BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jonah was devoured, digested, and died in the belly of a great fish.

I'm arguing that Jonah was devoured, digested, and died in the belly of a great fish. Nobody could survive inside a great fish for 3 days and 3 nights. [0] The jaw produces the most pressure of all muscles in humans. [1]"Pressure is different from force — pressure takes into account the area over which a force is exerted. The muscle that takes the prize for delivering the greatest amount of pressure is the masseter, or the jaw muscle, according to the book "Clinical Oral Science" (Reed Educational and Professional Publishing, 1998)." [1] I can only imagine the jaw strength of such a fish. Let alone possible teeth and stomach acids. Finally, there is the matter of oxygen, I don't see how Jonah could breath for that long. "In the 1980s, Mayo Clinic researchers measured digestion time in 21 healthy people. Total transit time, from eating to elimination in stool, averaged 53 hours" [2]I know this is human digestion times, but in general food doesn't stay long inside a human's stomach. Meaning the stomach digests very quickly.Even if Jonah's metabolic activity was decreased Jonah could have maybe survived an hour or two at max. "There are other ways to suppress metabolic activity. When US toddler Michelle Funk fell into an icy stream in 1986, she survived an estimated 66 minutes underwater, preserved by deep hypothermia that reduced her metabolic rate to almost nothing." [3]Awake would be even less with only about 22 minutes, and that's assuming pure oxygen being inhaled before hand. [4]The only way Jonah could have survived for three days and three night is with God providing a miracle. Yet, within the Bible I haven't read any miraculous accounts of God helping Jonah survive the time within the belly of the great fish. To recap, the teeth would have shredded Jonah, the jaw would have crushed Jonah even without teeth, the stomach acid would digest Jonah, and he would have ran out of oxygen within two hours at most. The only event that could have saved Jonah was a miracle by God. Yet, there is no mention of such a miracle. I find this hard to swallow. Furhtermore, the Bible clearly states Jonah was dead. Yes, that's right, the Bible states there was no such mircale and that Jonah died inside the belly of the great fish. "From inside the fish Jonah prayed to the Lord his God. 2 He said: “In my distress I called to the Lord, and he answered me.From deep in the realm of the dead I called for help," [5]So where do people get these inaccurate ideas that Jonah survived inside the whale? Clearly, in my mind Jonah was killed by the whale and the Lord ressurrected him and had the whale spat Jonah out. Thanks for reading and thanks in advance for accepting. Sources0. http://biblehub.com...1. http://www.livescience.com...2. http://www.mayoclinic.org...3. http://www.bbc.com...4. http://www.answers.com...5. https://www.biblegateway.com...
Factory Farming is Inhumane and the benefits don't outweigh the inhumanity.

I agree that these reasons are beneficial to people and to the industries, but they are not THAT crucial and do not outweigh the cruelty being done to get the production and money. Speaking in terms of humanity towards these animals, they do not need to be treated this way for meat production to occur. I am not against humans consuming meat, but these animals can still be treated well during the time they are alive. Factory farming also puts consumers of that meat at risk for food borne illness due to the crowded and unsanitary conditions. The meat isn't even healthy for us, due to the the chemicals and antibiotics being pumped into the animals and they food the animals are eating.
Factory Farming is Inhumane and the benefits don't outweigh the inhumanity.

3 Pros of Factory Farming 1. Cheap The cost of food is drastically reduced with the use of factory farms. This is because the food is produced and processed at a much faster rate, with more efficient processes involved. 2. Very Lucrative The profit margin for these factory farms is large, this is because the proper care of animals is looked over, which is where much of farming costs lay. The areas in which these farms are located also provide them with cheap labor. 3. Lots of Job Opportunities Factory farms are huge operations, that need a huge number of employees to ensure they run correctly. They offer a wide variety of job opportunities and economic stimulation to areas of the world that are in desperate need of this type of help.
Factory Farming is Inhumane and the benefits don't outweigh the inhumanity.

Inhumane for the purposes of this debate means "without compassion, knowingly causing misery or cruelty." The way animals are treated in factory farms is sickening and cruel. Their living conditions are filthy, with no room to move, no room to breathe and no room to live. These innocent animals are being tortured for the "benefits" of feeding humans with cheap meat. These benefits do not outweigh the torture being done.
Birth control

First, a Google Translate translation of the Biblia Sacra Vulgata (2 Samuel 6:6-7) "(6) And when they came to the floor of Nachon, Uzza put out his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it, oxen in the play came out. (7) against the indignation of the Lord was angry with Oza, and struck him for his rashness; and he died there beside the ark of God."This is obviously wrong about the "oxen in the play came out" bit, according to every other Bible I have ever read, it's supposed to say something like "because the oxen stumbled". Other than that, it is sufficient. I would appreciate it if my opponent could in turn show me where in the Bible the punishment for using birth control was laid out. 1. Failure ratesOf course you can easily screw it up. You can even more easily screw up NFP. Refer to my source. I am positive that the pill does not have an 8 percent failure rate with perfect use, perhaps with imperfect uses factored in it may average to 8%. I have found a source that supports my opponent's figures, but clearly shows NFP with a much greater failure rate [1]. I highly doubt that NFP has a below one percent effectiveness rate, and my claim of this is bolstered by my opponent's lack of sources.2. Pill CancerMost research appears to support the conclusion that after you stop taking the pill, the risks go back down. Additionally, the pill protects against some types of cancer [2]. 3. Condom CancerAs my opponent's source does not link me to the article in question, I cannot address this argument fully. For now, I will merely quote my opponent's own source "Local government officials said condom users should not stop using rubber contraceptives based on results of the study because N-Nitrosamine does not present an immediate health danger.". 4. Condoms and HPVMy source from last round disagrees, claiming it does provide some protection against HPV. Even if they don't protect against HPV, my opponent has not contested that condoms provide protection against a variety of other STDs. Contrast this with NFP, which provides no protection against any STDs. 5. NFP and DivorceI will merely quote the second line of my opponent's source here. "First, couples with strong relationships may be more likely than other couples to choose to practice NFP.". That is to say, couples use NFP because they have strong relationships, not they have strong relationships because they use NFP. This supports my argument. In addition, this means nothing for two people who are not a couple. 6. Abortions I concede this point in general. However, contraceptives that clearly do not cause abortions, such as condoms, cannot be said to cause abortions and therefore they prevent them. Contraceptives help prevent conception. They protect against STDs. They are far superior to NFP. My opponent's primary source is probably biased. For all these reasons, the resolution is affirmed. Sources:1. http://www.contracept.org...2. http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk.org...
Birth control

I apologize for not noticing that bit about the punishment. However, there still remains no source for that. I would appreciate one. Also when speaking of God's mercy, forget you not our old pal, Uzzah. As the Biblia Sacra Vulgata (I apologize for using the outdated version last round, this round I use the official version from the Vatican's website) says (2 Samuel 6:6-7)"(6) Postquam autem venerunt ad aream Nachon, extendit manum Oza ad arcam Dei et tenuit eam, quoniam boves lascivientes proruperunt.(7) Iratusque est indignatione Dominus contra Ozam et percussit eum super temeritate; qui mortuus est ibi iuxta arcam Dei." [1]God killed Uzzah, who was only trying to help out. Why not kill Onan for polluting? Also, some random folks on Wikipedia agree with my random assertion that he was killed for disobedience, so we cannot rule that out so quickly. [2]As far as I know, contraceptive side effects are fairly uncommon. Perhaps some statistics would bolster Con's argument. Regardless, most every drug has a side effect. Surely Con does not propose that we discontinue pharmaceuticals? Additionally, while Con's argument is unsourced, I leap to the conclusion that most people who use NFP do so for a religious reason, which would also keep them from divorce. It is likely a coincidence based on the groups of people likely to use NFP and the groups of people unlikely to divorce overlapping. Also, as I will go into later, NFP can fail. A lot.Contraceptives do not have high failure rates. Additionally, they are greatly superior to NFP. Some things are pretty easy to screw up, but there aren't that many ways you can mess up taking a pill. Not so with NFP. NFP, even used perfectly, has a 1-9% failure rate (not to mention when used imperfectly) as opposed to the 0.3% failure for perfect use of birth control pills. Even imperfect use is only 8%. There are even options like the etonogestral implant that have a very low 0.05% failure rate. Even properly used condoms have a low failure rate of 2%. Even perfectly used withdrawal can be more effective (4%). [3]Even though condoms do not protect 100%, they are still far superior to the 0% protection offered by no contraceptives whatsoever. My source claims they are "very effective" in preventing HIV/AIDS. It goes on to say that they reduce the risk of any STD, including HPV. [4]Contraceptives best allow for planning, and they can prevent STDs. Additionally, there is no compelling reason for not using them. The resolution is affirmed.Sources:1. Biblia Sacra Vulgata2. http://en.wikipedia.org...3. http://www.cks.nhs.uk...4. http://www.cdc.gov...
Birth control

As I have already pointed out, the punishment for refusing to fulfill that obligation was not death but public humiliation. So it could not have been for that. God is very merciful, so it seems very unlikely that God would kill someone just for polluting. Yes, contraception allows for planning children but so does NFP. NFP is much more effective than BC, and has no harmful side effects. BC is known to cause breast cancer and many other serious health problems such as blood clots and strokes in very young as well as older women. Couples who use BC have an incredibly high divorce rate, while couples who use NFP have a divorce rate below one percent. So if you cannot financially support a child or you have another just reason to avoid pregnancy than use NFP. Contraception does not reduce the numbers of abortions. Contraception has very high failure rates, but most people are unaware of this, and because of the high availability of contraception there is a much higher number of people having sex than if it was not available, than when the contraception fails, abortion is often seen as the alternative. While it true that condoms can reduce the risk of some STD's they do not protect against the most common STD, HPV, and they actually increase the number of people infected with aids and other STD's for the same reason they increase the number of abortions.
Birth control

I will be advocating for the devil, because I myself am against birth control. I humbly request that the sole source of scripture in this debate be the Biblia Sacra Vulgata. It is the only bible I own, and consequentially the only one I fully trust. It is a (the) Catholic bible, and therefore should be fully credible to my opponent. I am also willing to accept the New American Standard bible if necessary. Also, if I choose to use any secular arguments, I ask that they be given the same weight as religious ones. Obviously I am arguing the position in contrast to that of the Roman Catholic Church, and so I cannot win by using only their teachings. I will now begin my argument, starting first with the story of Onan. As it says in the Biblia Sacra Vulgata (Genesis 38:8-10)"(8) dixit ergo Iudas ad Onam filium suum ingredere ad uxorem fratris tui et sociare illi ut suscites semen fratri tuo(9) ille sciens non sibi nasci filios introiens ad uxorem fratris sui semen fundebat in terram ne liberi fratris nomine nascerentur(10) et idcirco percussit eum Dominus quod rem detestabilem faceret" [1] It is indeed easy to see how this might be taken as an argument against contraception. "[Onan] sui semen fundebat in terram", and in that way made God angry at him. But why was God angry? It is never specifically stated why. He could have been mad at Onan for not giving his brother's wife a child, for being disobedient, for polluting the ground, for any number of things. This is quite clearly a specialized case, as Onan was given a specific task which he clearly rejected. It is equally probable that God was angry at him for shirking his duty as it is that God struck against him for using contraception. My case:1. Contraception allows for planningContraception prevents children from springing up inconveniently. If you barely have any money and you're living in a dumpster, surely you do not want a child? Contraception can prevent children from being born into horrible lives.2. Contraception can prevent abortionWhich is worse? It is clearly much better to use contraception than to get an abortion. As it is unreasonable to expect no one to have sex, contraceptions save lives by preventing abortions.3. Forms of contraceptives prevent STDSSTDS are bad. Some contraceptives prevent them. Therefore, contraceptives are good. I will shore up my case in the next round. I again thank my opponent for giving me the opportunity to argue devil's advocate for the first time. Sources:1. Biblia Sacra Vulgata
Birth control

Since we are both Catholics I may be using the bible and church teaching in my arguments. Birth control is always immoral because the main God-given purpose of sex is procreation: babies. Pleasure and bonding between a husband and wife are secondary purposes of sex. Birth control lets you have sex, while attempting to frustrate the main God-given purpose of sex. This is why it's wrong. Sacred Scripture let's us know that it is wrong as well. In Genesis in the story of Onad, when he had sex with his deceased brother's wife (as was his obligation to give her a child) he stopped and spilled his seed. It says that this displeased God, and Onad was killed for it. Some people have argued that he was punished for not fulfilling his obligation to give a child, but if you read further on, you will find that the punishment for not fulfilling this obligation was not death, but was public humiliation. Therefore his punishment must have been for contracepting. Sources: Chastity.com biblechristiansociety.com The bible
Birth control

First, I would like to apologize for this round, as I am not able to handle all arguments as fully as I would like to. Please do not hold this overly against me 1. Failure RatesMy opponent cites unsourced statistics of success from the Catholic Diosceses of Richmond. I don't think I need to say what's wrong here.2. Pill CancerIt does help women who might otherwise have gotten one of the types of cancer the pill protects against. I assume the risks probably mostly balance each other out. Regardless, if one fears cancer so much, one need not use the pill. That does not preclude using another type of birth control.3. STDs and Condoms I don't feel like pointlessly rehashing an argument here, so I will simply quote a government site. Note what I said last round about any protection being better than nothing. "Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. In addition, consistent and correct use of latex condoms reduces the risk of other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including diseases transmitted by genital secretions, and to a lesser degree, genital ulcer diseases. Condom use may reduce the risk for genital human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and HPV-associated diseases, e.g., genital warts and cervical cancer." [1]4. NFP and Divorce I invite my opponent to make a case regarding this instead of using her source as an argument. 5. More PregnancyThe birth control did not increase the birth rate, that was the students being stupid and having more sex. Birth control cannot be blamed for people's idiocy.6. Abortion I concede this point fully.New Arguments:A. Natural Family Planning is not always possible It is complicated, and generally only usable by people in a stable relationship. Additionally, it provides no STD protection, and requires abstinence. The biggest issue is, of course, the complexity and relationship requirement. NFP is pretty much useless unless you are married or in a very stable relationship [2]. You can't just be like "Tonight let's use NFP" out of nowhere, it requires an excessive amount of preparation and is easier to screw up than pretty much any other tactic. Do note that my opponent seems to have dropped the argument from the Bible. Sources:1. http://www.cdc.gov...2. http://www.nhs.uk...;
Contradictions in Genesis

[3:6] So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate. If god is how you say he is and he created Eve and Adam, He would have known that they would have done so and ate the fruit. so if god really was trying to do the best for us than he would have not placed the fruit in the garden
Sola Scriptura

My opponent says: "The Bible is our ONLY spiritual authority," that is FALSE. We have other spiritual authorities such as the Holy Spirit, Divine Revelation and Objective Moral Values. All people in the church including pastors follow these rules of faith, as well as the Traditions of the Church. He says: "But the pastors follow the Bible, meaning, we should follow the Bible too." Answer: As the pastors follow Tradition, divine revelation, and decrees of the church on doctrine, so should we. He says: "Morality and Spirituality is related, but not part of spirituality. If morality is spirituality, too, then, atheist who also practice morality are part of spirituality, too, thus, believe in God as well." The relationship between the two doesn't change the fact that moral values are another standard outside the Bible as a rule of faith. Then he asked: "How come the question goes back to me? From a lot of Christian denominations, who should I follow, then ? Catholics? Evangelicals? Mormons? Witnesses? Calvinist? Lutherans? Orthodox?" The Bible doesn't answer this question, and this is one of the reasons why we need other rules of faith besides the Bible. If the Bible had all the answers, the Sola Scriptura camp wouldn't be asking this question.
Sola Scriptura

The Bible is our only spiritual authority, that even pastors or church leaders should follow. Our pastors are our authority, yes (or church leaders, depending on the denomination you have) But the pastors follow the Bible, meaning, we should follow the Bible too. If a=b, and b=c, then a=c Morality and Spirituality is related, but not part of spirituality. If morality is spirituality, too, then, atheist who also practice morality are part of spirituality, too, thus, believe in God as well. How come the question goes back to me? From a lot of Christian denominations, who should I follow, then ? Catholics? Evangelicals? Mormons? Witnesses? Calvinist? Lutherans? Orthodox?
Sola Scriptura

Pro says: "There are things that God will reveal to you that is not in the Bible, like what? Like future "partner" (husband/wife), work, etc." But he has revealed more than that. He has also revealed the Bible canon, and plenty of doctrines not found in the Bible. I would also add to this another rule of faith outside the Bible - objective moral values. We don't need the Bible to tell us right from wrong, we knew about morality before the Bible was written. How do we know God is good? Because God says so in the Bible? No. Because if morality were decided based on God's commands, then if God changed his mind, and said for example that murder was now good, would that make it good? What kind of basis would this be for ethics? It is obvious that God says something is good or bad because it actually is; therefore, objective moral values exist as an independent standard outside the will of God, independent of the Bible. This rule of faith is also infallible; for example, the holocaust was wrong no matter who or how many people agree that it was good. Pro says: "But Con stands out that Sola Scriptura is unbiblical because Jesus did not use the Bible in His ministry." I never said that Jesus didn't use the Scriptures in his ministry, but rather, he did not rely only on the Scriptures. He gave teachings that were not in the Scriptures of his day, showing that he had other rules of faith besides the Bible. True, God gave us the Bible for direction (2 Tim. 3:16-17), but this isn't the only thing he gives for our direction. He also gave the Holy Spirit, an infallible guide. He gave divine revelation as well. It is foolish to reject all the other things God gave us as Pro is doing. Without these other things the Bible isn't worth very much anyway. Pro hasn't even replied to most of my evidence proving the Bible IS NOT our only authority. We also have the Holy Spirit, Divine Revelation, Traditions, Apostles and Prophets, as well as Objective Moral Values, all of which are other authorities needed to Christian living in its fullest sense. Pro asked: How come Catholics and Protestants are having a debate about the number of the books of the Bible? My question to him is this: does the Bible tell us how many books should be in the Bible? If not, than what authority settled the issue? Obviously, we need more than the Bible.
Sola Scriptura

I have seen Con's side, and indeed, some of them I agreed. There are things that God will reveal to you that is not in the Bible, like what? Like future "partner" (husband/wife), work, etc. But Con stands out that Sola Scriptura is unbiblical because Jesus did not use the Bible in His ministry. On the contrary, God gave us the Bible for direction (2 Tim. 3:16-17) God does not have the Bible in His time here on Earth, but be happy now that we have the Bible. My only point: The Bible is the only authority My question is: How come Catholics and Protestants are having a debate about the number of the books of the Bible?