BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible never claims to be God's infallible Word

Ok, we've got a problem here. I was under the impression that we were going to discuss whether there was internal evidence that the Bible claimed to be the Word of God; more specifically the New Testament. Now you have brought in the issues of canonicity and more or less introduced a conspiracy theory by claiming that the fix was in because certain books were voted in later. By the way that's crap. We knew by the end of the Second Century what he cannon was. Look up the The Muratorian Fragment and then you'll also discover there were other materials later in the Second Century that listed the books of the NT. Are we going to end the debate here or are you going to stick to the subject you agreed to?
The Bible never claims to be God's infallible Word

A good deal of misunderstanding about what Scripture is comes from a misunderstanding about what inspiration means. We do not believe, as Muslims do about the Qur'an, that the Bible is word for word the dictated words of God. We believe that God inspires and superintends his message in the mind and heart of his chosen messenger that then writes or speaks it in his own words and in his own historical time and setting. This is why Paul in his own writings makes the comment in 1 Corinthians 7:12: "To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord)..." It seems that my counterparts main criticism is with the claim that the New Testament is Holy Scripture. Starting with the Gospels then Jesus said: Matthew 24:35 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away." In and of it self this might seem unhelpful until you investigate it's Old Testament parallels that the hearers of Jesus audacious claim would have certainly recognized. There is this reference in Isaiah 40:8 "Grass dries up, and flowers wither, but the word of our God will last forever." and a reference in Psalm 119:89 "Your word, LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens.". Jesus clearly intended his words to be understood as God's word. Now Peter, spoken of by the Lord Jesus and appointed by him as an Apostle said this about Paul and his writings in 2 Peter 3:16: "Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." As you can see plainly; Peter calls Paul's writings "Scripture". Finally the Book of Revelation comes with a warning about tampering that parallels the Torah. The book of Revelation says in it's ending Revelation 22:18: "I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book." The Torah likewise ends with this warning in Deuteronomy 4:2: " 2"You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." These parallels aren't accidental. The original readers of these documents were Jews who would have been familiar with the Old Testament and the warnings and the language employed would not have been lost on them. It is to their ears we must make ourselves sensitive if we are to understand whether the New Testament was seen as God's word or not.
The Bible never claims to be God's infallible Word

Thank you for agreeing to debate this subject. I am not interested in conspiracy theories either. In fact, I insist that we use the ENTIRE Bible as evidence either for or against. I have no problem with your conditions, provided I am understanding them correctly. Before I begin, I would like to point out that I believe parts of the Bible are accurate from a historical archeological perspective. I do not believe that pointing to prophecies being fulfilled can be considered evidence in this debate, simply for the reason that we have no way of testing those supposed prophecies of their truth or validity. I challenge my opponent to use the Bible and quote chapter and verses saying that the Bible actually makes the claims that it is the infallible Word of God. I will even help my opponent out by leaving the word "infallible" out if they would like and challenge them to show evidence from the Bible that it is indeed, "God's Word."
The Bible never claims to be God's infallible Word

I can demonstrate that in essence what you are saying is inaccurate. I'm reject some of the ways you have put things. The Bible doesn't say that "Here is a collection of infallible, inerrant, writings, from men moved by God." We derived that statement from studying the Bible and reason. If you are going to insist on that sort of literalism then you are going to be very disappointed. That sort of approach is not intellectually honest. I think you'll find that like most critics of the Bible, you are short on knowledge of the very thing your criticizing. I have to insist that you do not introduce conspiracy theories into our debate. I reject the tactic of disqualifying this or that portion of Scripture. If you try these tactics I'll walk away from the debate after explaining to the readers why. If it's in the current scriptures you have to live with it.
catholic church not contradicted itself

Again my opponent is attempting to derail my argument through semantics and interpretation. The members of the CC do not have the luxury of Interpretation because the Pope is always right. I will in this my final round use indisputable Historical fact. Fact is not up to interpretation. The following facts were gleaned from the historical record of the CC itself. According to Catholic doctrine, popes and Catholic church councils are infallible. This means that whenever they make official declarations concerning matters of faith or morals, God supernaturally protects them from making errors. Infallibility applies to all Catholic popes and church councils: past, present, and future. "Webster's Dictionary" defines "infallible" as "not capable of erring". It says that "infallible" as used by the Catholic Church means "incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals". Truth does not contradict truth. Therefore, if the "infallible" pronouncements of the popes and Catholic church councils really are infallible, they will never contradict other "infallible" pronouncements. So if there is even one contradiction, then the doctrine of infallibility cannot be correct. The claim for papal infallibility does not stand up to the test of history. Pope Zosimus (417-418 A.D.) reversed the pronouncement of a previous pope. He also retracted a doctrinal pronouncement that he himself had previously made. Pope Honorious was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-681 A.D.) He was also condemned as a heretic by Pope Leo II, as well as by every other pope until the eleventh century. In 1870, the First Vatican Council abolished "infallible" papal decrees and the decrees of two "infallible" councils. My opponent would like you to believe that the argument set forth is full of Holes she would like you to believe that previous posts are up to interpretation. The preceding are historical FACT by showing a historical reversal of doctrine I have shown contradiction. Keep in mind while voting that personal beliefs are not the issue I do not decry anyone's ability to have faith. My point is simply that I have proven without a doubt that the CC has contradicted itself at the very least on these occasions.
catholic church not contradicted itself

you said you clearly proved it ocntradicted itself with the first post, which i showed you clearly did not do so your claim of being clear here has less credibility. you cannot show what people in the church believe or think... you have to show what the pope taught as a matter of faith and morals to the church, show contradictions. --there is only one true god. As do the teachings of the church. yes, he referred to them as gods. Even Jesus and the Old testament said "ye are gods". the main point is that you're being overly techincal...but even using techincal arguments, your argument is weak. also, techinically, "true God" means that God is God, and anything else is not really "true" really, these are word games and semantics. that you can't find something more substantive like "jesus is God" v "jesus is not god" or something shows that you as grasping at straws. ---Pope Nicholas I declared that "the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who, being God, cannot be judged by man." - Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can. 7, Satis evidentur, Decret Gratian Primer Para. again, word games. this is obscure. is God giving the appellation of infallible.... or is it as you suggest that the appellation "God" being applied to the pope? it could be the former. but even if the text said the later, you're being overly literalististic. Notice, you can't find any explanations as to how they wanted to be treated as divinities etc, because these sorts of passages are cursoroary, dicta. also... you purport ot say that the CC is not infallible, and from that unfounded assertion say that since it claims to be fallible, it's contradicted itself. you're begging the question. what you're saying is similar to "the bible is true because the bible says it's true" the whole point of this is to show that the pope is not infallible, as he suggests, so you can't assume he's not infallible. also, you can't assume he's not infallible as a premise, just to show that he's contradcited that assertion, if you don't substantitate that he's not infallible first. your statemtens about hte bible is empty rhetoric until you provide some texts about the CC teaching on the inerrancy of the bible. and until you show a clear contradiciton in the bible, secondly. (it appears you're also confusing the church genreally with the CC also, which seems to me, making me wonder how primitive your understanding is of what the CC is and claims to be)
catholic church not contradicted itself

While I do not have an "Axe to grind" your point is noted however I must state that this debate is in fact weather the church has contradicted itself in its long history. If at any point it has taught the bible as literal or completely valid then it has contradicted itself. We are not solely dealing with the church of today but the church throughout history. That being stated thoughts of the bible for today's church do not necessarily do anything other than strengthen my argument. I could show that at one point in history the church demanded its followers believe every word of the bible. If today there are people in the church that are denying that the bible is the perfect true word of god I will have shown contradiction. I will instead look to the Pope for my contradiction. The pope being the head of the church should never contradict the teachings of the church. The Catholic Encyclopedia states very clearly that there is only one true god. As do the teachings of the church. In the following quotes I will show that the Pope has contradicted this. Pope Innocent the third proclaims that preists are Gods "Innocent III has written: "Indeed, it is not too much to say that in view of the sublimity of their offices the priests are so many gods." -The dignity of the priesthood by Liguori p, 36 Nicholas the first declaring that the Pope is in fact God. .-Pope Nicholas I declared that "the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who, being God, cannot be judged by man." - Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can. 7, Satis evidentur, Decret Gratian Primer Para. I will present here the case that the church has declared the pope to be Infallible. In the belief of the church man cannot be infallible only God is infallible. "The Pope's authority is unlimited, incalculable; it can strike, as Innocent III says, wherever sin is; it can punish every one; it allows no appeal and is itself Sovereign Caprice; for the Pope carries, according to the expression of Boniface VIII, all rights in the Shrine of his breast. As he has now become infallible, he can by the use of the little word, "orbi," (which means that he turns himself round to the whole Church) make every rule, every doctrine, every demand, into a certain and incontestable article of Faith. No right can stand against him, no personal or corporate liberty; or as the [Roman Catholic] Canonists put it—"The tribunal of God and of the pope is one and the same." -Ignaz von Dollinger, "A Letter Addressed to the Archbishop of Munich" 1871; as quoted in MacDougall, The Acton Newman Relations (Fordham University Press) pp. 119,120. It is very clear that the church through history has contradicted its teachings on numerous occasions. The Bible, which is the basis of catholicism is full of contradiction and is taught to be the final word on Faith and Practice. The Bible was named as the churches "Sola Scripta" as one of the five seals of reformation. The church at that time declared it infallible and the true word of God. I have Clearly proven my argument and I am looking forward to your Rebuttal.
catholic church not contradicted itself

the main point is that you haven't shown that the CC teaches the bible is infallible. in fact, there's some sentiment out there that it might not be, and only is inspired generally. the second point is that your examles are weak. i'd tend to believe that the bible has contradicted itself, but not for the reasons you state. (i haven't seen a full fledged irrefutable one yet, but enough to say it has probably) EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name. ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen. PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works. JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them. Look at a person. A person is prone to peace and to anger. Anger is sometimes justified. War is sometimes justified. It doesn't mean you're no longer peaceful. You've created a false dichotomy. It's clear this is a false dichotomy, not necessarily a contradiction at all, so i'd assume you have an ax to grind and an ulterior motive. THat argument refutes both of your examples as they made the same point. So, however you slice it, you've not shown a contradiction.
catholic church not contradicted itself

My goal in this debate is to prove that the Catholic church has contradicted itself at least once in its history. In accordance with the rules of this debate I will not mention the "Salvation" controversy, and I will use the teachings of a Pope to prove my point. The Doctrine of "Solo Scripta" The church is based on this is the infallibility of the Bible. Essentially it states that the bible is the ultimate guide for life and that it must be followed. The bible is the basis for the religion and for my argument. The bible contains Hundreds of contradictions within itself and thus the Catholic church has contradicted itself by blindly following this book. Here I will show only 2 examples of the contradictions in the bible. EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name. ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen. First we have the Lord being depicted as an entity that is both of War and of Peace. Clearly a contradiction one that will be exemplified by the quote below. PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works. JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them. Note here he loves all yet he will not pity nor spare even fathers and sons together. The doctrine the church has been founded upon inherently requires the church to contradict itself.
catholic church not contradicted itself

catholic church has not contradicted itself if the catholic church CC isn't true, you'd think there'd be a contradiction in its teaching given its long history. the teaching has to be from the pope. you cannot include the Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, no salvation outside controversy for this debate as i feel i am aware of the ramifications of this debate. i tend to think it has contradicted itself, but want some other proof. http://www.justforcatholics.org...
Should we allow robots to be made

I think I've covered up all my arguments in my rebuttals. Conclusion:The chances of making a robot with human level intellect and emotions ,since CON didn't provide any counter arguments, is impossible. Even if one is made there is no reason why it would turn against its own creator,even if it somehow does so, we at that period would have means to stop such a machine and even if we don't it still doesn't explain why robots as a whole,used in medical,production,manufacturing,. etc, should be not made.
Should we allow robots to be made

I thank my adversary for his arguments.I believe his case case can be represented by this syllogism:P1: When robots are being made someone may create one or many with human like emotions and behaviour.P2: A robot with human like emotions and behaviour may become rebellious and will destroy and take over the human race.C1: Some of the robots being made may try to destroy and take over the human race.P3: Something that can destroy and take over the human race, if provided a choice, shouldnt be allowed to be made.C: Robots should not be made.Now I will start by attacking premise 1.Human brain is a complex instrument.Human intelligence is principally considered superior based upon a human beings' unique ability to reason and think.Animals eat when they feel hungry, fight/flee when they feel threatened and chiefly act on their instincts unlike humans,who with their superior ability to reason and intellect, can decide and make their own actions and decisions based upon the outcomes that may result from it.Human emotions are more complex than given credit for, in addition to displaying emotions humans, also have the ability to control these when they feel things of higher priority might be at stake like relationships, social image etc.With that said it would be insanely difficult if not impossible to make robots with emotional and behavioural capabilities that can be considered in par with that of us humans.As CON is making the claim here, he has the liability to prove that there is a possibility that robots with remarkable capabilities as such can be made now or anywhere in the future.Now I proceed to premise 2 of PRO's argument he says a robot with human like emotions will try to destroy human race.But human emotions also contain qualities like compassion, gratitude,empathy etc.Now assuming hypothetically that the created robot has about the same level of intelligence as humans then with the knowledge that us humans are its creator,it will only at the maximum try to maybe co-exist with us with deep reverence, if not worship us as its creator.And besides even if it tries to be rebellious, the period of science which allowed us to create such a technological marvel must have certainely also provided us the means and methods to stop such a creation going haywire.Now going to Premise 3 the most problematic argument in PRO's argument which in short implies such robots which may tend to destroy human race shouldn't be made.But the problem is that the final conclusion doesn't follow this premise. The defintion of robot as stated in R1 is "a machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, especially one programmable by a computer.".Robots going by the definition are used in industries like Medical, production, manufacturing etc.So in order to uphold his case CON should provide enough reasons on why all such robots should be stopped being made too.With that I step back and await for CON's arguments.Over to you CON!.
Should we allow robots to be made

Since this debate involves five rounds I presume R1 would be for acceptance with the usual rules for the other rounds.Also since robots are being made and the instigator is taking a case against the status quo he will be having most of the BOP and I shall only need to cross examine them and prove them wrong or make them Unsound.These shall remain the conditions for this debate unless my adversary can contest them and prove otherwise.Now, since the instigator hasn't given any definitions in R1, I shall take the liberty to do so.DefinitionsRobots: a machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, especially one programmable by a computer.[1] So goin by the definitionCON: will be arguing that robots should'nt be allowed to madePRO: will try rebute CON's assertions and will show there is nothing wrong in allowing robots to be made.With this I leave you CON to post your case.Please post disputes you have with the above, if any, in the comment section.Looking forward to a fun and entertaining debate. :)1: https://www.google.co.in...;
Resolved: Abortion Should Be Legal

http://www.youtube.com... Illegal abortion harmful After Roe vs. Wade: Legalization reduced abortion deaths by 94.8%: https://www.guttmacher.org... 68000 deaths w/o access to safe, legal abortion: http://apps.who.int... 42% of women who have abortions are below the poverty level(1) 73% say simply cannot afford(2) (1)http://www.guttmacher.org... (2)https://www.guttmacher.org... Abortion decreased crime rate: http://scholar.harvard.edu... GRAPH for Crime Rate: http://i.imgur.com... Over to you Kasmic. ^-^
Resolved: Abortion Should Be Legal

IntroWelcome.This is the second in the series of video debates that's become popular these days.Here's the first one between Kasmic and Lee001: http://www.debate.org...Due to some issues with the format on the first one, Kasmic has proposed a multi-round structure which I will be listing here. These video debates are technically still in trial form, so bear with us.TopicAs noted above, the topic we are debating is abortion.I will be taking pro, meaning that I will be arguing that abortion should be legal.Kasmic will take con. He will argue that abortion should be illegal.Structure1st round is acceptance.2nd round is opening arguments - Here both sides will made a video argument no longer than 5 mins and place sources in their round.3rd round is rebuttals - Here both sides will make video rebuttals no longer than 3 mins.4th round closing statements - Here both parties will make 2 min videos over viewing the debate and explaining why you should vote for them. No new arguments.No texts will be allowed in the proceeding rounds besides general pleasantries, sources, and - of course - the video link.Good luck to Kasmic. I hope he enjoys this debate.I know I will. ^-^
Whould women be allowed in combat type MOS's within the US Armed Forces

I accept your challenge where you are questioning if a woman would be allowed to serve in a combatant classified military occupational specialty. In January, 2013, Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey sign a memorandum ending the 1994 ban on women serving in combat roles in the military. The US Army, under the new policy, female officers and non-commissioned officers will be assigned to combat units below the brigade level. The change will open up about 14,000 new jobs for women in the military, but there are still more than 250,000 jobs that remain closed to women. In the US Marine Corps, the first three women ever to endure and pass the Marine Corps" combat training course " nine grinding weeks that include "live fire events" and a furious, 20-kilometer, full-pack hike " graduated last Thursday from infantry school in North Carolina. It is no longer a "Would" argument, instead it is a "Should" argument. If you would like to discuss this, I will look forward to reading your arguments why females should not be allowed in combat a MOS. Good luck