BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible translations are an unreliable source and contain at least one text which is contradictive

When I said "I'm not sure what Pro's argument entails," it's not because I didn't understand it. It's because the argument is so bad that I didn't think Pro could possibly be making it. But apparently he is.The Hebrew word used in Exodus 20:13 is ratsach, which can mean "kill," but in order to translate words from Hebrew and Greek into English, the context must be considered. The connotation in Exodus is that "you shall not murder." If all forms of killing were condemned, then God would not have sanctioned it, such as the aforementioned examples, as well God also permitting killing in self-defense (Exodus 22:2). [1]In order to be a genuine contradiction, the contradiction must be contained in different places in the same transcript. Remember that the translations of Scripture are not inspired, only the original texts. Pro would have to show that there are contradictions in the same translation that can't be reasonably resolved in order to prove a contradiction. Trying to prove a contradiction by showing different translations translate the word differently is just silly.Also, Pro's definitions of "kill" and "murder" are incorrect. "Kill" can certainly refer to any living thing, but also to humans. Killing a human is any form of killing, whereas "murder" refers to humans, but only when killing them in cold blood. So telling someone not to "murder" not only tells you what you can't kill, but under what circumstances you can't kill them.Back to Pro.[1] http://carm.org...;
The Bible translations are an unreliable source and contain at least one text which is contradictive

Firstly Con states he is confused as to what my argument entails, then immediately after that he actually grasps the argument. Because really it's not that hard to figure out. Yes KeytarHero, As I stated above, The argument is about two words, the two words are *Murder and *Kill, those are the two words in question, being used for the same verse in different translations of the Bible, as I have presented evidence for above. By KaytarHero's own admission....... and his own definition of a contradiction, states. "both statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time".......... So If Jesus instructed.... Thou Shall Not Kill, Then it applies to all living things... But If Jesus instructed.... Thou Shall Not Murder, Then it only applies to man.... Obviously both statements can not both be true at the same time. Thou shall not kill is clear, it means thou shall not kill any living thing. Thou shall not murder is also clear, It means do not murder man, but the killing of other beings, non human is permitted..... My opponent accepts this error as a translator error, and goes on to say, the correct translation is murder, but surprisingly does not account the other Biblical translations in error. If Con wants to state that the correct translation is Thou Shall Not Murder, then he has to accept the other versions of the Bible that translate the verse, Thou Shall Not Kill, are wrong and a direct contradiction. I urge the audience to take note of Con's assertion of what a contradiction is. Both sentences can not be both true at the same time. Thou Shall Not Kill applies to all living things, Thou Shall Not Murder only applies to man. "both statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time By Con's own admission, this is the definition of a contradiction. Thus I see no way out of this for Con but to accept the Bible translations are an un-reliable source and contain contradictions. Thank you... Back to Con.
The Bible translations are an unreliable source and contain at least one text which is contradictive

However, I'm confused as to what his argument actually entails. If his argument is that the word "murder" or "kill" is used in different translations, that's undebatable. However, the proper translation of the word of "murder. " God himself sanctioned certain times when somenoe should have been killed in the Old Testament, such as when he sent his people to war, when he sent Ehud to slay King Eglon who was ruling over God's people in tyranny, etc. The proper translation from Exodus and Deuteronomy in the Ten Commandments, which Jesus is alluding to here, is "you shall not murder. " That is, you shall not kill someone in cold blood. Pointing to different translations of the same verse does not make Pro's case. Different translations translate the word differently. This is not a contradiction in the Scriptures, this is translator error. That's really all I have to say about this. Back to Pro.
The Bible translations are an unreliable source and contain at least one text which is contradictive

Pro wasn't exactly clear on what he means by "unreliable source. " I'm assuming he means unreliable historical documents. In order to show the Bible is "unreliable," he must first show that the two key words used in question are truly contradictory, and why their being contradictory proves the Bible as unreliable. The definition of contradiction I will be using is "direct opposition between things compared; inconsistency. " In order for something to be contradictory, both statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. Things can appear contradictory on the surface, but after examination really are not. I look forward to our debate.
The Bible translations are an unreliable source and contain at least one text which is contradictive

I'll make this brief, as Pro has not made his case.The definitions of "kill" and "murder" are as I have given them. Murder doesn't just mean killing humans, but to kill humans in cold blood. Not all killing of humans is condemned in the Scriptures, such as killing in self-defense.I have already mentioned that there are scholars who have translated the words differently, but this doesn't prove that they are unreliable, as long as you are aware of what the manuscripts say (and scholars are). Sometimes they let their biases into their translations (the KJV is not a very reliable translation, since the scholars who translated it changed some of the verses to fit their own theology). However, the manuscript evidence we have shows that we know what the original texts say within 99.95% accuracy. We can trust many of our modern translations becuase we have manuscripts that attest to their reliability.Simply pointing to a difference in opinion as to how a word should be translated does not prove they are unreliable, and it certainly doesn't prove there is a discrepancy. This is, quite frankly, one of the worst arguments for the unreliability of the Biblical translations I've ever heard.Thank you for reading.
Homosexuality is NOT a choice

Oh the ignornace. Your tastes change during puberty. It's your hormones being all screwed up. I'm comparing homosexuality to cancer because I had trouble thinking of an analogy, I do not think of homosexuals as people with cancer. I treat them like anyone else. You say you're not a homophobe. But you say you don't agree with their lifestyle, God I hate that statement "I don't hate gay people but I just don't agree with their lifestyle" Stop it, don't get in the way, it's not your buissness and it doesn't matter if you agree or disagree. If someone I love wants to graduate from college and I disagree, I'm not going to stop that person from graduating college, leave people alone. What they do hurts no one. Oh yeah and the defintion of homosexual is showing attraction to those of the same gender.
Homosexuality is NOT a choice

This is what I think of all religious homophobes out there. This is a refrence to a great song Christina Perri wrote And who do you think you are, runnin round leaving scars, collecting your jar of hearts, and tearing love apart, you're gonna catch a cold, from the ice inside your soul That describes homophobes perfectly. What is the deal? Why do some people still think being homosexual is a choice. Who are you to judge the lives of others and make them live the way you want. I'm sorry but you can't do that people. I'm not going to go to some random person with cancer and tell them to stop having cancer, because that's just stupid. Rrgaurdless if your bi, gay, lesbian, or transgender, you should be loved like anyone else. You can't change sexuality, which is why I don't like chrsitianity, because it doesn't really help too much.
the deflate gate is just to make the NFL not seem bad

I will be accpeting this argument as con.There have been many times when the NFL has punished people for being bad and going against the rules such as Ray Rice, the San Diego Chargers, Michael Vick, and Adrian Peterson just to name a few. You also say that this is fake even though the NFL took the air pressure and found it to be lower than the regulated air pressure that the balls need to be kept on game day.VOTE CONSorry for keeping this short as I could only use 500 characters
Humans are still Evolving

Now this debate will obviously have to begin with the pre supposition that Evolution is true and accurate, something I do not even believe to be an opinion at this point due to the massive amount of evidence backing it, but that is besides the point. It is my belief that human beings are still evolving and are still going through a Darwanistic process of evolution, just changed due to our changes of the environment Please if you are to join state that you accept the challenge and post your opening argument Rules: 1. No personal attacks or ad homs (attacking the person rather than the argument) That's it I look forward to your reply
Humans are still Evolving

Hello. Thank you for asking an interesting question. My argument, obviously, ends in the following conclusion:A: Natural selection is not actively facilitating intraspecies changes in homo sapien sapiens.I will defend this point with reference to the following argument in sequence, from top to bottom:1: evolution requires intense non-random selection pressure across random but important traits (i.e. intelligence, agility, strength, etc)2: there is a significant dispersal of these attributes (along racial and social lines, etc), but it is not clear that such traits are being selected competitively against others. 3: Thus, A
The modal ontological argument is not sound

I would like to express my gratitude one last time to both socialpinko and Phantom for this lively discussion.It's not that I misunderstand Pro's point or even his intent. The problem is that he is using something he thinks is modal logic, but in the end turns out to be something wholly fallacious. Take this telling quote from Pro's last round:"In the same sense, we can conceive of our maximally great being not existing precisely because we haven't actually proved its existence yet."Now who is begging the question? Pro is trying to refute the Modal Ontological Argument, whose conclusion is that God exists, but arguing that it fails because we haven't already proven God's existence. The fallacy at play here is that of equivocation. In modal logic, "possible" means logically coherent, but Pro uses the term to mean "proven to exist." Pro rests on a misuse of terms. He says elsewhere:"In order for it to actually have any effect on our logic we must assume it's [sic] truth."This is absolutely wrong, especially within the context of modal logic. Modal logic was designed especially to deal with metaphysical issues, and as such, does not (and should not) assume the truth of anything. Modal logical is only concerned with the possibility, impossibility, necessity, and contingency of existence.The necessarily existent cup, unfortunately for Pro, commits the fallacy of false analogy. You see, a necessarily existent cup is not at all analogous to a maximally great being. Why? I put forth that there is possible world in which there is only a singularity. Such a world is logically coherent. Yet the necessarily existent cup would have to exist—as a cup—in that infinitesimally small singularity, which is impossible since matter is infinitely compressed. Since I can conceive of at least one possible world in which the cup cannot possibly exist, then the cup cannot be necessarily existent and Pro's parody of the ontological argument falls flat.All I had to do was show that Pro's maximally great cup could not exist in at least one possible world. Pro could have done the very same thing with God, or he could have shown that God's attributes are logically incoherent and therefore not possible in any possible world. Instead, Pro's arguments redefine the terms of modal logic, provide us with false analogies, and argue with logically contradictory syllogisms. He has simply failed to meet his burden of showing that a maximally great being is not modally possible.Therefore, Pro has not shown the Modal Ontological Argument to be unsound and the resolution is negated.Given that this is a single-elimination tournament debate, I respectfully ask the readers to read thoughtfully and vote responsibly. Thank you.
The modal ontological argument is not sound

I would first like to begin by thanking my opponent for this swift and stimulating debate on an admittedly unique argument for God's existence. On the points of argument though, it appears my opponent still does not fully grasp my point. My opponent argues that my point is false because it contradicts my own definition. However, my point was that we don't see a necessary contradiction if we disregard the truth value of the necessary being's existence as inapplicable at that time. In order for it to actually have any effect on our logic we must assume it's truth. Let me explain it this way. Consider the idea of a pink unicorn A and consider the idea of another pink unicorn B. They're identical in every way except for the fact that unicorn B only exists if unicorn A does not exist. As my opponent himself admitted a unicorn is not an incoherent concept and thus could exist in some possible world. Now just like as with the modal argument, the two concepts in question cannot exist at the same time. But we can still conceive of the existence of unicorn A since we have not assumed into existence unicorn B. In the same sense, we can conceive of our maximally great being not existing precisely because we haven't actually proved its existence yet. Consider any other idea. Consider the idea of a necessarily existent cup. We can easily conceive of such a thing, but it creates no logical contradiction to think that there is also a conceivable world in which no such necessarily existent cup exists. My opponent is attempting to argue against my point by assuming the truth of his argument and thus begging the question. God is a maximally great necessarily existent being. (definition)It is possible for God to exist. Therefore God exists. Therefore God exists in all possible worlds. Some cup A is necessarily existent in every possible world. (definition)It is possible (conceivable) for such a cup to exist. Therefore the cup exists. Therefore it exists in every possible world. As we can see there is nothing contradictory in my cup argument unless we assume another necessarily existent being from the beginning. My opponent's point against my Godless world example is that it's impossible to conceive a world in which something which necessarily exists does not exist. Of course my point was that we could conceive of a world in which no God existed period. As in it's not some square circle notion. We can conceive of it. My cup argument however I think more clearly brings out the underlying point. The underlying point I am trying to make is this. Deriving existence from the hypothetical characteristic of necessary existence leads to mutually contradictory conclusions and thus is insufficient as proof of existence. We cannot derive the existence of a necessarily existent cup through simply conceiving it and for the same reason we cannot derive the existence of a necessarily existent maximally great being.
The modal ontological argument is not sound

My opponent's rebuttal against my argument can be summed up basically as follows: He argues that P2 is incoherent in that it doesn't make sense to say we can imagine a world in which a being who must exist in all possible worlds does not exist. This is because it necessarily exists in all possible worlds. Thus, my opponent argues, we cannot imagine such a thing because it would go against how we conceive of God.There is a problem though in my opponent's argument. It equivocates being able to entertain an idea with assuming its truth. We are not assuming that it is true that a necessarily existent being exists for this debate. We are also not assuming that it is true that there could exist a world in which no God existed. The point of the argument is that any attempt to arrive at necessary existence through entertaining an idea is incoherent. It literally depends on which premise we start with. For instance, let's say we start with the premise that it's possible that God doesn't actually exist The fact that it would exist necessarily only has causal relevance over the argument if we assume its truth in formulating the argument. However, this would be simply begging the question. My opponent formulates his refutation simply as the fact that (when incorporating the definition of God) the proposition itself of my P2 is logically contradictory. He puts it as follows:It is possible to conceive of a possible world where a [being that exists in all possible worlds] does not exist.Now I admit that this does seem contradictory. But the distinction that must be made is the fact that we haven't actually established the existence of the necessary being yet. This is what my opponent has set out to prove in the first place. What we are using the premise for is a kind of thought experiment. Is there a clear contradiction between a God not existing and anything else BUT the simple definition of God needing to exist in all worlds? The short answer is no and it is why the modal argument fails.My opponent is begging the question in assuming that anything which contradicts the agreed conception of God is false. Why does he believe this? There is certainly no more reason to believe that the contradiction between the possible world of God not existing and the definition of God as non-contingently existent is due to one or the other being false. Therefore there is no reason to accept the premise arguing for the possibility of a necessarily existent God as true anymore then there is to assume my own P2 is true.
The modal ontological argument is not sound

I look forward to the outcome. Much to the delight of our very busy readers out there, this round will be brief. My opponent's counter-argument is logically incoherent. In premise 1, he defines a maximally great being as one "that necessarily exists. " In modal logical, a being that necessarily exists is one that exists in all possible worlds. Yet, in premise 2, he says it is "possible to conceive of a possible world where a maximally great being does not exist. " If we substitute Pro's own definition of a maximally great being into P2, we get the following assertion (with the substitution indicated in brackets):It is possible to conceive of a possible world where a [being that necessarily exists] does not exist. Now, let's substitute "necessarily exists" with its modal logic definition:It is possible to conceive of a possible world where a [being that exists in all possible worlds] does not exist. I daresay, it is not possible to conceive of a being that simultaneously exists in all possible worlds and does not exist in a possible world. My opponent's contention is logically invalid, and it therefore fails to refute P1 of the original version of the ontological argument posted in his first round. Therefore, my opponent has yet to logically prove that the modal ontological argument is not sound and the resolution remains negated.
The modal ontological argument is not sound

My refutation of the argument in question will not rest on arguing against the validity of the argument, but will focus on refuting the proposition that all of the premises are sound. I concede that if all of the premises are true then the argument itself is true as per its validity. Since I agree with the validity of the argument and P2 is contained within the definition of God agreed for the purpose of this debate, my argument will concern itself with the validity of P1 alone.My refutation will take the form of a rival counter-argument highlighting the problems with using modal logic to prove non-contingent existence. My argument will be brief in this round and will expand on the argument in the later rounds depending on where my opponent's refutation lies specifically.(P1) A maximally great being is one that necessarily exists and necessarily is omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good. (Definition)(P2) It is possible to conceive of a possible world where a maximally great being does not exist. (C1) Therefore, possibly an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being that, if it exists, exists necessarily, does not exist in some possible world.(C2) Therefore, it is true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist in every possible world.(C3) Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist. C3 is derived from the fact that the being, even if it existed in every other possible world, would cease to be necessarily existence. Thus God would not be able to exist by its agreed upon definition. I pass the debate back on to my opponent. *The argument can be found in the same basic version here (note that it is a DOC): http://www.google.com...
The modal ontological argument is not sound

This is for Phantom's 99th Percentile tournament. The debate will focus on whether or not the modal ontological argument is sound. I as Pro to the resolution will argue that it is not while my opponent as Con will argue that it is. The relevant terms are defined as follows:Modal ontological argument-(P1) It is possible that that God exists. (P2) God is not a contingent being, i. e. , either it is not possible that God exists, or it is necessary that God exists. (C1) Hence, it is necessary that God exists. (C2) Hence, God exists. God for all intensive purposes is defined as a being which is transcendental, maximally perfect, and necessarily existent. Sound- An argument is sound if it is both valid and all of its premises are true.
A caveman would beat an astronaut in an unarmed fight to the death

You think it was the astronauts who conquered the moon? How naive of you. The cavemen, after years of having to deal with the pesky dinosaurs finally devised a brilliant plan to cleanse the world of their pathetic existence. The cavemen searched the world until they discovered a way to travel through time to the future, where they kidnapped every astronaut in the history of ever, and brutally beat them all with snakes until they breathed no more. Then they constructed a mound of the spacemen's corpses, and climbed that all the way to the moon. Once they arrived, the mooniens surrendered immediately, and anointed Fred Flinstone their new 'Chieftain'. The cavemen then created a meteor out of the crushed hopes and dreams of astronauts and flung the fiery ball of death down to Earth, killing every last dinosaur. Now they don't teach THAT in public schools these days do they? They hide the truth ever since astronauts came around. The astronaut is nothing but a filthy plague to the existence of humans. The great cave chieftain Kingsaur Oog laughs at the pathetic astronauts who think that they stand a chance. Astronauts exist only because cavemen allow them to. Astronauts exist only to submit to the master race. Astronauts exist only to lose to the mighty caveman