BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Communism works if applied correctly

I never assumed human nature was static. Obviously human nature shifts here and there. We do adapt to our situations. However, human nature has constraints. There's a limit to how much nature will bend. (That's the definition of 'constraint) What you fail to realize is that your so called "communist society" has already been tried and tested. Hunter and gatherer societies, as I am sure you are familiar with, was prevalent from the beginnings of human history. People communally shared resources. People collectively reaped from the earth. Yet the individual and the collective never saw eye to eye. Humans have their own goals, their own incentives. It makes us unique. We inherently value the freedom to pursue our own dreams. With so many personal incentives, it's d*mn impossible for a "true communistic society" to ever occur. If you want a communistic society, you have to collectivize the nature of every human soul. Is that really liberty?
Communism works if applied correctly

'Communism will never work in a practical sense. Sure, idealistically communism would work perfectly right? However, due to the constraints that human nature puts us in, whether it be selfishness, greed, etc. , communism (regardless of the type) will never work'You are assuming that human nature itself is something that is static, that it never changes. The problem with that thinking is, human nature, and humans themselves, are the epitomy of dynamicism. We evolve, adapt, overcome, whatever word pleases you. The fact of the matter is, we change. A communist society may not appear in the next day, in the next month, in the next year, the next decade, or even the next century. However, one may appear after capitalism has collapsed. Marx himself stated that communism is primarily meant to be a system that is used in a post-capitalist society, one where the nature of humans has changed, on a global scale, towards a system that benefits both the individual and the collective. "The hate of man will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people. And so long as men die, liberty will never perish"-Charlie Chaplin [1]Sources:1- . http://www.brainyquote.com...
There is no such thing as a virus

There are no viruses.There never has been any viruses in the past and there wont be any viruses in the future. That's because viruses don't exist. Viruses are just made up nonsense by the medical establishment and pharmaceutical companies so that they can make huge mega-dollars out of gullible people with drugs and vaccines. (Only people with some life experience can apply. That means no 16 year olds thanks.)
Quran vs. Bible-which is God's word.

O Observations o "OK, well my arguments are based from the Quran and the Bible, so we have to use Holy books." =/= "In this debate there's no other religion i.e. we will not include other religious books" o "We are debating which book is actually God's word." When did I oppose this ? O Second Argument o Koran contradictions 1. The food for the people in Hell will be only "Dhari" [Sura 88:6], or only foul pus from the washing of wounds [S. 69:36], or will they also get to eat from the tree of Zaqqum [S. 37:66]? Together, these verses constitute three contradictions. 2. The video. http://www.youtube.com...
Quran vs. Bible-which is God's word.

O Observations o In this debate there's no other religion i.e. we will not include other religious books. Secondly we will assume that either Yahweh is real or Allah, there are no alternatives. o We both have equal burden of proof. O Arguments o The Bible is the best selling book of all time. http://home.comcast.net... o My further arguments will be provided via my opponents response.
Quran vs. Bible-which is God's word.

There was a debate I entitled the same as the above, however, the user never seemed to respond, so this is a second to anyone who wants to debate me on which is God's word. This is not a Sunni vs. Shia debate, I have no interest in debating a shia Muslim. Rather, this is to anyone who thinks the Bible is the unaltered and direct word of God. To anyone wishing to debate this topic, please have your facts straight and don't be a troll. Know your stuff before you debate it. Points that I will debate on considering why the Bible is not God's word are: Bible errancy, Jesus Christ being God, and a few anonymous points which i will save for the debate. Good luck and may God bless you.
Quran vs. Bible-which is God's word.

Thank you for the debate - it was fun. 1. Yes I did. If you had checked the link I gave you, you would have known that John the Baptist sent his disciples more than once and the link is a discussion about why. It has some insightful comments even for a non-believer, I encourage the readers and my opponent to read or at least skim what is written there. 2."We are not debating what ifs, we are debating whether it is the unchanged word of God." However, if the Bible is unchanged then the Koran is by default incorrect as I have shown. Which would mean that the Bible is Gods word. 3."we are not debating whether or not Jesus died on the cross or Jesus being God. " Indeed, I was making an irrelevant point though at this moment you're not doing anything different. 4." The burden of proof is not on me." We both have an equal burden of proof. "God sent down a new word to his people and told them to preserve it. And Mohammed(PBUH) told his people how to do this. This was the final word from God and Mohammed was his last prophet. If you think you can match the Quran, try it. Even Allah challenges us to do that, and we simply can't." This is mere preaching - nothing more needs to be added. Anyhow, I provided arguments for why the Bible is not corrupt or changed or altered and this was not even mentioned. By default as we both have discussed the Koran is incorrect even if it is too uncorrupted. For this reason I urge a Con vote and please do comment about how I or my opponent could improve and why you voted the way you did. Thank you Cheerio and A HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL !!!
Quran vs. Bible-which is God's word.

1. "presented contradictions which were refuted"-My opponent has not refuted any Biblical contradiction brought out. "The references in chapter 7 enabled John once again to acknowledge Jesus as one greater than he, while seeking confirmation that Jesus was the Messiah, then the disciples repeated this message and finally Jesus summarised all his miracles that would indeed prove him to be the Messiah. The message, implicitly and explicitly, that Jesus truly was the Messiah was repeated three times in a short passage. This is evidence of a literary masterpiece" as answer to When did John the baptist send his disciples ? This is clearly not an answer, as it does not answer the question above. 2. "I suppose that if the Bible is not corrupt then the Koran is untrue since that would mean Jesus is God and the claim that the previous messages are changed or corrupted is also erroneous." We are debating whether the Bible or Quran is the unchanged word of God, thus the statement above asserting the possibility of it being unchanged is it irrelevant. We are not debating what ifs, we are debating whether it is the unchanged word of God. 3. As for Jesus being God, we are not debating whether or not Jesus died on the cross or Jesus being God. But to answer this statement, I'll answer it with a question. Why would God, if he was Jesus, thirst? Why would God say to worship someone other than him, because Jesus obviously never said, " Worship me." Why did Jesus always point the disciples to worship the Father if he indeed was God? Why did Jesus never state, " I am God"? Why, if Jesus was God, pray to himself? Why, if Jesus was God, say that the one that sent him was greater than he? And why would God be thirsty? Why, if he indeed was God, need to keep his identity secret? And finally, why would God go back and forth and back and forth between being a man and being God? We should listen to what Jesus said he was, a messenger from God sent to preach salvation unto the gentiles and his own people. 4. The burden of proof is not on me. God sent down a new word to his people and told them to preserve it. And Mohammed(PBUH) told his people how to do this. This was the final word from God and Mohammed was his last prophet. If you think you can match the Quran, try it. Even Allah challenges us to do that, and we simply can't.
Quran vs. Bible-which is God's word.

O Review We both presented contradictions which were refuted ; we also presented other arguments but they too went nowhere. However, my opponent mentioned that "the Bible has been changed and altered!". I suppose that if the Bible is not corrupt then the Koran is untrue since that would mean Jesus is God and the claim that the previous messages are changed or corrupted is also erroneous. As for Jesus being God, the crucifixion would not make sense if he was a mere man: Eternal Sin - Temporal Man = Eternal Sin Eternal Sin - Eternal God = Eternal God (God is omnipotent, also some believe he's a necessary being) O The Corruption of the Bible The burden of proof in this case is on my opponent since he asserts that God would let a holy book be corrupted. "The last foundation for any doubt that the scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed." Sir Frederic Kenyon, former director of the British Museum 1. We have 5,664 Greek manuscripts from which the original wording of New Testament books can be determined; there are also 18,000 other manuscripts in several other languages, e.g., Armenian, Latin Vulgate, Ethiopic, and more. http://www.csntm.org... http://carm.org... http://www.religionfacts.com... 2. The Dead Sea Scrolls http://www.guardian.co.uk... http://www.centuryone.com...
Quran vs. Bible-which is God's word.

Again, showing the Bible fulfills prophesy is irrelevant, because the Qu'ran does the same. My opponent has mentioned the Bible prophesy concerning Israel, well the Quran also mentions it in explicit detail, about the Jews becoming united again. (And after him We said to the Children of Israel, 'Dwell Ye in the promised land; and when the time of the promise of the Latter Days come, We shall bring you together out of various people.") (17:105) The Quran also mentions Jesus as the messiah, and we as muslims don't deny that he was the prophesied messiah. [3:46] When the angels said, 'O Mary, God gives thee glad tidings of a son through a Word from Him; his name shall be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, honoured in this world and in the next, and of those who are granted nearness to God;" 4:158] And for their saying, 'We did slay the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of God;' whereas they slew him not, nor did they bring about his death upon the cross, but he was made to appear to them like one crucified; and those who differ therein are certainly in a state of doubt about it; they have no certain knowledge thereof, but only pursue a conjecture; and they did not arrive at a certainty concerning it. " So, in the Quran, like the Bible, we have prophesies and we do not deny that the Bible was the word of God. However, like the Quran says, and like Bible scholars say, the Bible has been changed and altered, affecting the message God really intended. And I challenge anyone reading and my opponent to post a scripture where Jesus said, " I am God." You simply won't find it and I think we should follow what Jesus said about himself, that the one that sent him(Allah) was greater than him.
Quran vs. Bible-which is God's word.

O First argument Not addressed . O Second argument 1. Ill drop this one (lazy me). 2. Again I just realized that this is time consuming. Hence, I will try to use more convenient arguments. O Third argument The bible fulfills prophecies. The return of the Jews to Israel is the key to bible prophecy. Most other endtime prophecies depend on the Jewish people living in Israel and not scattered amongst the Gentiles. Israel has not existed as a nation since hundreds of years before the birth of Christ. http://www.therefinersfire.org... O Biblical Contradictions When did John the baptist send his disciples ? ::Matthew 11:2-6 and Luke 7:18-23:: "The references in chapter 7 enabled John once again to acknowledge Jesus as one greater than he, while seeking confirmation that Jesus was the Messiah, then the disciples repeated this message and finally Jesus summarised all his miracles that would indeed prove him to be the Messiah. The message, implicitly and explicitly, that Jesus truly was the Messiah was repeated three times in a short passage. This is evidence of a literary masterpiece." Read more: http://wiki.answers.com... Plus this: http://planetpreterist.com... Citation yields citation :P
People have different sets of right and wrong

"Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings." Well, firstly, you gave the example of "Muslims cutting off the hands of thieves, because it is right in their culture, must be right for everyone else.". It is rather clear through much evidence and stats regarding crime in Saudi Arabia that the Sharia Law system is actually efficient, and it is one of the 10 countries with least amount of crime. Simply the evidence shows that it is working and that it is the right way to go, but simply because people BELIEVE they don't need it does not necessarily mean it is not a good set of rights and wrongs. You also mentioned that slavery was completely moral. However, I was referring to slavery based on race, or particularly via exploiting. It would also be notable that as the Bible was translated hundreds of times, it has lost certain meanings, and became mostly corrupted. Another belief upheld by Islam. As for the objective truths that I would be able to defend ? "We are all equal" (we should all be treated equally despite our social positions, however regarding our actions and behaviour in society, we are all equal) in sociology, "Communism works in practice" in politics, and "God exists" in religion. They all seem bold statements, but I am keen to defend and give reasons for all these beliefs to prove my point. We do not know which one of us is right, but according to philosophy, one of us MUST be right. If no one is right, everyone is wrong and if someone was right in everyone being wrong, that means someone was right and therefore , everyone was right. I will end this with the closing statement of simply "There is a right, it must be, a meaning of life must exist, some righteousness exists, but when we discover it, it's too late." For example if you believe in religion and life after death, well, it's good for you, if you're wrong you wasted time, but if you believe in a simple death like a big sleep, you wouldn't actually mind, whereas if you're right, everyone else is going to be punished, but the idea is that we will never supposedly know about it because once we die, we cannot come back to life. (We're not including stories about comas and people telling stories from beyond the grave.) Also it's worth noting how religions talk about 'The Day Of Judgement', where God will judge your actions and will tell us the absolute right and absolute wrong to do things and compare it to what we've done in a perfect judgement. Of course, it's religion and you might not believe in it, but still, it proves my point that right and wrong will eventually be clearly separated and even religions believe about an absolute right way of things existing.
People have different sets of right and wrong

I agree that taking an opinion like "abortion is right" and backing it up with a statistic to the effect of the number of lives it has saved doesn't make it "right". But that doesn't mean that different people do not, in their own realities have senses of right and wrong.You are arguing for moral objectivity...that something that is right locally is always right globally. That Muslims cutting off the hands of thieves, because it is right in their culture, must be right for everyone else. You mention scripture...I have read a great deal of it and in many places slavery was considered completely moral (though in others it was not)."Jesus said not a word against slavery as a social institution""Right" and "wrong" can also take on many different meanings. Science, philosophy, religion, politics. This is a debate about objectivity vs subjectivity. To say that there are objective truths is a bold claim to make across all arenas and I would challenge my opponent to put forth and defend some.
People have different sets of right and wrong

When we're talking right and wrong from a moral point of view, we're simply talking about what was generally believed for a long time to be the norm in societies. For example, homosexuality was long thought to be a disease and now it is commonly accepted, however, there is nothing to say that it is NOT immoral, as, just because they have gained protection, and it is considered hate speech if you criticise them publicly, it does not mean that people are okay with it, or that they agree with it, so we know for one that morals never actually changed. Stuff like slavery was always morally wrong, for people who have read the Bible and other religious works who were predominant in those times would know this as a fact. However, as the Reinassance came by, people drew a line between morality and legality. When we are talking legality, it is simply subjective to cultures and traditions, and not necessarily a 'right' or 'wrong', but rather a 'norm' or 'punishable'. How, for example racism was legal at one point, we can say that we can draw a line in between those. As for the approach I have undertaken previously, I have simply argued that there are different views of life and other things in general, not of right and wrong directly, and people only interpret or act based on those circumstances, therefore creating the impression there is a right or wrong. If I say the sky is blue and we are indoors, you know that it generally is, but at the same time, we know the weather is volatile. Maybe it's grey. Or yellow. Or red, who knows. The point is, we don't agree on a thing, and we have different points, and there is a chance both of us know for sure. However, let's also say that the only way to find out is to leave the room, and that there is no way to come back once you leave. Say there was a nuclear war, and you're going outside (ignore the hypothesis of a nuclear winter and stuff like that). Say you don't have a gas-mask. You're bound to clearly die and whether you were right, or wrong, the other person does not know, but we know for sure that one of those options must be right. So how do we know exactly right or wrong ? It is nothing but interpretation based on hypothesis which sometimes just can't be proven and we just have to trust luck. We're talking here about opinions, opinions are simple statements, and you might back them up with facts, but that doesn't make your opinions on their own, facts, therefore if you think for example that abortion is right, and use facts such as "It saved 10000 women from death blah blah blah", it doesn't mean abortion IS right.
People have different sets of right and wrong

I'm not quite sure how your argument shows that people do not have different sets of right and wrong. By your vet own admission, some people believe that racism is right whereas under certain schools of thought it would be wrong. Those would be two different sets of people having different sets of right and wrong."Moral or ethical relativism is the idea that what is considered moral or immoral depends on the accepted behaviors within the society in which the determination is made. Therefore, what is considered moral or ethical in one society may be considered immoral or unethical in another, but each society is equally correct."Ruth Benedict’s argument is: (1) If what is accepted by society, based on shared beliefs, as normal behavior varies from culture to culture, then morality would vary from culture to culture. (2) Each culture, based on shared beliefs, decides what is considered acceptable and normal behavior within their society. (3) Therefore, morality is relative to the culture. If Benedict’s argument is true, it would mean that morality exists solely as a creation of society. Since morality is not an independent, higher concept outside of societal inclinations, it would be able to be changed by society. Therefore, since morality can change at any time, morality fails to exist except on a superficial level, which makes morality meaningless. Why follow any “moral” action in society then? Just get a majority of people in the society to act conversely to the “moral” action also, then the converse action will become “normal” and thus “moral.” Consequently, the question remains, just because an action is “normal,” does it make the action “moral?”
People have different sets of right and wrong

There are various factual schools of thoughts that have different sets of rules, however, it all has to do with circumstances. Either way, the schools of thoughts are in place (and have always been), and the rights and wrongs that people do, are in accordance to them, such as the moral school of thought. The position of 'right' and 'wrong' don't change, it is only their choice based on analysis of different schools of thoughts in different circumstances that gives a certain outcome, whereas certain people 'believe' that racism is right, whereas under certain schools of thought such as egalitarianist or left-wing political views, it would be wrong, but under right-wing or race-based schools such as Nazism, it wouldn't.
Minorities are not at a disadvantage in American society.

My Opponent has been living under a rock. Social injustses happen almost everywhere everyday. Our own president is STILL interested in wall over the border of mexico and get rid of immigrants who come to america to find Jobs and earn money to support their family. 1. Education - HAHA, No, it has been proven that its is harder for minorites to get into prestigious colleges.2. Policing - Actually, According to the Washington Post 777 people have been shot and killed by police in 2017 in the USA 403 of those were minorites. And you say Minorites are Under Policed? Their Overpoliced.3. Job Opportunities - Like i said its WAYYYY harder for immigrants to get jobs thanks to new laws that are passing.in conclusion ofcourse it may be harder to see social injustice now a days but saying that "minorites are not at a disadvantage in American society is a broad statement". Just because you don't see it doesn't mean its not there.
Minorities are not at a disadvantage in American society.

This is in regards to 3 main categories. 1. Education - Minorities are given every opportunity to pursue their education just as whites are. 2. Policing - Minorities are not unfairly policed, if anything they are under policed. 3. Job Opportunities - Minorities are not denied jobs simply because of the color of their skin or their race. (Meaning widespread denial) Now this is not to say that such instances don't occur because they do for every race. The point is that it is neither systemic or widespread. My opponent needs to be able to provide factual proof with sources to validate their position otherwise they would simply be stating their opinions.