it not?Photographing is fun, is it not?All of these have to be an ambition...Since the coming of television and internet, you were not forced to have ambition in order to have fun any longer.But without this ambition, the whole society falls...I am so passionate to say, that is the decision was to be for me to make, I would forbid both television and internet over the entire world.Then change could come...
Abortion is fine

i can be sympathetic to not wanting to punish women who are making often difficult decisions. but then we don't even have to punish much, if at all. even if we punished none at all, that doesn't mean we should keep it legal. illegal with no punishment is still in principle stating what we believe.... she had a chance to abort when morally grayer or if early to begin with, she made a decision to have sex and risk pregnancy. we defer to life if there are any questions.
Abortion is fine

I was talking in a general sense, as to specify a particular point in pregnancy is in my eyes a separate debate than the general issue of legal and safe abortions being available at request. You state that the woman had a choice in having sex, although this hasn't been stated however I think for debating purposes on this issue we will assume that I mean in cases excluding rape. The argument of when an abortion can take place in my eyes is a separate one. I am simply arguing that the option should be available and I assume you are taking the stance that this shouldn't be the case. My argument is based on idea that applying the rule that it the choice should not be available means that regardless of a person's circumstances they do not have the option to have an abortion regardless of how devastating the consequences could be for them and that child. I do believe that contraception should be a first port of call however, a condom is only effective 99.9% of the time and the same goes for hormonal contraception, this means even where someone has taken every reasonable precaution it is still completely possible that a person could end up pregnant.
Abortion is fine

it's at least debateable whether abortion early in the pregnancy is killing a person. if it's an open question, that means we should defer to life, otherwise we might be killing someone. then, there's abortion when it's clearly a person. even if the child isn't able to live on its own doesn't mean it's not a person with rights that should be respected. at least later in pregnancy, a mother has two things working against her... one is that it's not as morally gray and she had a chance to abort earlier when morally grayer and didnt, and the other is she had a choice to have sex and risk pregnancy. 'abortion is fine' gives no respect to the point in the pregnancy it occurs, or other circumstances, which respect should be given cause the fetus has rights too.
Dictator Debate

Hello world, I'm Matt Borden. Elect me as your President, and I'll send human civilization back to the Dark Ages! It'll work like this: 1. I'll seize absolute power, as my plan would face heavy opposition from the World Congress, and my plan would likely take up to a decade (longer than a normal dictator term) to accomplish. 2. The UN will eradicate the most complex bacteria, leaving behind only more primitive bacteria. No special anti-biotic bacteria. 3. All scientists would be executed. 4. All scientific textbooks would be destroyed. 5. The internet would be destroyed. 6. Everyone would be forced into naturous areas, being removed from all advanced technology. 7. All remaining advanced technology in the former hands of civilians would be destroyed. 8. All remaining soldiers would deposit their equipment in a facility which would then be blown up. 9. Prophets would be sent to the new primitives and preach the "Cult of the Silver Mongoose"; all technology would be forbidden as blasphemous. 10. The UN Government would be disbanded. 11. I'd put myself in a cryostasis tube (the last piece of technology) for humans thousands of years later to revive. Thus, the world would be reverted to the Dark Ages. Everything would revert back to a feudal system and 300 monarchies scattered about the world. Therefore, vote for me, please. Thank you. Ooh ooh! Aah aah!
Dictator Debate

This debate is more of a game than anything. My opponent will be debating me for the position of world dictator. The rules are simple: 1. You're merely pitching how you would rule the world if you are voted dictator. 2. You can use real issues, but you are not required to, and since this is global there may be some new challenges to look for. 3. The first round is for acceptance and your dictator "name" and slogan. 4. The second round is for your pitch: aka; how you will run the world! 5. The goal is simply to get people to vote for you. My Dictator Name: I am Fideli-Olama Sitler, and I am running to be the dictator of the world! Slogan: F.U.N: F is for friends who do stuff together! U is for unanimously working. N is for nobody arguing against my authority.