BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religion is not needed anymore

Too bad Pro “forfeited,” but Con will press the issue that Religion is needed. What is religion? It is simply a belief in something that transcends you. Throughout recorded history all human cultures possess some form of belief, aka religion. Not one was found to be atheistic. According to Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com...):Religion: “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”As a scientist, I understand the importance of religion. Paraphrasing Dictionary.com on the definition of religion relative to the Laws of Nature, a set of Laws that created humanity. These Laws are the “cause, nature, and the purpose of the universe,” where these Laws are “considered as the creation of a … agencies” (aka the Cosmos), “usually involving devotional and ritual observances,” (aka the scientific method), “and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs;” hence, the genesis of a moral code via life’s Unalienable Rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness;” as these Rights are part of the Laws of Nature. http://www.amazon.com...http://www.amazon.com...In closing, I wish my Friend Pro a long, healthy “Life” with ample freedom (“Liberty”), in the moral “pursuit of Happiness.” Please enjoy your Unalienable Rights, compliments from the scholars of religion and discovery in science, during your life's vacation from nonexistence. We must remember, like all vacations, they are far too short.
McCain is more a more suitable president than Barrack

Pro's thesis is "McCain is more a more suitable president that Barrack." At first gloss, this sentence makes no sense, given that neither of the two either is or has been President of the United States. I will therefore argue against the more likely thesis he is stating: McCain is a more suitable candidate to fill the office of the Presidency. I will begin by negating my opponent's argument. My opponent lists myriad facts. Even though they are without cites, I will accept the facts as true. However, my opponent offers no arguments in regard to those facts. He apparently feels that the facts speak for themselves. He also makes known the stances of the candidates on certain positions. Again, though, there is no explanation in regard to why McCain's stances would be better than Obama's. I would like to take this opportunity to remind my opponent that debate involves logic and reason; a string of facts, without any explanation as to why those facts support your thesis, cannot withstand logical critique. My opponent also assumes that the label "liberal" is necessarily a reflection of a character flaw. Absent that assumption, his statement that Obama is the most liberal in the US Senate (again, accepted as true, but without citations) renders no substance in favor of his argument. Again, though, my opponent has offered no support for his unstated contention that a "liberal" is less suitable for the office of the executive than someone not labeled a "liberal." My opponent's last paragraph addresses the experience of Senator Obama. I will again accept these facts as true. My opponent notes that Obama has only 4 years of political experience, counting 1 speech. However, my opponent makes no argument that political experience is a necessary component to be a suitable executive. Furthermore, he makes no argument in regard to how much political experience would be required to satisfy this standard, either qualitatively or quantitatively. My opponent also states, without argument, that Obama is "unqualified, unreliable, and Obviously against the founding values of the United States Of America." However, he has made no showing of that Obama possesses any of those three characteristics, nor has he stated what exactly those "founding values" are. I have negated my opponent's argument. This essentially means that my opponent has thus offered no argument supporting his thesis. I will reserve my attack on Pro's thesis for Round Two.
The life of an adult has more intrinsic worth than that of a child.

I agree with the definitions. The opponent sets up a rule: The life of an adult has more intrinsic worth than that of a child. Any case in which an adult has less intrinsic worth than a child would invalidate the rule. With this in mind, the burden of proof is solely on the opponent. Here is my general framework for my responses to the arguments put forward:1. In some cases, adults cannot "invest resources" as efficiently as children.2. In some cases, adults are not as "cognitively aware" as children.3. In some cases, adults have fewer social connections than children--and in some cases, they cannot make social connections (by standard definition) at all.My goal will be to break the rule set up by the opponent. That, in itself, would lead to a victory in this debate.Thank you.
The life of an adult has more intrinsic worth than that of a child.

Hello, Today I will be arguing that the life of an adult has more intrinsic worth than that of a child. I am the pro side. The con side will be arguing that a child as more intrinsic worth than that of an adult. First I would like to thank my audience and opponent and request that this debate only be taken by a articulate person that wishes to have a logical debate. Please have a pleasant debate. Secondly; a few rules: 1) All arguments should be logically presented. 2) Any statements should be supported with a source (except for general knowledge statements) 3) Points must be clearly numbered. 4) The lack of refuting a point in the next post will concede an agreement on that point. 5) Ad hominem is considered a foul. Thirdly; debate structure: First Round -Define and set up argument Second Round - Construct first points Third Round- Rebuttals for opponents first points and construct final points. Fourth Round - Rebuttals for opponents final points and conclusions. To begin my argument I would like to make a few definitions: Adult : A person above the age of 18 Child : A person below the age of 18 Intrinsic : "belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing" http://www.merriam-webster.com... Worth: " the value of something measured by its qualities or by the esteem in which it is held" http://www.merriam-webster.com... In this argument the question will boil down to, if it came to a logical choice, who should continue living, an adult or a child. Now to outline my argument: Firstly I will show that the resources invested in an adult to allow them to survive to adulthood gives them intrinsic worth. Then I will show how an adult, how is more cognitively aware adult understands the worth of their own life and because of that understanding have more intrinsic worth. Finally I will discuss how the larger amounts of social connections of an adult makes gives them more worth in a community. I await a response. Good luck and good debating.
Paul (the apostle) did not know Hebrew (well) or was lying to the people he was writing to.

1. It is possible to blunder and to be both honest and skilled. This would be unlikely. How often do you said "sheeps". That makes very little sense in my opinion. Furthermore, as per Paul own words in 1 Tim 3:16 "All scriptures are inspired". Thus, if the new testament has a blunders, then we should throw the New Testament in the trash. This is exactly what I want to prove when I say that Paul did not know Hebrew or wanted to lie. 2. It seems that the Hebrew word "zera" (translated "seed") can be singular in use. I agree. The word Zera is either "seed" "seeds" "one descendant" of "descendants". For you to understand what Paul was saying let's replace "seed" by "sheep" When Paul said "and to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his sheep; He doth not say, 'And to sheeps,' as of many, but as of one, 'And to thy sheep,' which is Christ; You see how little sense it makes to do such a mistake. No native Hebrew Speaker would have said that. And to add to this, Paul used the Septuagint, an non-authoritative bible translation. What for? Most likely because Hebrew was not his language and he could not speak it well.
Paul (the apostle) did not know Hebrew (well) or was lying to the people he was writing to.

Rebuttals:1. It is possible to blunder and to be both honest and skilled.We see blunders in every field of work. Perhaps this is how we got our saying, “everyone makes mistakes.”Magnus Carlsen and Viswanathan Anand are considered two of the world’s greatest chess players. Consider this report by Joe Doliner:“Magnus Carlsen was 26 moves into game six of his title defense against Viswanathan Anand when he experienced the worst feeling in chess. The feeling that comes with the realization that you’ve left one of your pieces out to dry and there’s nothing left to do, but pray. Blunders like this are all too common when I play chess, but they’re incredibly rare at this level. Anand and Carlsen are some of the greatest to play the game, they (almost) never do things like this. What followed was even more incredible. Despite his blunder, Carlsen went on to win game six (and the series) thanks to Anand responding immediately with a blunder of his own. After the game Carlsen described it as ‘a comical exchange of blunders.’”[7]How then, can Carlsen be praised as one of the world’s greatest chess players? The answer is simple: because everyone makes blunders.Even at their peak, humans occasionally fail. Experienced math teachers sometimes reach incorrect conclusions.[8] There is a rather large list of great pianists messing up difficult passages.[9]So even if we know that Paul did blunder in his translations, we still do not know whether he was lying or whether he knew Hebrew well. Thus, my opponent’s entire argument is based on a false dichotomy, which is logically fallacious.[10]2. It seems that the Hebrew word ‘zera’ (translated ‘seed’) can be singular in use.Now I admit that I am certainly no student of the Hebrew language, and am not qualified to talk about this subject on my own authority. However, it seems to me that the Hebrew word for ‘seed’ can be singular. Genesis 4:25 seems to be a passage where ‘offspring’ is used to refer to one person.[11]Sam Shamoun claims that the Hebrew word for ‘seed’ is singular. He says, “This [the Hebrew word for seed] could either be a true singular where only one person is in view, or it can be viewed as a collective singular referring either to a specific line of the descendants of a person, or to all of a person’s sons and their descendants after them.”[12]In this context, I believe it is inappropriate to say that Paul blundered when he referenced Genesis 22.Sources:[7] http://en.chessbase.com...[8] http://www.educationworld.com...[9] [10] http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...[11] http://biblehub.com...[12] http://www.answering-islam.org...
Paul (the apostle) did not know Hebrew (well) or was lying to the people he was writing to.

First, i would like to say that all quotes from the Hebrew Bible that Paul uses were from the Septuagint. In and out of itself it does not prove anything, because Paul could have used that translation to make his life easier. Nevertheless, I would like to point one Bible verse. Galatian 3:16: and to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed; He doth not say, 'And to seeds,' as of many, but as of one, 'And to thy seed,' which is Christ; Here, Paul explains that Jesus was that specific blessing of Abraham, and not the Jewish people. This is because the Bible said "Seed" and not "seeds". The only problem, the hebrew word word "seed", "seeds" "descendant" or "descendants" are all plural. In other words, David flock only had one sheep, because if not, you English translation would have said sheeps! I only can see two reason why Paul would have said that: 1) he did not know Hebrew 2) He knew the Galatian Church was made of Gentiles who did not know Hebrew. My opponent will find many excuses for Paul's lack of knowledge of Hebrew. He will say that he wanted to make a Midrash, but those are all lame excuses to excuses his blunder. "And as for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you and with your descendantsfn after you, "blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies. Genesis 22:17 . https://www.blueletterbible.org... thank you
Paul (the apostle) did not know Hebrew (well) or was lying to the people he was writing to.

Round 1 - Opening Arguments Only (No rebuttals) Round 2 - Rebuttals Only Round 3 - Counter-Rebuttals Round 4 - Counter-Rebuttals Round 5 - Closing Arguments and Closing Statements The Hebrew Bible, as per this debate is the only inspired word of G-d. Definition: Lying: saying something false in purpose the people he was writing to: The people who received the epistle. Serious debates only.
Paul (the apostle) did not know Hebrew (well) or was lying to the people he was writing to.

My goal in this debate was to show that even if Paul did make a mistake, we do not have suffient grounds to believe that he did not know Hebrew or that he was a liar. Perhaps my opponent's arguments would carry more weight if the resolution was "Paul made a mistake in Galatians 3:16. " In closing, I would like to quote Paul on a passage I hope we can both agree with (as theists). Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! "For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has become His counselor? " "Or who has first given to Him And it shall be repaid to him? " For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen. [19] [19]. https://www.biblegateway.com...
Paul (the apostle) did not know Hebrew (well) or was lying to the people he was writing to.

Thanks to my opponent, this debate was really useful. In my opinion, it is more likely that Paul did not know Hebrew or that he was lying, but my opponent confer a potential blunder as explanation. If the New Testament is not inspired (which I believe), it could be possible, but unlikely to have make a blunder. Thus my opponent, found a third possible explanation which I did not think about. The burden of the proof was on me, thus you may vote for my opponent. Thank you
Paul (the apostle) did not know Hebrew (well) or was lying to the people he was writing to.

Now before we close our debate, I would like to summarize what has transpired up until now. Please inform me if I mischaracterized your arguments in any way.I opened with two arguments:1. Paul might have spoken a message in Hebrew.2. Paul remained steadfast to his message.My conclusion of these two arguments is that it is reasonable to believe that 1. Paul knew Hebrew (well) and 2. Paul was not lying on purpose to his readers. These two contentions have not been addressed. My opponent opened his side by arguing that:1. Paul made a mistake in Galatians 3:16.My opponent concluded that for someone to make a mistake of this magnitude, they would either have to be ignorant or lying.I objected to my opponent’s claim by saying that his argument was a false dilemma. I claimed that it was possible to blunder and to be both honest and professional in one’s field.My opponent responded to this objection by saying that it was not likely one would blunder in their field.However, I responded by saying that I already showed examples of professionals blundering. So it is likely.But now my opponent responds, “Furthermore, it is reasonable to say that no English speaker will say ‘sheeps’ except little child.”How do we know this? Again, I say, this is a bare assertion. These seemingly simple grammar rules can actually confuse people of all ages.[15]But perhaps more telling is that over the course of the debate, both sides have unintentionally broken simple grammar rules! I hope this shows my opponent that mistakes aren’t uncommon.Additionally, my opponent seems to have made a mistake similar to the mistake he claims Paul made; he originally claimed that ‘zera’ is plural and not singular. My opponent claims to be 35 years old.[16] But I don’t believe that my opponent doesn’t know English, or that he is insincere. Can we show Paul some mercy?My opponent brought up 2nd Timothy 3:16. However, many critical scholars do not think that Paul actually wrote 2nd Timothy.[17] And it is quite possible that if Paul wrote 2nd Timothy 3:16, he was referring only to the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament).[18] I do not know whether Paul thought his own letters were divinely inspired.Finally, my opponent says that the word ‘seed’ appears more often in the Hebrew Bible than the word ‘sheep’. But it does not follow that because a word occurs more frequently, we would be more inclined to spell it correctly. Simple words are usually written with little thought, so it’s very easy to make simple mistakes. For instance, incorrect forms of ‘your’ and ‘to’ are used everywhere online.I hope this debate has been helpful to our readers and voters. I thank my opponent for his participation in this debate, and I hope we both grow in deeper understanding of spiritual things.[15] http://askville.amazon.com...[16] http://www.debate.org...[17] https://en.wikipedia.org...[18] http://web.ccbce.com...
Paul (the apostle) did not know Hebrew (well) or was lying to the people he was writing to.

"to deduce that a professional in a field would likely never make a blunder." As per Paul "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" 2 Timothy 3:16. Thus if the new testament is inspired, there is no blunder possible. Furthermore, it is reasonable to say that no English speaker will say "sheeps" except little child. the word sheep happens 274 times in the Hebrew Bible and the word "seed" happens 582 times. This is a really common word and should not cause any problem for someone that speak Hebrew. Only someone whose has a really poor Hebrew will not be able to know that. "The only problem, the hebrew word word "seed", "seeds" "descendant" or "descendants" are all plural." I meant singular. Zera is singular and invariable (Just like Sheep). Sorry for the blunder, I am not claiming G-d breathed inspiration of my words for this debate :)
Paul (the apostle) did not know Hebrew (well) or was lying to the people he was writing to.

This would be unlikely. How often do you said "sheeps". I do not understand what sources my opponent is using to deduce that a professional in a field would likely never make a blunder. Until my opponent provides sources (or uses sound logic), we are forced to conclude that this argument is a bare assertion.[13] However, I have argued that it is in fact likely for professionals to make mistakes. So for my opponent to correctly shoot down my argument, my opponent needs to interact with my arguments. Additionally, remember that Paul lived in a different time period. He did not have the internet to double-check his spelling, grammar, or Hebrew. Mistakes he would make might be considered ‘blunders’ by today’s standards, but this is not a good historical evaluation of the text. Finally, individuals often make grammatical mistakes throughout their life. Just look at any website on the internet! Thus, if the new testament has a blunders, then we should throw the New Testament in the trash. This is exactly what I want to prove when I say that Paul did not know Hebrew or wanted to lie. It does not follow that if something has blunders, we should throw something in the trash. For instance, we read that Aristotle thought that the Earth was stationary.[14] Should we through all of Aristotle’s books into the trash? Furthermore, even if we should throw the New Testament into the trash, this does not affirm the resolution. I hope my opponent realizes how logically fallacious this argument is. To illustrate my point, let me provide you with a thought experiment: Suppose you are in a room with ten people. Five people tell the truth all the time. Five people lie all the time. One liar says, “We all tell the truth.” Well, would you dismiss the testimony of the five people who tell the truth? Of course not! So even if Paul messed up in one place, it does not follow that the rest of the New Testament should be thrown in the garbage. I agree. The word Zera is either "seed" "seeds" "one descendant" of "descendants". My opponent agreed with my second rebuttal. Additionally, my opponent also said: “The only problem, the hebrew word word ‘seed’, ‘seeds’ ‘descendant’ or ‘descendants’ are all plural.” This means that my opponent openly contradicted himself. My opponent has made a blunder, even though he is a skilled debater. :D And to add to this, Paul used the Septuagint, an non-authoritative bible translation. What for? Most likely because Hebrew was not his language and he could not speak it well. This speculation is unwarranted unless it is backed with sources. Thus my opponent’s argument here has turned into another bare assertion. My opening statements have not been addressed and are to be extended. [13] http://www.toolkitforthinking.com... [14] http://encyclopediaoftrivia.blogspot.com...
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

i apologize for the late reply i know many people who own guns and i don't think that they should be completely taken away i however don't thinkn that everybody and their brother should be able to own one clearly guns are dangerous to everyone if nobody had guns wouldn't it be a lot easier to escape a robbery and the school shootings would never happen think about this if someone becomes suicidal and they find a gun in their home it could make them act on impulse and without thinking somebody's child is dead if nobody was allowed to have guns would people be hunting endangered animals? i'm not saying guns would take away all of our problems but one of the biggest ones we have are with guns
One Day, they'll, Know how Stuff Exists withOut being Created!

I actually found it humorous he could understand me. Maybe bad grammar is his primary language?Anyway, I'm trying to take him seriously but I just can't. His arguments are absolute rubbish. First off, don't let links argue for you. Have some creativity! If you're going to just use whatever arguement a link has, then at least don't be lazy and c/p it. Seriously, debating 101 mistake. Until he posts an arguement from outside of that link instead of just waving the link around and saying "I WIN I WIN I WIN", I ask that the source be discounted and discredited.Furthermore, my opponent then tries to explain that God created himself. For one, this doesn't line up with any sort of religious text (the general reasoning is that God is 'timeless' or that He has always existed absent of some sort of higher power to create him). And for two, the logic makes, literally, no sense. Something that does not exist cannot create itself, for it doesn't exist to create anything. So therefore, his arguement is bankrupt in logic and doesn't make any sense. Thusly, I ask the voters to discard his argument. Since that was his ONLY argument, he still has yet to prove that God had a creator.Also, since I can still add new arguments, I'd like to point out a small little detail that I think should be known. God is generally known to be all-powerful and the supreme being. However, for my opponent to win, he would have to prove that something created God. This would be a problem, since this would make God not all-powerful and the supreme being, since something more powerful would have to create God. This in itself would disprove the existance of God, which means that something couldn't have created it. Therefore, even if he proves that God had a creator, you auto negate because if he does, then God couldn't exist, and thus couldn't have been created.With those above two reasons to negate, I still urge the vote to go my way.