BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The KJV Bible has no contradictions

1) You're refute to my definition of light is exactly why I specified "in a colloquial sense". Colloquially speaking, When people say it's light out, Or refer to day/night light, They are referring to sunlight. When people read this passage of Genesis, That is the general interpretation, And that is what is taught in all the churches I've ever been to. Saying God has no limitations is just a cop out for an actual answer. I have presented you with a contradiction and you're only defense is "well God can do anything, So he could have done it somehow". You can't prove God can do anything, It's merely conjecture. In fact, You can't even prove whether God exists or not. Therefore, All we are left with is the generally accepted interpretation of this story, Which is - light comes from a star. 2) Then show me the Hebrew/English issue for that verse. Don't send me a link that says "There are some words that now have different meanings than they did before, Therefore, Maybe this is one of them". 3) Please, Explain away. Floor is yours. 4) Ok, I will make this very simple. Here is a story (A = B). Here is a recap (A = C). B does not equal C, Therefore those statements do not match. The story does not match the recap. You have 2 contradicting things. A recap is a summary of events. It's not a different account of events entirely. 5) I am saying the order in which the events occurred (making homo sapiens, Making animals, Making water, Etc), Is different between Genesis 1 and 2. The accounts don't match. This debate is structured around whether the KJV has contradictions. All I need is one to prove this wrong. I have already stated several.
The KJV Bible has no contradictions

You said 1) Light in a colloquial sense, Is a collection of photons emitted from nuclear fusion taking place in a sun. Unless God was using a flashlight or something else, I'm pretty sure that's what it was referring to lol My response Your definition doesn't fully encompass light because you don't need nuclear fusion to create light in some instances all you need is oxygen heat and fuel also personally I don't think he would need a but I should have stated this a while ago, Referring to your statement in round 2 where you said that God made light before the stars, I feel like you're putting the limitations of humans on God, God doesn't have any limitations that's partly what makes him God. 2. By our definition i mean with even some English words the definition changes over time. https://theculturetrip. Com/europe/articles/10-english-words-that-have-completely-changed-meaning/ 3. Honestly I'm trying not to be insulting but if I try and explain it further I don't think you'd understand 4. How? 1:27 is a summary and 2:22 is a recapitulation how is this a contradiction I'm actually struggling to understand. 5. Are you referring to something new or just point 4. I missed debates :)
The KJV Bible has no contradictions

1) Light in a colloquial sense, Is a collection of photons emitted from nuclear fusion taking place in a sun. Unless God was using a flashlight or something else, I'm pretty sure that's what it was referring to lol2) My point is the moon is not a star and this is a contradiction to reality. 3) What does that verse have to do with polytheist words in Genesis? I'm really struggling to see the connection you made there. 4) Well they don't match, So. . . . Either the recap is wrong or the original is wrong, Or both. Either way, Contradiction. 5) There isn't a specific verse here, It's multiple verses throughout Genesis 1 and 2. Just read the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 creation verses. The order of events don't match. I look forward to your replies.
The KJV Bible has no contradictions

You said "Can you provide the verse number you referenced for this stating there were 10 horses per chariot, Or is this just an assumption to make the math work out? Chariots generally were pulled by 4 horses, Sometimes 2. It could go up to 10, But that was rare and usually only in situations where the cargo was very heavy or other special circumstances. Regardless of your logic, The verses themselves are clearly in contradiction. One verse says one number, The other verse says a different one. That is a contradiction by definition. " My response To be honest I would think that it was common sense to realise that, No offence meant at all by the way. You said 1) Genesis 1:3 - God made light before there were stars 2) Genesis 1:16 - Refers to the moon being a star 3) Genesis 1:26 - Remnants of polytheism in the useage of "us" and "our" when God is alone (or God has multiple personalities) 4) Genesis 1:27 - God made man AND woman, But Genesis 2:22 God made Eve from Adams rib on a different day entirely 5) The order of when animals, Plants and man were created is totally different in Genesis 1 and 2 My response 1. Hypothetically speaking if I worked for Oxford and I asked you to describe (light) so we could put in the dictionary how would you describe it and from there I can forward this rebuttal because I am yet to meet someone who can describe light. 2. What's your point? 3. John 1:1-3 1 In the beginning was the Word, And the Word was with God, And the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4. Maybe 1:27 is a summary and 2:22 is a recapitulation 5. Could you please be more specific about that eg exact verse Thank you for being a good sport I'm enjoying this debate.
The KJV Bible has no contradictions

Honestly, I thought you were a troll posting this so I didn't put much effort into it. I will make a better attempt in this round. You said "Personally from my life experiences and conversations I've had with people, They can get two different interpretations from;viewing an event unfold to listening to a speech to reading a piece of scripture because of their perspective and or their level of understanding that could be a reason on why are so many different interpretations on the Bible. "Ok, But that doesn't disprove the contradictive interpretations, Which is what I was making reference to. This could be argued that it is not a "contradiction in the KJV Bible", Which I will concede. Nevertheless, It was more intended as a commedial reply. You said "They had 10 horses per chariot if he had 40, 000 stalls for the horses and the chariots he would need 4, 000 stalls for the chariots and horses. "Can you provide the verse number you referenced for this stating there were 10 horses per chariot, Or is this just an assumption to make the math work out? Chariots generally were pulled by 4 horses, Sometimes 2. It could go up to 10, But that was rare and usually only in situations where the cargo was very heavy or other special circumstances. Regardless of your logic, The verses themselves are clearly in contradiction. One verse says one number, The other verse says a different one. That is a contradiction by definition. Here are a few more contradictions. Technically, I only need 1 to win this debate, But here are 5 more. I could spend all day doing this, I didn't even make it out of the first book lol1) Genesis 1:3 - God made light before there were stars2) Genesis 1:16 - Refers to the moon being a star3) Genesis 1:26 - Remnants of polytheism in the useage of "us" and "our" when God is alone (or God has multiple personalities)4) Genesis 1:27 - God made man AND woman, But Genesis 2:22 God made Eve from Adams rib on a different day entirely5) The order of when animals, Plants and man were created is totally different in Genesis 1 and 2I look forward to your rebuttals. :)
The KJV Bible has no contradictions

Even it's own subscribers can't agree on interpretations. " My response Personally from my life experiences and conversations I've had with people, They can get two different interpretations from;viewing an event unfold to listening to a speech to reading a piece of scripture because of their perspective and or their level of understanding that could be a reason on why are so many different interpretations on the Bible. You said 1 Kings 4:26 says "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots"" " 2 Chronicles 9:25 says "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots"" My response They had 10 horses per chariot if he had 40, 000 stalls for the horses and the chariots he would need 4, 000 stalls for the chariots and horses. Thank you for taking the time to sending in your first response I look forward to your next.
The KJV Bible has no contradictions

1 Corinthians 14:33 - For God is not the author of confusion, But of peace, As in all churches of the saints. The Bible is the most confusing book on the planet. Even it's own subscribers can't agree on interpretations. ----------Here is a list I found in a simple Google search. I feel like you're just trolling so I don't want to waste much time refuting it. https://baptistdeception. Com/12-contradictions-found-in-the-kjv/#. XGrwxOhKiUk1 Kings 4:26 says “And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots…” – 2 Chronicles 9:25 says “And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots…”
Michael Savage is the biggest dewshbag on the right end of the spectrum

R1-My opponent has conceded that Hitler Was the biggest douche bag however he has challenged my assertion that Hitler was a conservative. My opponent has said that I must prove Hitler a reactionary because "reactionaries are the only right wingers that 'change' anything." This is my opponents error (among others) that I must prove he was a reactionary this creates a fallacy of false dilemma. Bifurcation fallacy is committed when a false dilemma is presented, i.e. when someone is asked to choose between two options when there is at least one other option available. He only presents a single option to me. All my opponent really said was Hitler isn't a right winger because he wanted to move forward, he wanted to create a clean society, he wanted to conquer the world. Although this is incorrect because all republicans want to move forward want to progress, but they want to progress with the same ideas and values ( and beliefs) that they've always been. My opponent said " you could be any part of any politial party and still be a conservative" so it doesn't matter that Hitler was a national socialist while michael savage is a nationalist corporate police statist. C1- Hitler chose many right ideology's for example Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance. Power politics and militarism over pacifism. One-person rule or self-rule over democracy. Capitalism over Marxism. Realism over idealism. Nationalism over internationalism Gun ownership over gun control Religion over secularism. Hitler in short is one of many conservatives like Stalin who killed in the name of "progress" yet never moved forward I extend my arguments made in
Michael Savage is the biggest dewshbag on the right end of the spectrum

My opponent does in fact make a fine case for Adolph Hitler. It's pretty hard to consider anyone really being a bigger douche than that guy. Although for the sake of argument I would like challenge my opponents claim of Hitler's legitimacy of being on the right end of the spectrum. Indeed he was a nationalist, but at the same time he promised the people a better society, and to progress into a time of a New German empire. (That being the the third Reich) Hence the title of being a "Nationalist Socialist". While creating a single-party state, and upholding a favoritism society, his regime also enforced rather "leftist" policies such as progressive taxation. Fascists come from both ends of the spectrum, left and right. Right wing fascists obtain their power through force. Left wing fascists obtain their power through promises, lies and deceit. Adolph Hitler did BOTH of these.. Nationalism is a right wing philosophy. Socialism is a left wing philosophy. Adolph Hitler ran a fascist state incorporating these two philosophies. In conclusion, to fully categorize Hitler of being a right winger isn't a just accusation. Hitler wanted to conquer the world.. To create and establish a "clean society" for the Aryan race... In other words... CHANGE things.. This isn't exactly a conservative ideology.. In order for my opponent to combat my latest statement, he'll have to make the case that Hitler was somehow a reactionary. For reactionaries are the only right wingers that "change" anything. However this proposition is preposterous for there has never been such a global society ruled by the Aryan race. All in all, my opponent's proposition is a debatable one. And can not be qualified, to surpass my previous statement of "Michael Savage is the biggest dewshbag on the right end of the spectrum." For Hitler was a Nationalist Socialist. While Michael Savage is a Nationalist Corporate Police Statist.
Michael Savage is the biggest dewshbag on the right end of the spectrum

I agree with my opponents definition set for "right end of the spectrum" " You could be ANY part of ANY POLITICAL PARTY and still be CONSERVATIVE" Hitler is the biggest douchebag* Many conservatives would argue that Hitler was a leftist because he subjugated the individual to the state. However, this characterization is wrong, for several reasons. The first error is in assuming that this is exclusively a liberal trait. Actually, U.S. conservatives take considerable pride in being patriotic Americans, and they deeply honor those who have sacrificed their lives for their country. The Marine Corps is a classic example: as every Marine knows, all sense of individuality is obliterated in the Marines Corps, and one is subject first, foremost and always to the group. The second error is forgetting that all human beings subscribe to individualism and collectivism. If you believe that you are personally responsible for taking care of yourself, you are an individualist. If you freely belong and contribute to any group -- say, an employing business, church, club, family, nation, or cause -- then you are a collectivist as well. Neither of these traits makes a person inherently "liberal" or "conservative," and to claim that you are an "evil socialist" because you champion a particular group is not a serious argument. Political scientists therefore do not label people "liberal" or "conservative" on the basis of their individualism or collectivism. Much more important is how they approach their individualism and collectivism. What groups does a person belong to? How is power distributed in the group? Does it practice one-person rule, minority rule, majority rule, or self-rule? Liberals believe in majority rule. Hitler practiced one-person. Thus, there is no comparison.
Michael Savage is the biggest dewshbag on the right end of the spectrum

I agree with my opponents definitions except with what he claims to be the right end of the spectrum. Just because you are on the right, that indeed does not make you a republican. You could be any apart of any political party and still be conservative. Matter in fact, Glenn beck has even considered himself to be a "libertarian" haha.. My opponent wishes to argue that Bill O'reilly and Glenn Beck are potential candidates of exceeding Savage's douche baggyness. In rebuttal.. 1. Glenn Beck is purely an entertainer and he plays of that record alone. YES, he is on fox and attempts to be a cheerleader for fox news's brain washing. However, he is a joke and he knows this. And although did he throws smear campaigns day by day on fox, he always will say " You be the judge and look it up yourself". In the end of the day Glenn Beck is really just a conservative Alex Jones...( a nut ) 2. Bill O'reilly is really just an old prick quite honestly. Yes he is up there on the doucheness, but regardless he's a big time news anchor, and he is forced to have manners and keep it cool. Of course he has made some very horrible claims and seriously should be considered as a bigoted hate speaker. THE POINT: Michael Savage is a radio head with no boundaries, and unlike Bill or Glenn, he has been BANNED from an entire nation. He has defined hate speech and has expressed himself to be quite a "fascist-nationalist" political figure. More examples: http://www.youtube.com... - Here Savage calls a caller a worm, and a coward for having a peaceful political difference. http://www.youtube.com... - Despite the horrible title, Michael links black people from slavery to welfare.. http://www.youtube.com... - This just makes me laugh... A Mexican caller gets his revenge, sorta.
Michael Savage is the biggest dewshbag on the right end of the spectrum

Thanks for the debate. Since my opponent did not set the definitions I will do set them for him. 1."dewshbag"=douche bag-Someone who has surpassed the levels of jerk and azshole, however not yet reached fuker or motherfuker. Not to be confuzed with douche. 2. "right end of spectrum"=republican party 3. biggest-In great magnitude; colossal; huge; of great quantity C1-By some of his interesting beliefs are you talking about Michael Savage's or the whole republican party? Because I believe you just defined what Republican means, congratz I've never seen that done before. I agree with you Michael Savage is a "dewshbag" ,however the biggest douche bag? Here are simply a few who surpasses Michael "dewshbag"iness. since you didn't post arguments I won't either just links. 1. Glenn Beck A.) commenting on how Obama's mom didn't want him to go to Indonesia because she didn't want him influenced by someone who is not a Marxist. http://mediamatters.org... B.)NCLR" A nasty, take america and give it back to the Mexicans group" (I must say Glenn didn't you go to school America was never Mexico's to begin with lol) http://mediamatters.org... C.)Beck: "Fox treats you like an adult," rest of the media "treat[s] you like boys and girls" http://mediamatters.org... You can find all of them here- http://mediamatters.org... beck http://mediamatters.org... savage 2. Bill O'reilly a.Believes that Islam and Alqaeda are one in the same. http://mediamatters.org...... b.God is a conservative because liberals apparently have no morals.. http://mediamatters.org...... c.Sees Illegal immigrants as "locusts". http://mediamatters.org...... d.If you don't pay taxes you should loose your right to vote. http://mediamatters.org...... e.Believes Obama is a Marxist.. http://mediamatters.org...... I eagerly await my opponents links
Michael Savage is the biggest dewshbag on the right end of the spectrum

Hate speech- Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group. Michael Savage is a fascist who spreads hate speech with a passion and is worth the title of "Biggest dewshbag on the right end of the spectrum". Here are some of his, interesting beliefs... 1. Believes that Islam and Alqaeda are one in the same. http://mediamatters.org... 2.God is a conservative because liberals apparently have no morals.. http://mediamatters.org... 3. Sees Illegal immigrants as "locusts". http://mediamatters.org... 4. If you don't pay taxes you should loose your right to vote. http://mediamatters.org... 5. Believes Obama is a Marxist.. ( Even though he clearly a tool to wallstreet) http://mediamatters.org... 6. Thinks Dennis Kucinich is a communist and a whore.. http://mediamatters.org... 7. Believes progressives rape American society. http://mediamatters.org... 8. Thinks Jimmy Carter is a " Jew hater and a jihad lover" http://mediamatters.org... 9. Believes The people of both Iraq and Afghanistan (ALL mind you..) celebrate death, and believes we, (the U.S.) should give them what they ask for. http://mediamatters.org... 10. This is a great one.... If you can't see the link between the Manson family to Obama, you must be brain washed. http://mediamatters.org... Granted Media Matters is quite liberal of a source, let the record show that the 10 posted examples have VIDEO evidence of savages claims. On top of that, here is an article from the Washington Times Savage being BANNED from the u.k. :) http://www.washingtontimes.com... I am challenging someone to debunk my claim of Michael Savage being the " Biggest dewshbag on the right end of the spectrum". Good luck.
Biblical Errancy

Resolved: The Bible contains errancy of consequence.TermsThe Bible - The 66 books of the established cannon recognized by the Christian Church.Contains - Contradictions that are WITHIN the text. It is not a viable argument to present the New Testament as contradicting with anything outside of the text, including Science, the Church, Other Religions, Other Documents from the 1st Century, etc.Genuine Errancy - An actual error. Consequence - A error that poses actual threat to the meaning of Christian doctrine. Rules and Debating ProceedureCon will further present any additional rules, comments, or questions. Moreover, he can choose which version of the Bible I will use. In the following round, I will present my argument and my partner will attempt to refute them. Here is the actual structure1. Acceptance / Definitions2. Opening Arguments and Con's response3. Rebuttals4. ClosingA note about Burden of ProofThis debate does not have burden of proof in the way normal debates do. My BoP is to find the errors of consequence and my partner's job is to explain them a way.Limitation of SpaceSince it takes more space to answer an apparent contradiction than it does to claim one, I will limit myself to no more than 5 errors at a time, unless my partner says otherwise.
There is evidence for God

I've proposed as evidence of God's existence, the unrealized effects that non-intelligent agents are directed towards. Such unrealized effects can only exist in a mind, and when considered as a whole, only in a mind outside of the universe with frightening power. In so far as these unrealized effects show there is a supreme intelligence, they are evidence that God exists. You could object to my argument either by contesting the existence of these unrealized effects, or by contesting that they're indicative of God's existence. You don't seem to have taken either route. Instead, you insist in your final remarks that our sensations, images and ideas are stored in our brains, not in some "mind world." And maybe this is the case with embodied minds. But, the aforementioned unrealized effects are not encoded in anyone's brain, at least in their totality. So, given that they exist in some sense - lest non-intelligent agents *fail* to be geared towards producing any particular effects - they must be in someone's mind, as ideas, thoughts, images or some sort of mental item. Therefore, even conceding your highly controversial remark about the nature of mental states, my argument seems unaffected. Thanks again for this exchange WaterTipper, it's a shame it was so short.