BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion is injustice and morally wrong,

For reasons such as forfeiting in previous debates, I hope desperately that my contender will step up and present arguments! I thank you ahead of time if you do. Why I want to debate BDPershing is because of the issues he brings up here: http://www.debate.org... My contentions are simple: that abortion is a form of murder and is morally, spiritually,and physically wrong. I hope that the designated opponent will accept this instigation and debate to his full capacity of arguing!! :D I can be a fierce debater but I also have a soft heart for those who oppose me. This should be interesting. Round 1 acceptance, meaning do not post arguments in round 1. No rules for conclusions and whatnot. I would like to add one thing and that is that there is no limit to sources, whether bias or un-bias, as long as the content of the sources isn't irrelevant or completely false. If either debater gets off topic or troll-debates in any way, he automatically loses. LET THE DEBATING BEGIN!
Why we believe in god(s) Agree/Disagree with arguments presented

There is no evidence to show that Gods exists outside culture. For example in Greek culture, it was okay for grown men to maintain relations with teenagers and to justify this cultural tradition, on many occasions, male Gods such as Apollo fall in love with young humans. Women were viewed as inferior and you have the myth of Pandora that basically blames the first female for unleashing upon the world, all the evils imaginable. In the case of judeo-christian beliefs, since the Jews were enslaved, and often humiliated by other civilisations, they pictured a God that would make them powerful through warriors and kings like David and Sanson and who would free them from slavery, therefore proving that the personalities of Gods are directly linked with culture. There is no evidence in nature of a higher being. Alien life forms have no yet been found and there is nothing to indicate that God is out there, nothing besides cultural tradition and human faith.
The Bible is the inerrant Word of God

Thank you for your thoughtful response, leonard. My rebuttal will be fairly brief since I am far more interested in your response to questions #2 and #3 from Round 2. The introductory material you responded to is primarily incidental in my mind, as I think the problems in #2 and #3 (particularly #3) render the issues in #1 relatively moot. With that said, I would like to briefly rebut your Round 2 assertions. I agree that transcription errors do not necessarily call into question the general truthfulness of the Bible, but I do believe they rule out “inerrancy” as defined [4]. Here is the reason why. As you pointed out, every text has some small error or another but when averaged out, a “most” average version can be determined. A version that aligns most closely with the average. Unfortunately, since we do not have any original autographs, we cannot compare our averages with the authentic. So what we have is the most common, which is not necessarily the same as the original. In the end, I think this difference is not a big deal, and like I said in the last round, this is not where I want to put my stake in the ground. In supporting the idea of Biblical inerrancy, I should point out that you quoted from two texts that are considered likely to have been pseudonymously authored, making their assertions more questionable. The belief that 2 Peter is pseudonymously authored “is nearly universal” [1] according to Bible.org and Wiki [3]. “Most” modern scholars also believe that 2 Timothy was written by an pseudonymous author [2]. Bart Ehrmann provides some of the reasoning behind why scholars doubt Paul’s authorship of Timothy: “The book of 2 Timothy is different in many ways... That this author was not Paul is clear to some scholars on the basis of the letters’ vocabulary and writing style. There are 848 different Greek words used in these letters, of which 306 do not occur anywhere else in the letters allegedly written by Paul in the New Testament (even including 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, and Colossians). This means that over a third of the words are not Pauline. Something like two thirds of these non-Pauline words are words used by Christian writers of the second century. That is to say, the vocabulary of these letters appears to be more developed, more characteristic of Christianity as it developed in later times.” Ultimately, I don’t expect any of that to matter though. I am very interested in seeing how you address #3. Please spend your characters addressing that rather than this. We can come back to this later if need be. Thanks for your time, leonard, and I look forward to what I am sure will be a thoughtful and intelligent response. [1]: https://bible.org... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org... [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org... [4]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
The Bible is the inerrant Word of God

Accepted (with slight modifications requested): - Format is acceptable - "Bible" definition is acceptable (see modifications below) - "Inerrant" definition is acceptable - Pro's burden is acceptable Requested Modifications: - We will use the New American Standard Bible (NASB) for primary references - Other versions/translations may be used for clarification Thanks to my opponent for this opportunity and for his patience... My motivation and intentions follow: 1 Peter 3:15 (NASB) ...but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;
The Bible is the inerrant Word of God

At issue will be whether the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.Five rounds. 1st round is acceptance, 2nd round is opening arguments (no rebuttal), third and fourth rounds will be rebuttals and cross-examination, fifth round is closing arguments.The Bible is defined as the 66 books that make up the standard current canon. We will use the English Standard Version, though I am open to an alternate version if preferred by my opponent."inerrant" is defined by Merriam-Webster as "free from error." For our purposes, that means that there are no factual errors or irreconcilable conflicts within the Bible.For our purposes, you needn't prove affirmatively that God was the author. You need only make a compelling case that the Bible is without error or irreconcilable conflict.I thank my opponent in advance for taking this debate. I am hopeful that it will be an interesting and enjoyable experience for both of us, as well as the audience.
Esophageal

. http://en.wikipedia.org... "Esophageal cancer is malignancy of the esophagus. " Well, this is obvious. It should be called esophageal because it affects the esophagus. Calling it throat cancer would be to specific, as esophageal cancer can occur in the throat, but it can also occur anywhere else along the esophagus. Seeing as the esophagus is the only reference point available for this cancer, the name "esophageal" makes perfect sense. Most patients know what the esophagus is, so they would be able to recognize that the esophageal cancer is in the esophagus. That was the conclusion that I came to when I saw the word "esophageal. " In conclusion, it really should be known as esophageal cancer, because it is in the esophagus.
There is a God, He does exist!

God is all around us in all we do. He is in little things, but most important thing is he is in humans. How else would we all get here? If there is no God then why do we exist? What is our purpose with out God? In my op on in humans were made to worship God. I believe that He made humans, so that we could love Him by choice rather than by force. That is why we are here, and that is our propose.
There is a God, He does exist!

"Why are humans the only ones at this level, if evloution is right wouldn't there be more types of species evolved beyond instict?" Not necessarily. Primates may have simply adapted faster, but again, being the first to develop a neocortex does not mean humans have a divine guardian looking out for them. This is not conclusive evidence SUPPORTING the existence of God. "If the position earth was not in the proper place, the earth wouldn't be the same. Scientific evidence shows that earth is in just the right place, and has just the right axis. If that wasn't true then we would not be here. How can you say that is just by some luck that the earth is perfect for all life?" There are other planets in the galaxy and universe with atmospheres and climates like ours. It stands to reason that, given the size and diverse makeup of the universe, there would be planets suited to support human life. Again, winning the astronomical lottery is not proof supporting a theist view. "Can you prove that there is no design that the universe follows?" The burden is not on me to to disprove the existence of God, as one cannot prove something does NOT exist. For example, you cannot prove conclusively that there is not a second, invisible moon orbiting Earth. However, you can say that since there is NO evidence to support the existence of a second moon, it is reasonable to assume that it does not exist. Likewise, in the utter absence of proof suggesting the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful, completely undetectable being (who decides to spend all of his time interviewing in every human being's life,) it is not a huge logical leap to suggest that such a being does not exist.
There is a God, He does exist!

Ok, I have to admit you do have a good arguement, but the proof that you are looking for is right in fornt of you. How do you think humans got so smart, and are allover the earth of some God didn't want us like this? Why do humans seem to be in charge? Why are humans the only ones at this level, if evloution is right wouldn't there be more types of species evolved beyond instict? If the position earth was not in the proper place, the earth wouldn't be the same. Scientific evidence shows that earth is in just the right place, and has just the right axis. If that wasn't true then we would not be here. How can you say that is just by some luck that the earth is perfect for all life? Even the air quality on earth is just right to sustain life. Do you know that this was a big strike of luck? Can you prove that there is no design that the universe follows?
There is a God, He does exist!

You can believe whatever you choose. However, since this is a debate, you must provide some proof as to why your view of God is correct. My view is this: There is no testable, empirical evidence to suggest the presence of an omnipotent, benevolent deity. To suggest that there is an all-powerful God who created all human life would require a good deal of evidence to back up. More to the point, how can one be certain of his intentions, as you have stated? Two notes: Anecdotal evidence is neither empirical nor testable. Religious texts fall under this heading. "Faith" may be a relevant part of your beliefs, but saying that God intentionally evades testable evidence of his existence in order to preserve "faith" is the same as saying you do not have any testable evidence, which you need to prove a conclusive point.
Christians Being attacked

God does not hate anybody. He will, however, punish those who are gay. People are not born gay. It isn't natural. Do you see homosexual dogs? Cats? No. Homosexuality is sick and wrong and therefore should be abolished. _________________________________ You also go on to say that God is a psychopath who does not thik about the effect. God is all-powerful and knows everything. He knows full well what ill happen. You also say there is no scientific proof of God. Science cannot xplain the supernatural. __________________________________ I do hope you can avert to Christianity, my friend. God know you and he loves you.
Christians Being attacked

I would like to extend my thanks to Ruac for his response. It seems I have given the impression that I am opposed to Christianity, which I am not. In my experience, Christians are usually gentle, benign people that are kind to animals and give generously to charity. However, Christian extremists that misinterpret the scriptures to suit their own bigoted prejudices do concern me - the type of Christians that go around with placards reading: "God Hates F@gs"; "The Jews Killed Jesus" and "Obama is the Anti-Christ" http://www.godhatesfags.com... Also, those Christians that interpret the Bible in such a way as to believe it is their religious duty to refuse their children medical treatment trouble me. In addition, I feel that those Christians who interpret the Bible literally and actually believe that the Noah's Ark story, for example, represents an accurate historical account of a global flood, are seriously misguided. http://www.arksearch.com... Apart from the total lack of geological evidence supporting such an event, if God did really did flood the planet to the depth of thirty cubits (13.716m) in order to destroy "both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air" because "all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth", he clearly didn't think his plan through. So God murdered all the humans and exterminated all the puppies and kittens and cute little bunny rabbits and all the parrots and budgies and all the other air-breathing animals but he let the sharks and crocodiles off scot-free, did he? Now surely those thrashing, bloodthirsty sharks are at least as sinful as the cute little bunny rabbits that go around blamelessly nibbling on grass and leaves? Yet, as the result of this supposed flood the sharks would have not only have escaped the fate of the land-based animals but would have feasted on their drowned carcasses. So this mythical flood not only belies the Christian assertion of God being "benevolent" it proves (if you believe the story) that God is a psychopath unable to rationalise cause and effect. So, in conclusion, whilst I think it is fine for parents to bring their kids up as Christians and teach them to love their neighbours and not to bear false witness against them and not to covet their wives, slaves, oxen or donkeys, it must surely be wrong to deny them the benefit of scientific knowledge by teaching them that because science contradicts the Bible it should be disregarded? Thank you.
Christians Being attacked

First of all, I would like to thank my opponent for responding ______________________________________________________ Now, you said that Christian parents who teach their children that God created the world should be criticized, and not listen to scientists who tell them otherwise. This is very confusing. You say that Christian parents who pass on their belief of how the world was created, and to not listen otherwise should be criticized, yet you go on about that they should listen to some Atheist scientist instead of their flesh-in-blood-parents. _______________________________________________________ You also say that the way kids are brought up by their parents will affect them for the rest of their lives. So, tell me, will being a Christian make you racist? A killer? A cultist? No. It will make you a normal functioning person like anyone else, Christian o non-Christian.
Christians Being attacked

Thank you for your compliment, ruac, and I would like to reciprocate by stating that I admire your willingness to express your views with such honesty and conviction. Here's a true story: I remember one time in the pub an old German chap I know, who is always complaining about how many black people there are round these days, telling me with a certain degree of alcohol-fuelled, misty-eyed nostalgia about his days growing up as the son of a prominent Nazi and how being a member of the Hitler Youth movement had made him a successful man by teaching him the importance of self-discipline and the value of hard work. I didn't mention it, obviously, but it occurred to me then that his father and the Nazi Party also taught him to become a racist. The point of this tale is to illustrate that while parents have the right to bring their kids up the way they think is best, what they teach their kids will affect the rest of their lives. Thus, while Nazi parents who teach their kids the importance of discipline and self-reliance should be applauded, they should be criticised if they then go on to tell their children that they are a member of a master race and that all other people are inferior to them. Similarly, Christian parents who teach their children that (although God repeatedly committed murder on a wholesale basis) it is actually wrong to go around killing other people should be applauded, they should be criticised if they then go on to tell them their children that the world was created a few thousand years ago and that they shouldn't listen to scientists who tell them otherwise. So, while I applaud my opponent's willingness to tolerate Muslim families' beliefs (even though he "HATES" them) I would suggest that he should, in fact, challenge the right of Islamic extremists to indoctrinate their children into believing that it is their religious duty to join the Jihad by killing ‘infidels' in America and elsewhere. Thank you.
Christians Being attacked

I would like to say first it is an honor to debate with you. _________________________________________________ Now, Christians deserving to be attacked because they pass their beliefs onto their children?!?! Now, listen buddy, every single religion on the planet has a right to pass on their beliefs to their children! I absolutely HATE the Muslim teachings, but I do not question their right to pass on their own beliefs! I do not question YOUR right to teach your children that God is not real. I may not like it, but I accept it, and you should accept Christians' right to pass on their belief. See my point? It is not misleading the children if they think it is real. The children, when their older, can choose to not believe what their parents told them.
Christians Being attacked

I saw some of your debates, and I must say that I am quite offended. Especially the article "Children's welfare should take legal priority over their parents' freedom of religion" You go on and on about how Christians are in power and that they are the main religion of the USA. This is bunch of propaganda against Christians everywhere. Every day, Christians are ridiculously accused of being 'evil' and 'cultists by people like you. Why, in Detroit, where some of my cousins live, there is a bunch of Muslims there. I do not question their right a an American citizen to live where they want, but very early in the morning, they praise their 'Allah', yelling and whooping at the top of their lungs. And my cousins don't get Christmas break there, oh no, they get some sort of Muslim holiday break. Why not have it be Christmas anymore? I'll tell you why, there are Muslim principals changing the name, or principals being threatened by Muslims. That is just one of many examples of Christian prejudice. Yours truly, Ruac
Christians Being attacked

My opponent is not alone in his assertion that "homosexuality is sick and wrong and therefore should be abolished." Following fierce lobbying from American evangelical Christian groups (1) Uganda has just introduced new anti-homosexuality legislation that stipulates that individuals convicted of having gay sex are sentenced, at minimum, to life in prison and may even be executed. (2) At first glance, such a law might seem attractive – just think of all the homosexual people society would no longer have to tolerate: Elton John; George Michael; Sean Hayes out of Will & Grace – the list goes on and on! However, anti-homosexual laws also forbid the "promotion of homosexuality" which in effect bans organizations working in HIV and AIDS prevention and that is not a good thing as AIDS also affects women, children and straight men. Also, the law states that anyone who knows of homosexual activity taking place but does not report it would risk up to three years in prison. This means, for example, that Debate.Org members would have to grass known homosexual members of this site up to the police or face jail. Furthermore, anti-homosexual laws apply to lesbians as well as gay men and a ban could cause serious damage to the porn industry. Finally, I'm not sure that converting to Christianity would be wise as I very much doubt God loves people that call him a psychopathic half-wit like I did! Thanks for a very enjoyable argument, Rag, I hope I will have the opportunity to debate you again. (1) http://www.nytimes.com... (2) http://www.cnn.com...
Greed is the cause of every problem in America today.

"I would say that an American problem would be defined as being a problem that every American can define as being a problem." Even though that is not a correct definition, I will use your own logic to refute your points. Immigration. Immigration does not affect every American. It does not affect states that are not in the continental US (i.e. Alaska, Hawaii). Those states do not have immigration problems are not affected since, there is no one to immigrate to those places. Yes, they "put stress on the infrastructure," but if you asked any Hawaiian or Alaskan whether immigration is a problem to them, they will say no. In fact, there are several states in the continental US that have people that would probably say it isn't a problem. By your definition, all it takes is one person to think its not a problem to make it not one. Exxon. Amish people don't use gas powered vehicles. Therefore, they are not affected by high gas prices. They are Americans, and since it is not a problem for them, oil is not a problem (by your definition). Health care. High health care costs aren't a problem for the super wealthy, since it doesn't matter how high medicine is; no matter what, they can afford it. Nuclear weapons. Most Americans would probably say that nuclear war doesn't affect them and isn't a problem. Yes, the potential for nuclear warfare is a problem, but that hasn't happened yet. So, this isn't a valid point. Your definition states that a problem is only a problem if it is a problem for "every American." I took all of your points and outlined how they aren't problems, by your definition. All it takes is one of my examples to work, and I win the debate.