BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible is free of contradiction

Thank you for your response. I can see that my [Genesis 6:6] example could be construed as personification, and so I concede. ---- You misunderstood the key sentence in source #4. It states that "The toxins are highly labile in purified form, maintaining activity for only 2−5 days before all activity is lost." According to the Oxford dictionary, labile means "apt or likely to change;" or "unstable; rapidly cleaved (and possibly reformed)." "Possibly reformed" implies that the algae could have replicated (reproduced?) and undergone the same toxicating process. So it could have lasted a week. The study in source #4 was one in which the algae was isolated in order to be studied. Therefore, the environment was controlled to an extent, whereas it could not have been during the time the plagues occured. ----- [Exodus 3:22] - "So you will plunder the Egyptians." Also, one of the several definitions of the word "favor" (according to the Oxford dictionary): "Mildness or mitigation of punishment; lenity." Meaning that the Egyptains were not showing kindness, they were trying to escape futher punishment. ---- I concede on David's sin. ---- As for Judas's death, that's a very interesting explanation. I like it. And I concede. ----- That leaves two on which I did not concede, and as Pro is unable to rebut them, it is up to the audience to review and decide for themselves. The debate is now concluded, hurrah! I thank you for your timely and well-written responses. I have enjoyed this debate and learned much about the Bible in the process. It has been my most enlightening debate thus far. Again, thank you.
The Bible is free of contradiction

In this debate, I would like to defend the position that there are no contradictions within the Bible. Supposed contradictions can be textual inaccuracies, historical inaccuracies, and scientific inaccuracies. As is the very nature of the debate, the BOP rests on my opponent to show contradictions. I shall rebut each supposed contradiction using the view which would have been of the writer. Con shall make their arguments in Round 1.
It would be preferable to live in a hunter-gatherer society rather than an agricultural one

FULL RESOLUTION:Resolved: On balance, it would be preferable to live in a prehistoric hunter-gatherer society rather than a prehistoric agricultural one.***Definitions:On balance: considering all aspectsPreferable: more desireableTo live: to pass (life)Prehistoric: of or pertaining to the time or period pritor to recorded historyHunter-gatherer society: a structure of human orginization that obtains most of it's food from wild plants and animals.Agricultural society: a structure of human orginization that obtains it's food by the cultivation of animals, plants, fungi and other life forms.***Rules:No semanticsFirst round is for acceptance only.No new arguments in the last round.Standard rules applyThe BOP is shared; I have to defend my arguments, not just attack my opponent's; and my opponent has to defend their arguments, not just attack mine.1 month voting periodEach argument is at max 8,000 characters long, although brevity is encouragedEach debater has seventy-two hours to make thier case.***I hope for a fun and interesting debate. I'll answer any questions in the comments.
Abortion

From the very beginning, opposition has stuck with a mere single argument( for the lack of a better one) that abortion is illegal as it is killing someone. However, the opposition seems to continuously ignore what I am saying. In my previous argument I showed that had these children bee born they would have great chances of having a criminal future. That means that one single human being can grow up take many lives. Therefore, in an attempt to save one life we are sacrificing the security of man which I am sure you will all agree is just ridiculous. And for the so called christian worldview that the side opposition seems to represent, i am sure even Jesus Christ will agree to not have a child born and save many lives than save the life of that one child and put many others in a state of jeopardy. Now for my final argument in this debate, abortion helps a woman who is raped to shell out that memory. For had that baby been born, it would have constantly reminded her of the abuse and the harsh times she went through. Moreover, abortion has significantly reduced teenage mothers as I have shown in my round 2. Also , abortion can also be seen as relieving the child of misery that would have been inevitably suffered in the future. Usually, the mother who is looking to have the abortion is very inexperienced and young to take good care of the baby. As a result, the baby will be malnourished with no medical care while getting little love or attention. The system of foster care is not any better with only a very small percentage of children adopted by suitable parents. The rest of the children remain in this foster care system that has very little personal care. In both cases, these children will have very poor education due to the lack of discipline and attention. They usually grow up to be unproductive people with some being a menace to the immediate society. These people are also quite violent and lack morality because of the insignificant amount of care that they received themselves. Eventually, the child suffers greatly as well as the society which has to tolerate these violent crimes and behaviors. Therefore, abortion not only is imperative to ensure that the mother is happy but also ensures that criminals who otherwise wrong the society are never born in the first place and so makes the world a better place for the existing few.
Abortion

If I understand correctly, last arguement my opponent made the point that a mother should be able to choose whether to give birth to her child or not. From what I understood this was the bulk of his arguement. I will spend time rebuking that and then making my own arguement. The reason I disagree with my opponents reasoning is because, I believe a very blunt and frank view of his arguement would show that it is not morally sound. My opponents logic is as follows , a woman has reproduction rights, so she should be able to decide whether she should give birth to her child or abort the child. Here my opponent seems to be suggesting that the mother has the right to decide whether her "fetus"(which would grow to be a regular human being ) should live or be aborted. My opponent brings the fact that the situation may have some justification to why a mother may want to abort. However I will bring up the fact that I and many people I know , know people who after abortions have stricken consciences, because they understand that if they had not aborted their child they would be alive now. Now for my arguement . I believe abortion is wrong because you are killing something that grows to be a human. I believe that God created humans in his image. My opponent should understand that from a Christian worldview (which I represent ) abortion is detestable because it is taking something that is made in the image of God.
Abortion

Life is defined by dictionary.com as "the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death." While we can be assured that a fetus has neither of these characteristics, the opposition here considers fetus as life. However, not deviating from the topic of debate I would respond to the opposition's argument by saying that a mother knows best when to bring her child in this world. If she chooses not to produce that baby, that just shows that she feels that she cannot provide the baby with basic living conditions. Therefore, abortion does not take away any lives, on the contrary it saves two- one of the child who if had been born would live under such dire circumstances that death would come as a welcome to him and of the mother who with one more mouth to feed would have to resort to illegal activities to pay off her debts. Now for my argument, I would like you to imagine how America was before 1990s. Crime had gone up by 80%. Economy was in a bad shape. And then came Roe vs wade- the historic decision that changed it all. After it, there was some 1.6 million abortions every year. And what sort of woman would take advantage of Roe vs Wade? Very often she was unmarried, in her teens or poor and sometimes all three. One study showed that a child who was unborn had 60% more than average chances of living in poverty and 65% more likely to grow up with one parent. And these 2 factors constitute the biggest predictor of the child having a criminal future. In other words, the very factor that drove many Americans to have an abortion also seemed to predict that had their children been born, they would have led unhappy and possibly criminal lives. And till now Roe vs Wade has been recognized as the single biggest factor in the decline of crime in America. So apart from reducing crime Roe vs Wade gave voice to what mothers had long known: when a woman does not want to have a child she has a good reason for it. Therefore, abortion not only gives mothers reproductive rights; something which is essential for her but also reduces crime. And so it should continue for the better of the society.
Abortion

The opponent made a good point in his last arguement that the "fetuses"(or unborn baby's) health is tied to the mothers . However this does not change the fact that if a fetus was aborted there would be one less person alive . So what we really need to define life . My opponent obviously does not consider a fetus as life . However it does not change fact that abortion is eliminating a ,"future human"(to use the opponents terms). This is where I should ask what about the unborn baby's right no one would suggest that it is right,legal,and moral to take the life of a human baby or "unborn baby". I am interested to see how my opponent responds
Abortion

I believe that abortion is morally, ethically and legally correct and support it for the following reasons- abortion is a safe procedure. Vast majority of women have abortion in their first trimester and undergo no risk. Secondly, the ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. Take away her reproductive choice and you step onto a slippery slope. If the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization? Now in response to the opposition's argument, I would like to say that a fetus cannot exit independently. It's health is dependent on mother's health and so cannot be regarded as a separate entity as it cannot exist outside the womb. Therefore, abortion does not take away any life.
Simulated Presidential Debate: Liberalism v. Anarcho-Capitalism

Ladies and gentlemen. My opponent does not realize several facts of Anarchy. First of all it does not ban enforcing of law. During the anarchal beginnings of this Earth law was administered by the people. Judges were respected members of the community. No government was necessary for the people worked to enforce morals upon each other. If some one murdered they would be dragged in front of the judge and he was guilty they would hang him. No government necessary. I appreciate my opponent doing the necessary research on chapitalarchy. It is a system of government of my own invention that takes the epic things from all systems of government and adds them up. We already have a system of government delegated by the constitution. My opponent thinks that I would violate the constitution for my purposes just as he would. No I will not. The Gold standard is good because it can save our economy. Fiat money cannot create a stable economy. What I suggest is not irrational from an Austrian point of view. My opponent is a Keynesian and therefore cannot be trusted when it comes to the economy. The Keynesians have caused every economic disaster in history. They say that spending is good for the economy. Balderdash, it poisons the economy with irresponsibility. For more information, please look at econ stories on youtube. Should the government mint and print money? No. It used to be that private companies printed and minted money. Some was trusted and some wasn't. It was capitalism at it's highest. Prosperity is affirmed when you can pick and choose which money is the most stable. Gradually all but four or five of the best money will no longer be accepted and stability is assured. (Whatever Happened to Penny Candy, Uncle Eric) We can debate flat tax all we want and we will still agree. You made a case for me as well because I agree that a flat tax should be temporarily implemented until the U.S. government can be supported on tariffs and alcohol taxes again, like the founding fathers wished. (Whatever Happened to Justice, Uncle Eric) D2 is irrelevant as I am saying that Executive orders cannot do as much as our current president wishes. He is saying that I would be a dictator despite me clearly saying that I will follow the constitution unless congress pases an amendment. It is the law of the land and if you elect me I will take my oath seriously and defend all parts of the constitution. Walle Ras for a prosperous future, for lower prices, for a better tomorrow.
Simulated Presidential Debate: Liberalism v. Anarcho-Capitalism

Pro: The Constitution, Gold standard. Guns, Natural Law, the death penalty, a system of Government where nobody has power aka Chapitalarchy, Con: Political Law, Abortion(Banned by Natural Law), government, OSHA, EPA, Social Security, Medicare/Medicade, IRS, Income tax, Welfare I support the constitution because it is the law of the land and I cannot and will not betray the voters trust as to not follow the Constitution. I will pass AMENDMENTS if I was to change it, not executive orders. Is that what you want? Ok then let the debate begin.
Simulated Presidential Debate: Liberalism v. Anarcho-Capitalism

I am glad to be debating you. First of all you have misstated Anarchy. I don't want a minimum wage. Minimum wage is an economically stifling way to make politicians be able to buy flat screen tvs without feeling bad. I say to you, the American people, that us Anarchists are con the government messing with your lives. We want a world without government. That is my ideal, but is not what I will do. Unless I pass an amendment I will not break the constitution. That is what my opponent does not get. The constitution cannot be broken, it need to be followed. While, I do want less power to the government I will achieve this by passing AMENDMENTS, not executive orders. I disagree with the constitution but that doesn't mean I can use it as toilet paper like my opponent's party has. I beg of you to think, America, who do you want, someone who swears to follow a law that he disagrees with because you, America, desire said law or some one who, if he disagrees with the law, will ignore it. Thank you, Walle Ras 2016 Rules: No sources No mud slinging No strikes are given but please penalise people who break the rules just like it should be.
Simulated Presidential Debate: Liberalism v. Anarcho-Capitalism

This is based on @walle_ras' simulated presidential debates, wherein one takes a stance and a set of ideologies, and campaigns for them. The debate is limited to my ideology of democratic liberalism vs. Con's ideology of anarcho-capitalism. Full Resolution Simulated Presidential Debate: Liberalism vs. Anarcho-Capitalism BoP is shared. Definitions Liberalism - "... a political philosophy or worldview founded on the ideas of equality and liberty." [1]Anarcho-Capitalism - "... a political philosophy which advocates elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignity, private property, and open markets." [2]Debate StructureRound 1: Pro presents stance, Con presents stance and defends itRound 2: Pro defends stance and rebuts Con's stance, Con defends stance and rebuts Pro's stanceRound 3: Pro defends stance and rebuts Con's stance, Con defends stance, rebuts Pro's stance and concludesRound 4: Pro defense stance, rebuts Con's stance and concludes, Con waivesStancePro: Social Liberalism, Regulated Capitalism, Federal Reserve, bicameral legislature, federal constitutional presidential republic system of governance, indirect democracy with partial centralization, strong animal welfare policies, deep ecology, environmentalism, wildlife protection act [similar to those of India and Bangladesh], limits and regulations on cosmetic animal testing, flat tax Con: abortion, gold standard, minimum wage, death penaltySources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
THBT Marital Rape is Feasible

My opponent has forfeited Round 3.My opponent has presented no further arguments or rebuttals for me to respond. I have arguments on the floor which remain standing as they are currently unchallenged. I therefore extend all arguments. I would like to thank my opponent for this thought-provoking debate and ask the audience to please take the recent forfeits made by my opponent into consideration when voting. Thank you.
Amanda Knox - Guilty Or Innocent? She is innocent!

Former FBI agent, Steve Moore, retired after 25 years of reviewing murders, steps forward and says that Amanda is not guilty. Moore's wife convinced him that she was innocent and that he should look in on the case. Moore got all the information he needed to do that and still insists that Amanda is innocent. Luciano Aviello, brother or Antonio Aviello confirms that his brother came to his house the night that Meredith was murdered and he had a bloody jacket, a knife with blood, and keys to the apartment that Meredith, Amanda, and her roommates were staying and later asked him to hide it. "I hid everything under a little wall behind my house and covered it with soil and stones. I am happy to stand up in court and confirm all this and wrote to the court several times to tell them, but was never questioned," Luciano Aviello said. It was never questioned! Not once did they consider that Amanda didn't do it, they just made her guilty the first time they saw her and started making accusations. There are many people no working on the case, and it was brought back to court, maybe this time they will put there evidence together right and come to realize that she is not guilty for anything they put her down as, Amanda was never violent, she was very loving, and was never away from home, she just wanted to go to a new place to learn different things. Italy, yes one of the most beautiful countries in the world, she did choose a good place to go, but now they do this to her? I don't think a lot of American's will want to go to Italy now. I had tryed to update my first arguement but that was what i tried to add to it, okay well first of off, do not use wikipedia, it is not a reliable source, anybody can change it. Second off, Meredith was connected to the mafia, and hung out with drug dealers, any girl, could of been there and killed Meredith, as far as im concerned, nobody knows the real truth, but Sollecito, and Guede, could of not been involved, but, there was alot of forensic evidence that pointed to them, they had nothing on Amanda though. Here are two other things to prove her innocent, and thay blood footprint was, and could of been anybodys, it was a shoe print, and Amanda didnt have the kind of shoes that the footprint was of. Now back to Con.
Amanda Knox - Guilty Or Innocent? She is innocent!

Amandna Knox - Guilty Or Innocent? Amanda Knox has been falsly accused of the murder of Meredith Kercher. There is no forensic evidence that points to Amanda what but a bloody footprint, which could of been anybodys. There was 4 or 5 cells found on the knife used to slit Meredith's throat which could of been because she stayed at her boyfriends house and may of touched the knife or might have cooked with it. She shouldnt of had 26 years in jail when Raffaele, her boyfriend, and Rudy Guede had all the same charges but she got the most? She is innocent, she was under the influence of drugs, and could also been attacked or threatened. Raffaele Sollecito, a former user of narcotics, still uses some drugs, meanwhile his father is a doctor - shouldnt he know the risks of taking drugs? Amanda, an honor student, played many sports, accused of such? An american exchange student that flew to Italy to go to college, wanted to go to a new place. She only knew Meredith for what but about 2 months, while she was only supposed to stay there for 10 months and then come back to Seattle. She was very friendly with Meredith, and she gets accused of killing her? Amanda now rots in a jail cell for 26 years, in Perugia, Italy, accused of the murder of Meredith Kurcher, staging a crime scene, sexual assault, and falsy accusing somebody. This is outrageous of how they could think Amanda, a 20 year old girl, never been away from home could do this. She has never commited any crime or broke any law, murder would never be anyones first. Italian doctor gave Amanda a false positive to HIV and told her to make a list of all the people she has slept with, then leaked it to the media? How could they do this to this poor girl? Many storys also making Amanda look like a very bad person? When she is not? Amanda is an innocent young girl who should be let go and relieved of her charges. In addition her mother, put on trial for libel? How could this be? They need to check their evidence one more time and let Amanda go. This is unbelieveable and uncalled for, Amanda is innocent.
Amanda Knox - Guilty Or Innocent? She is innocent!

I shall rebut his arguments and then summarize the debate. 1. Proven that Aviello had the keys and knife Aside from it not making sense at all, no such proof has been given. The link provided merely states that the brother of Aviello claimed he had these things. They have not been produced or found in anyway connecting Aviello. (Well; the keys have been found in Kercher's apartment, and the knife in Sollecito's apartment). There is therefore no proven evidence connecting Aviello to the crime. 2. Insufficient number of cells Incorrect. The amount found was easily enough. This link; . http://bioforensics.com...; shows how that the quantity of DNA evidence is very rarely an issue, but the quality is major barrier in most cases. The quality of the DNA evidence was above average in this case. 3. Your age Not really relevent to the debate. I would have hoped I have debated in a civil enough manner, though I suppose I shall let the voters decide. You remain convinced of Guede and Sollecito's guilt yet you fail to understand that their guilt implicates Knox heavily. It would be nearly impossble for Sollecito and Guede to guilty but not Knox. Pro has failed to provide any compelling evidence as to why Knox is innocent. Pro has failed to address any of the arguments that I have made. As such the resolution has been shown that it is more likely that Knox is guilty of the murder of Kercher than she is innocent.