BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible Is Not God's Word

Even though my opponent did not indicate that round 5 was not for further argumentation, I will refrain from any further rebuttals. I would, however, like to give a brief overview of the debate. My opponent began his argument with a type syllogism. In this syllogism he indicated that because the Bible is supposed to be God's Word, that any contradiction within the biblical text caused God to be a liar. Since the God of the Bible cannot lie, any contradiction present in the Bible invalidated that the Bible was indeed God's word. He then proceeded to discuss several apparent contradictions within the text. The first presented contradiction was that of the discrepancies between the two accounts. In round 2 and 3 I refuted Kohai and in round 4 the contention was dropped. Next, Kohai presented an apparent contradiction between Paul calling jesus a descendent of David according to the flesh, and focused in on the word "seed" (Gk: Spermatos). I refuted this by pointing out that the word spermatos could refer to his descent from Mary. In round 3 Kohai committed the fallacy of reverse etymology, to which Kohai responded that Rabbi Meir Schuster points out that tribal lineage happens on the father's side. I showed that this is not a contradiction within the text, and therefore had no bearing on the debate. In round 3, Kohai introduced a contradiction between the Biblical maixim that God does not tempt people, while in Genesis it states that he tempted Abraham. I resolved this by explaining the linguistic nuances inherant in the Greek and Hebrew words for "tempt" which include test and try. He responded by stating that God committed sin in the human sacrifice of Jesus, which I explained need not be thought of as a propitiatory sacrifice. Finally, in round 3 he introduced the discrepancy between what happened in Acts 9 and what Paul recounts in Acts 22. I explained that while Acts 9 records what actually happened, Acts 22 only records what Paul said happened. I also noted that the fact that the two are not the same actually lends credibility to the historicity of Acts. I would like to close this argument and summary by quoting my opponent's round 5 argument. Kohai writes "I ask that you do not vote based upon your bias, but on how well we debated. I do believe that [Con] has won, though this is not a concession.
The Bible Is Not God's Word

Gracias, ReformedArsenal, for your rebuttals.Was Jesus Born of a Virgin?My opponent accused me of a "Fallacy of Reverse Etymology." In addition, my opponent neglected to respond to the fact that if Jesus is Messiah, he needs to have an earthly biological father. Rabbi Meir Schuster points out: "According to jewish law, tribal identification comes from the father's side, while the "Jewish soul" comes from the motehrs side. If, as Matthew 1 claims, Joseph was a descended of David but did not have a sexual relationship with Mary. Hence, Jesus was not related to Joseph and not a descended of David." [1] Does God Tempt People?My opponent claims that James is referring to the understanding of being "enticed to sin," while the author of Genesis is using the connotation of "test." The problem is the fact that human sacrifice IS a sin! Deuteronomy 12:30-31 points out that God abhors it! In fact, Jeremiah 19:4-6 tells us thaat God hates it so much that the concept did not even cross his mind, "They have build also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind." This obviously begs the question how God could test Abraham into doing something that did not come into G-d's mind. it also begs the question "Who died on the cross?" If it was Jesus the man, then God commited sin by human sacrifice; however, if it is the God, then it contradicts G-d's immutability.[2] Are we to believe that G-d changed his mind when it came to his son, or when it came to Abraham?Did Paul's Men Hear a Voice?Simply put, my opponent understands there is a contradiction. How, then can we trust the book of Acts? How, then can we say, "All scripture is given by the inspiration of God?" What then, is scripture?Thanks! Reference [1] http://ohr.edu...[2] http://www.whatjewsbelieve.org...
The Bible Is Not God's Word

However, I am disappointed that Kohai is simply putting forward the same, overused "contradictions" that are commonly used, and commonly defeated. I was hoping for something novel and fresh, however I shall respond to these "contradictions" presently. How did Judas die? This is a common historical challenge to the veracity of the historical narratives found in Matthew and in Luke/Acts. However, there are several easy ways to harmonize these issues. The Traditional AnswerThe first is the traditional historical harmonization. That is that Judas went to a field, hung himself from a rope tied to a tree. Since he died the day prior to the sabbath (and to the passover) he likely hung from the tree for several days. The rope then broke, his body fell to the ground landing in a headlong position (horizontal) and burst open due to partial decomposition. The Idiomatic AnswerThe verb "apanchomai" is translated in Matthew as "hanged himself. " However, in some Greek texts this word is used similar to our idiomatic "he got choked up" and refers to a physical expression of grief. It is possible that matthew is using this verb in this way and is not refering to the means of Judas' death, but rather is refering to the fact that he was so stricken with greif that he expressed it physically (Just like we might say "when he realized what he had done, he got all choked up with grief. ")The Textual Corruption AnswerThe verb phrase in Acts that is translated as "became headlong" is prenes genomenos while the verb phrase for "became swollen" is presthes genomenos. As you can see, the words are very similar and it is entierly possible that a scribe somewhere accidentally wrote a Greek "nu" in place of a Greek "sigma-theta. " This simply copyist error would account for the historical difference. Regardless of which of these answers is true, the fact is that there are explanations that resolve this conflict in such a way that both accounts can be accurate and true. This argument was largely based on work found at . http://www.tektonics.org...In regard to point three, the phrase "the twelve" is used in Paul as a technical term to describe the original twelve disciples, regardless of how many were physically present. We see that this is the case as Thomas was aparently absent for some of these instances but the number is still called "the twelve. "Was Jesus Born of a Virgin? To be brutally honest, this conflict is insulting to the intelligence of our readers. Anyone who wishes to debunk this conflict need only read a modern translation of the Bible. The phrase "made of the seed of David according to the flesh" uses the word γενομένου or genomenou. The most common use of this verb, according to Thayer's Lexicon, is "to become. " . http://www.blueletterbible.org..., idiomatically the phrase γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ (genomenou ek spermatos Dauid) means "descended from David" as we can see in a majority of modern translations (. http://bible.cc...)Since Mary was descendant of David, Jesus did indeed come from the descendants (or seed) of David. This is no contradiction. Thank you for reading.
The Bible Is Not God's Word

In this debate, I will argue that the Bible has contradictions and cannot be God's word. I will sum up my arguments as followed: The Bible is supposed to be God's word. The God of the bible cannot lie. If the Bible were to have any contradictions, it cannot be God's word. A contradiction is logical incompatibility between two or more propositions. [1]Becau Because the Bible is supposed to have been inspired by a God that cannot lie, it cannot have any contradictions. The Bible has contradictions. Therefore, it is NOT God's word. DiscussionThe bible says that, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God," in 2 Timothy 2:15. Therefore, we can conclude that the Bible is supposed to be God's word. The Bible states numerous times that God cannot lie. Take, for example, Numbers 23:19, "God is not a man that he should lie. .. " Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that everything in God's word is true and authoritative. Remember my definition of a contradiction, "A logical incompatibility between two or more propositions. " Therefore, God would have had to lie in order for there to be Biblical contradictions. Since God cannot lie, we can assume that there is no contradictions. The problem, of course, lies in the fact that there ARE contradictions. Let's take a look. (I will limit myself to 5 arguments). How did Judas die?1. Matthew 27:23-5, "When Judas, his Betrayer, saw that he was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priest and the elders, saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood. " They said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself. " And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and went and hanged himself.2. Acts 1:18, "Now this man [Judas] bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong; he burst open in the middle and all his bowles gushed out.3. 1 Corinthians 15:5, ". .. And that he [Jesus] was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve [disciples. ](How can Judas have seen Jesus if he was already dead? )Was Jesus born of a Virgin?1. Romans 1:3, "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;"32. Matthew 1:23-24, "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lrod by the prophet, saying, "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel. .. " (See also, Luke) References (These are where I found the definition for "Contradiction" and the contradictions themselves). [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...;[2] Tobin, Paul. Rejection of Pascal's Wager[3] . http://www.infidels.org....Scripture is from KJV and other versions. If my opponent wants to use a specific version, please state so!
The Bible Is Not God's Word

I accept and look foward to seeing what Kohai puts forward. I would like to add the following requirements, if either pro or con does not supply an argument for a round it is to be considered an immediate loss. In addition, if any party is found to have post content that is not original without a citation (including a URL if appropriate) they will forfeit the debate. Finally, if any party argues their perspective in the comments they forfeit as well.
Should Autistic Kids be killed

Hello, Katelyn Matthews! I hope that you are doing well. It would do great harm to my mood if I were to learn that you were doing less than well; the welfare of Katelyn Matthews is my prime concern.I ask Katelyn Matthews to consider one hypothetical: an Austistic individual who, through some contortions of logic, thinks that they live in a "Twisted World", and, in reaxion, decides to commit violent acts against the cosmopolitan youth.Would it be unreasonable, Katelyn Matthews, to say that killing this individual in order to prevent their violence and pitiful perversion is justified? I think not.Katelyn Matthews, my venerable opponent, has asked that we stick to facts only (no opinions or anecdotes!), so I will, here, offer Katelyn Matthews some facts.Fact The First: One either should or should not do something. There is no middle ground.Fact The Second: If we should not do something, there should be no case where we should do that thing.Fact The Third: If there is a case where we should do something, we should do that thing.Fact The Fourth: There is a case where we should kill "Autistics" (as Katelyn Matthews says) - remember my previous hypothetical!Fact The Fifth: Ergo;Fact The Sixth: We should kill "Autistics" (again, credit to Katelyn Matthews).To the reader, and also to my opponent, Katelyn Matthews, I now have but one last comment: Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
I believe that dogs are more fun to have then cats.

This looks like an interesting topic. I will now refute all of my opponent's points. "10. Dogs look much better at the end of a leash. " How does this prove that dogs are more fun to have than cats? Looking good has absolutely nothing to do with having fun. "9. Dogs will let you give them a bath without taking out a contract on your life. " Again, this does not support the topic. Plus, cats take an extremely long time to dry off. You can't blame the cats, they just don't want to stay drenched for over an hour. "8. Dogs will bark to wake you up if the house is on fire. Cats will quietly sneak out the back door. " And this is fun how? If anything, this shows cats are smart enough to get out of the house while dogs stay longer in order to wake their owner. "7. Dogs will bring you your slippers or the evening newspaper. Cats might bring you a dead mouse. " This also does not support the topic. Besides, when a cat brings you a dead mouse, it's basically saying "I killed this for you as a way of showing my love for you. " "6. Dogs will play Frisbee with you all afternoon. Cats will take a three-hour nap. " Cats will chase a rabbit's foot around all afternoon or play with a bouncy ball all afternoon. This proves they are both equally fun to have or it proves cats are more fun. "5. Dogs will sit on the car seat next to you. Cats have to have their own private box or they will not go at all" Irrelevant to the topic. "4. Dogs will greet you & lick your face when you come home from work. Cats will be mad that you went to work at all. " Actually, cats greet you when you come home. At least mine do. But this is also irrelevant to the topic. "3. Dogs will sit, lie down, and heel on command. Cats will smirk and walk away. " Cats can be trained, just as dogs can, to do those things. But then again, how is this fun? "2. Dogs will tilt their heads and listen whenever you talk. Cats will yawn and close their eyes. " How do you know if they're really listening? And do you honestly believe they can understand the english language? But that really isn't a fun activity anyway. "1. Dogs will give you unconditional love forever. Cats will make you pay for every mistake you've ever made since the day you were born. " Cats will also do that. It just depends if you abuse the animal or not. And there we go.
I believe that dogs are more fun to have then cats.

I know there are many people that believe in this topic as well as i do heres a few reasons for me 11. Dogs come when you call them. Cats take a message & get back to you when they are good and ready. 10. Dogs look much better at the end of a leash. 9. Dogs will let you give them a bath without taking out a contract on your life. 8. Dogs will bark to wake you up if the house is on fire. Cats will quietly sneak out the back door. 7. Dogs will bring you your slippers or the evening newspaper. Cats might bring you a dead mouse. 6. Dogs will play Frisbee with you all afternoon. Cats will take a three-hour nap. 5. Dogs will sit on the car seat next to you. Cats have to have their own private box or they will not go at all 4. Dogs will greet you & lick your face when you come home from work. Cats will be mad that you went to work at all. 3. Dogs will sit, lie down, and heel on command. Cats will smirk and walk away. 2. Dogs will tilt their heads and listen whenever you talk. Cats will yawn and close their eyes. 1. Dogs will give you unconditional love forever. Cats will make you pay for every mistake you've ever made since the day you were born.
Israeli-Style Behavioral Profiling in Airports is Superior to the American Tech-Based System

My opponet has a pretty sound argument about the two security systems supported by loads of evedence, but my arguments are based on reason.Rebuttals:R1: What's the point?My opponent puts a great deal of infeses on behavioral examination., but I would like to to ask her a simple question. What's the point? The American security focus on detecting the weopons, if you take the terrorest's guns away what threat is he? There is no need to know the persons behavior, because if they have weopons in there backage or on themselves, then they are going to be taken into custody.R2: Is a collage education really needed for this job?My opponent says that one reason that the Israeli system is better is because their agents are more educated, but does a American TSA agent really need to be educated? There main gould is to find anf confinscate weopons. This isn't a hard job considering what they do is use medal ditectors and scanners to pick up any kind of weapons they find on terrorists. They don't need to be trained in a second language, and they don't need to be ex military to complete a simple task.Answer to my opponent's question:I would choose the first line, because it would most likely not take as long as the second line, and because it would be just as good because I would be flying knowing that the TSA agents confiscated every potential weopon that was found on people.My argumentC1: TSA has more funding.The TSA is branch of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, so it gets government funding. It gets more funding then Israel does. It gets 8.1 billion dollars worth of funding[1]. Like my opponent said 'it is the first duty of the government to pertect it's citizens, and thats exactly what the governmet does. Israel is small and tiny compard to that of America so it doesn't have as much money to give to airport and meritime security. Therefore, TSA has better technology and better funding then that of Israel's security team. TSA is better.Vote Con![1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
we should make alcohol illegal

Freedom is far more important than anything you have said. An incredible amount of Americans every day enjoy alcohol safely and without anything you have said. The only way that people get harmed from alcohol is when they overdose. Almost every drug is bad for you if you overdose. http://www.wired.com... This shows that alcohol is good for you and why it should not be banned. There are more types of alcohol than beer and wine. Some alcohol is a product that helps with face care and other things. Lets look at what happened last time we tried to abolish alcohol. Prohabition did not work very well at all. It was shut down almost immidiatly.http://thenewprohibition.com... It is very bad.
we should make alcohol illegal

i think alcohol should be illegal because of alcohol poisoning plus people get killed when they're drunk for doing stupid things like talking bad about someone i know an alcoholic he's stupid because drinking kills brain cells to he doesn't know what hes doing half the time he's violent to himself and others around no likes him anymore he doesn't have friends neighbors they all left him because hes a drunk with no life that isn't going to end up anywhere but dead of alcohol poisoning or poor from the fact that he spends all his money on alcohol.
US Prison System is faulted and should be reformed asap

I say we make different prisons for separate crimes. I do agree that people of young ages shouldn't be forced through that, BUT people go to jail for their crimes. I think that these kids should undergo therapy or something of the sort. Most kids don't go for that long they just get what they deserved. They're taught to steal, kill, etc. at a young age. Maybe a better way to deal with them is quite frankly jail. I once saw a video of a young adult who went to jail for this www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8A85cl5w3s --- Disregard the title and listen to the story - he got what he deserved and to be honest there are thousands of kids like them People even this young can do horrible things and juvenile detention is really different from prison. The US does a good job at the PUNISHMENT part of prison, but I can agree with you that the system doesn't work for rehabilitating the people. Remember they used to hang people in public for just doing "witchcraft". I guess talking to them at a young age and being more strict can help them. One more thing, it's moreso the PARENT's fault for people ending up the way they do. Those 14-17 yr olds behaved like that before they went to prison, that's why they did the crime. Like they say "Don't want to do the time, don't do the crime" Will continue on next argument
US Prison System is faulted and should be reformed asap

You make a good point but every case should be dealt with individually and not lumped in to the same categories. There are children who have been victims of terrible living conditions and just a terrible life experience to begin with. Those same children are being convicted of crimes as adults and facing life sentences and 20+ year sentences. We are the only country that does that and to top it off we deny them all government help once they are released from jail. How is that helping them in anyway integrate back into society? If a 12 year old child or a 17 year old kid spends a 20+ year sentence behind bars and comes back out when they are close to 40 how are they supposed to even function? There is also no regulation behind who gets put in solitary. The system is nuts and i'd honestly prefer the death penalty on ice cold hearted criminals that can never be rehabilitated. Its more affordable that way.
US Prison System is faulted and should be reformed asap

Some inmates will never change. Prison is a big wake up call to a lot of people, but most of the people in prison (gang members, mentally ill people, etc.) ruin the chance for rehabilitation. They're loyal to their causes and their bad lifestyle. People harden up or change their ways in prison, however how do you fix a person who's been abandoned in almost every way possible. Some (a ton) of prisoners are SERIOUSLY ILL and a danger to everyone else around them However, most people that aren't like this will want to change their life. People need to be disciplined MORE in order for it to work. Prison alone scares some people outta their crimes. The people that end back in it are the ones that treat it like a game, which strengthens my point for most prison members (the people) ruining for the others. I agree, it doesn't work, it has faults. But, it's the people and the criminals that do them are nearly irreversible. Ever heard of that show where people were told by their families to stop their horrible lifestyle? And after saying they would and being "fixed" they ended up doing it again?? Crime is an addiction to some people.
Mercy is a weakness

Mercy. We all know what it is, and we all here about it most of you from religion, such as Christianity which puts a greater emphasis on the term more than anyother. I will be arguing that mercy is in fact weakness. Mercy is basically giving in to your feelings rather than finishing te job. Lets say there is a gang member that attacks you, and you fight back. A long struggle accurs between you and your attacker, and you eventually come out the victor. You have a weapon pointed at the mans head, and he emidiately begs for his life. Rather then finish him off you show mercy and let him run away. He goes back to his gang and gets possy and the next day you are dead. This was the result of you leting your feelings cloud your better judgment and it costs you your life. It is the responsibility of every person to practice self control, and that includes controling your compassion. Mercy comes from not using self-control, since you let either guilt or compassion get in the way of what needs to be done. I await my opponent's response.
Mercy is a weakness

I accept Pro's challenge. I've been looking for something interesting to debate for a while.I would like to use the full defintion of "mercy", which is: "compassion or forbearance shown especially to an offender or to one subject to one's power". I think we can both agree that mercy shown to an offender usually involves the offernder wholly in the power of someone else.Other than that, I'm good to go. Good luck.