BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible is a reliable historical document.

Unfortunately, I feel this debate is going to boil down to the existence of God because much of the Bible consists of claims which are physically impossible. Well let's pretend for a second that the God of Christianity was real, then the unreasonable things in the Bible become somewhat logical. Also, the miracles were used to affirm people's faith in that time because they saw the evidence for themselves. The inclusion of the supernatural does not downgrade it's historical accuracy. The supernatural should not be a factor in this debate as I stated in my opening round. That this is not debating the claims the Bible makes, but rather that it has not been changed, it aligns with history, and so on and so forth. Do you seriously take the creation myth literally? I know this is an obvious criticism (damn science) but it does seem to boil down to faith. Yes, I most certainly do. And I do have evidence for why creationism is valid. My opponent makes no attack against my contention that the Bible is the most reliable ancient text in the world. Because this is true, we can say that the Bible is a reliable historical document. Also my opponent did not talk about how the Bible documents the world, and the world has documented the events described in the Bible. Remember that no archeological find has ever contradicted with the Bible. I extend all of the arguments my opponent has neglected to attack, and I hope the voters remember this round when making their decisions. For these reasons I urge a pro vote and I look forward to my opponent's response so that we will be able to determine the historical accuracy and the reliability of the Bible.
The Bible is a reliable historical document.

Unfortunately, I feel this debate is going to boil down to the existence of God because much of the Bible consists of claims which are physically impossible. Animals speak in several instances in the Bible, the first being the Adam and Eve story. In order for historians to generally consider a document a reliable historical guide, it needs to first abide by the rules of nature. If there was an account in the Civil War of amputees growing back limbs, there is no doubt that this document would be looked upon with severe skepticism. Perhaps some theists could have a different perspective of this phenomenon, but even if there were several eyewitnesses this is not enough to confirm the event. If one has an "extended" view of the laws of nature and reality, then I really don't know how to argue against that person besides debating their core premises that make up this reality. Perhaps this debate was better left to a Christian or a Jew with a different perception of the Bible. Frankly, if I truly believed in any of the impossible events listed in the Bible then I would have much less of an obstacle in terms of believing in the rest, and in that sense I understand you. Do you seriously take the creation myth literally? I know this is an obvious criticism (damn science) but it does seem to boil down to faith.
The Bible is a reliable historical document.

My last opponent's account was deactivated in the middle of the debate so I will be debating it again:The Bible is a reliable historical document.I will be Pro, 5 rounds but the first is acceptance, 8,000 characters, 72 hours, and I do have a few requests for my opponent.Please limit your arguments to only one or two that you feel strongly about. Also, please no dropping or adding arguments throughout the debate.This is not a debate for the existence of God, the identity of Christ, or the inspiration of scripture. This is the question of are the Biblical scriptures reliable documents. Is what was originally written down what we posses now? Has it been changed? Can we trust the Bible? Does it contradict history? That is how we must interpret the resolution. So the first round is just to accept the debate, and then we'll proceed with the actual debate. Good luck and God bless whoever my opponent is going to be.I look forward to the debate.
The Bible is a reliable historical document.

"Is what was originally written down what we posses now? Has it been changed? Can we trust the Bible? Does it contradict history?" Can somebody in the comments explain to me why stories of sticks turning into snakes, animals speaking to people, or seas parting in two would be considered nonsense in every modern source but not the Bible? Do the events described contradict history? I'm quite sure they do. The premise itself was whether the Bible is a reliable historical document. I've made my case, and I implore that our conception of the possibility of events not be altered by the fact that it was "a long time ago." I can't engage Pro on his platform because certain core assumptions were never satisfied. I refuse to ignore blatant impossibilities in arguing about the "reliability" of a historical document. Core weakly tried to answer my queries with appealing to "what if" the Christian God did exist, but this is something that should have been spelled out in the premise rather than later rounds. From a purely historical view, rather than one that is faith or religion based, any text that claims physical impossibilities should be seriously questioned. The Bible should be considered no different from any other source in this sense if it's supporters insist it be judged on that strict historical standard. I wish Pro good luck in his future debates and intellectual development.
Earth

P1: ChocolateFirst, the Earth has chocolate. Chocolate is good. Ergo, the Earth is good. If my opponent is against the Earth, he is by extension against chocolate, and therefore blasphemous.P2: KittiesWithout the Earth, where would the kitties live? Space is not terribly comfortable, and therefore unsuited for the adorableness evidenced by our fluffy feline friends.P3: PracticalityThe Earth is just more practical than living in space, or terraforming Mars.Oh, and the Earth will not end in 2014.
The government should provide money for private schools from their funds.

I will now address my opponent's points. #1: My opponent says that assisting with funds does not mean a school would have government involvement in the school. However, the government's involvement in something typically means that they will impose their rules on something. Again, providing funds would make it a public school. #2: My first answer extends to my opponent's second point. #3: I agree. Public schools are not self-sufficient, and that's why they need the government's assistance. But private schools are, and they have to be in order to stay open with the same rules and regulations they wish to have.
The government should provide money for private schools from their funds.

Rebuttal: Contention #1: Private schools being assisted in finances doesn't mean that they will be influenced by the government. The government just helps them a little in finances without government inside the schools. They can do whatever they want with only assistance from the government. Contention #2: No, as my 1st contention, there is only assistance and funds. That's all. They can still do whatever they want without anybody interfering with anything. The only thing is some funds and assistance from the government but the government doesn't actually do anything towards the private school system except funding or assisting with money. Contention #3: Public schools are not exactly self-sufficient, they need money and many close. You are right but we would use more money on education! Resolution Affirmed!
The government should provide money for private schools from their funds.

I thanks my opponent for their acceptance of this debate! Now, I will begin: Contention #1: Being assisted or being given money by the government forces the receiving party to be more influenced by the government. Private schools are able to practice religiously within their walls because they lack the involvement of the government, while public schools cannot because the government pays for the school's funding. If the government were to give money to private schools, students would have no need to pay tuition and private schools would cease to exist, leading to my second contention. Contention #2: Funding from the government would make the private schools public schools. Private schools can celebrate any holiday they want without the government getting involved, while public schools can't, and that is part of their charm as well as their ability to teach religion or higher level curriculums. However, if the government funds the school, it would be subject to the rules the government imposes upon the public schools, in turn making it a public school. The destruction of a private system of education would outrage many people, but also take away the democratic republic we United States citizens pride ourselves in having. Contention #3: Doing so would take away money from the current public schools and also other areas in need of funding whereas the private schools are not. Private schools are self-sufficient. They can provide for themselves through tuition and sponsorship from alumni, while the public schools can't—this isn't to say a public school can't fundraise; they don't have to. The reason why the private schools must do so is because they choose to do something differently—nonconforming—to what the government wants of public schools. Choosing to stop making their own money and instead take it from the government would strip them of all of their rights to nonconformity. A Catholic school could no longer be called a Catholic school because the outward practice of Catholicism would not be allowed there. My opponent may now provide their arguments. Further evidence and research will be provided as needed.
The government should provide money for private schools from their funds.

The time to argue is 72 hours, while the argument max is 8,000. The format will be as such: Resolution: The government should provide money for private schools from their funds. Stance of debating party. Contention 1: Evidence and Body Contention 2, etc When providing evidence, please cite sources and leave links at the bottom of the paragraph so that I know which link is for which statistic or piece of evidence. Seeing as the site does not allow for a random selection of sides, I choose con. I hope for a challenge soon and that my terms are best-suited to both debating parties.
The government should provide money for private schools from their funds.

#1- This debate is "Should the government give money to private schools?", not "Why would the government give private schools money if they already did". But in any case I still disagree but this is about "Should" not "Why". The government doesn't have to give money so it can receive something. Take for example Michelle Obama's nutrition program. What does Michelle Obama gain by helping the children? Nothing except a good reputation just like if the government gave funds to private schools. They would also get a very bad reputation if they took away private schools. Just because the government gives funds to private schools doesn't mean it wants to gain something and if they were to gain anything, a good reputation because the government is helping others. Voters-Two Sides: Should-Why & No Gain Except Reputation. #2- Look above. #3-The private schools will make their own money but they will be assisted in funds. I've seen many private schools close down which would lessen so many private schools. They are independent except funding. #1-The private schools would become better because they would have much more funds and they would not be public schools so they would become much better. #2-Many people including people who are running for president feel that the Department of Education should be destroyed because it doesn't help anybody. If the Department of Education helps private schools become better, more people will want the Department of Education to stay so it will have a much better chance of surviving. #3-The government will only assist funds in private schools, and the private schools will still try to fund for themselves so the students will pay tuition. It will be the same as before except more money. More private schools will be built because the people who wanted to build private schools will have the government giving money to not close down so more people will think that if they can build a private school which may not be successful but will be able to stay alive because the government is helping them even if the students are not a lot.
The government should provide money for private schools from their funds.

#1: The government doesn't typically stick their noses in things unless they will gain something, in this case power and involvement, by doing so. When a government invests money in building a park for children to play at, they instill rules and say what can be done and what can't: curfew, loitering, etc. The same goes for a private school; they will want something. It's like when someone donates money to have a bench built and as a reward they get their name on a plaque on the side. #2: ^ #3: My opponent states here that private schools are not self-sufficient and that they would be able to do whatever they want because the government gives them money. Both parts of this statement are false. Private schools must make their own money through tuition, donations of alumni, etc, meaning they are indeed self-sufficient. Secondly, the government has control in things because they give money. The whole reason why private schools are private is because they are independent of the government and provide for themselves. C#1: My opponent states this helps private schools become better. Again, since the said private school would become a public school in the process, this statement is void. C#2: I ask my opponent elaborate and be clearer on this point. C#3: My opponent says this assistance in funding would make more private schools available, while I believe the opposite. With the government having to support both public and private schools, there will be fewer private schools if not the same amount as when they had to provide completely for themselves. Also, one of the features of private education is tuition, and if the students don't have to pay it, again, the school is not private, and government funding would defeat the purpose of tuition.
The government should provide money for private schools from their funds.

Rebuttal: Contention #1: Providing or assisting funds for schools does not mean it's a public school. It's only a public school if it means that the not only provide funds but also doing what the government wants. Funding does not mean that the government has power over private schools. Contention #2: My first point addresses this point. Contention #3: Private schools are not self-sufficient either, (sorry about the mix-up but public schools too), they need money and many close and hve lacks of money. They can do whatever they want while the government just gives money to the private school. My Argument: Contention #1: The government assisting funds helps private schools become better. Assistance in funds means that the private schools have not only a larger probability of being able not to close but also more money to do things like more field trips and bigger salaries which makes the teachers more willing to teach. It really depends how the school uses the money but it still helps. Contention #2: Private schools make the government more active in Education. Seeing the government more active in Education because of assisting private schools, makes the chances of the Department of Education surviving better Many people running for office and of the population say the Department of Education should be gone because it's not helping the schools. If assisting funds help private schools, more people won't want the Department of Education gone because it actually helps. Contention #3: More private schools will come into existence. People who want to build private schools will see that if they can make a private school and many people are interested in a new rivate school, there is more of a chance that that private school will be built because the government assists them in funds to help the school survive. I believe that private schools will be populated much more if the government assists in funds. Resolution Affirmed!
having no beliefs, is a super power

belief is automation, informing my actions, and thoughts are actions and thought inform emotion which information actions, so what is left of me is? life is sensory experience as I am dead without my sense, and dead is also sleep. I cant die in a dream as I can only die if I am alive belief=Mentally enslaved knowledge=free will for perfect balance, as they stand in contrast knowledge is the opposite of belief, and know is the opposite of belief and knowledge, like now is the balancing point between future and past cause and effect is absolute, if I cant have belief I cant be mentally enslaved, but I cant be self aware either, yet self awareness is true and belief is false, so that is the separator if man didn't exist superman couldn't exist, he would just be a super being compared to the other animals supernature=imagination=false by default false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now
having no beliefs, is a super power

I wish him good luck and to have fun! Sto start off, let's define the resolute terms as to avoid any conflict of such. Taken directly from the merriam webster dictionary. . http://i.word.com...1:a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing2:something believed;especially:a tenet or body of tenets held by a group. http://i.word.com...1:excessive or superiorpower2a:an extremely powerful nation;specifically:one of a very few dominant states in an era when the world is divided politically into these states and their satellitesb:an international governing body able to enforce its will upon the most powerful statesII. RefutationsIn his opening argument equated belief, to being a zombie. He then equtes being a zombie to "the body of a dead person given the semblance of life, but mute and will-less, by a supernatural force"He gave no reason as to why belief is the equivilant being a zombie other than a single "=". This is not an argument. Perhaps he meant unconditional belief is similar to a will-less follower, but one does not have to be acted upon by a supernatural force, nor be dead, to do such. He then goes on to draw imaginary lines between other various words, continuing to replace reasoning with a mathematical symbol. Finally, Pro finishes by irrelevantly saying that nature is in contrast with supernature. This is simply not true when you consider all that the supernatural is, is just a superior version of nature. Like how superman is superior to a normal man in terms of powers. This however doesn't mean He is in contrast with man. Like how me tiying more debates than than vi-spex doesn't make us in direct contradiction with eachother. I am simply supertying, while he is simply adequete at tying.
should the death penalty exist

Your argument is based on the premise that everyone has the same rights, which is false. Criminals give up some of their rights when they commit a crime. For example, if you steal something from a store, most people would agree that you give up your right to liberty and property, which is why we think it's okay to punish thieves with fines and/or jail time. As for your right to life, this is hard to give up, because it is so fundamental. The only crime that can cause you to give up your right to life is first degree murder (and perhaps certain rare crimes like treason). If you deliberate, think clearly about what you are going to do, and then decide to kill someone else who poses no threat to you, you may deserve to give up your life. This reasoning is only applicable to the most severe cases, which is why the Supreme Court has held that no crime can have an "automatic" death penalty. In the United States, a person has to be found guilty of first degree murder, and then a subsequent jury has to find that their actions are worthy of the death penalty rather than life in prison. Here is an example of a death penalty case: "Michael Bargo was sentenced to death by Circuit Judge David Eddy in Marion County court Friday for the brutally violent murder of 15-year-old Seath Jackson in an Ocala home by five teenagers. Authorities identified Bargo as the ringleader and said he was caught in a love triangle with the victim's ex-girlfriend. Jackson was shot in the face and then his body was dismembered and burned. His remains were hidden in 5-gallon paint drums." http://www.nydailynews.com... Isn't this deserving of death? People like this forfeit their right to live.
It is fine for parents to forcibly circumcise an older minor boy if he refuses to undergo the proced

Hello, I will be arguing that forcibly circumcising an older minor boy if he refuses is wrong. I would argue that it is child abuse. Studies have also showed it can lead to psychological issues once the child becomes sexually active because " as already stated " the whole objective is to diminish sexual pleasure in females. There is no reason to force a child to be circumcised when he is older; it's abusive, ignores his rights to choose what happens with his own body, and is sick. Forcing a child to comply to your religion and mutilate himself for it is textbook fascism, and not even a step above female genital mutilation.
Gun control in the school

It is true that there are ways to stop shootings that do no involve guns. Just look at Southwestern Highschool, a small highschool in the rural town of Shelbyville, Indiana. However, gun control will not help. It is not necessary to make it mandatory for teachers to have guns, but it should not be illegal. Parents who have problems with this can always let their kids go to a school where the teachers do not have guns.
Gun control in the school

Criminals generally do not want to get shot. As such, they target establishments that make them safer. A sign that says 'This store is a gun free zone' does not prevent criminals from entering with a gun. They are going to break the law by shooting anyway, a sign does not matter to them. Here are some facts that show that gun control does not help. 1. The 9 European nations that have the lowest citizen gun ownership have a combined murder rate three times that of the combined murder rate of the 9 European nations with the highest rate of gun ownership. 2. About 200,000 women use a gun to protect from sexual assault in the US every year. 3. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws and in 2012 there were as many murders in Chicago as in all of Japan. 4. When Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law that required that every home had to have a gun, crime dropped by 50% over the next 23 years, and there was an 89% drop in burglaries. (infowars.com)