BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
RESOLVED: Scripture Alone Is Sufficient To Determine Faith

My opponent is right in that my proposition assumes the Christian God exist. That was the intent of the debate. It was designed to be a debate between sola scriptura and someone who would argue for the traditional view of the Catholic church. This does seem to be a strange rebuttal on the part of one who claims to be a conservative Catholic. Again this was designed to be a debate between two people who accepts and does not challenge the existance of God. Which my oppennt does accept, being a Catholic, but is denying. His contention is really strange when he argues that God and the Bible are immoral, and then as a catholic believes in that same God and Bible. That in turn would make him immoral to place his faith in an immoral God and Book. He says and I quote, "Killing is clearly an immoral action. Therefore, by affirming you are condoning the action of killing people and entire populations. If this is the morality being shown through the Bible, should that be the basis of people's faith." His base premise is that Killing is immoral and the Bible records God killing and if the bible is the rule of faith then I am condoning killing. Again this is very strange argumentation foming from a guy who votes "pro" on all four war questions in his profile. He is pro war to the highest degree so far as the current political issues are concerned. He asks, if this is the morality being shown through the bible, should that be the basis of peoples faith. As a believer in the bible, and a pro war advocate, maybe this should be the question that he ask himself and his own conscience. I will have more to say as me go along. It appears to me that my opponent's argumentations places him at odds with his own Catholic faith and therefore makes him a hypocrite! If God and the bible promotes so much immorality, it makes you equally as immoral if not more to continue to believe in him knowing that.
RESOLVED: Scripture Alone Is Sufficient To Determine Faith

I negate: Scripture Alone Is Sufficient To Determine Faith [Definition] Scripture: The old and new testaments, i.e. the Bible Alone: standing by itself Sufficient: equal to the end proposed Faith: the belief of [Topical Negations] 1. For the resolution to be proven true, my opponent has made the assumption that the christian God exists and is the ruling deity. Since 100% proving of God cannot be done, you cannot affirm. 2. Faith is subjective. Why would scripture be the source of faith for a Buddhist? My opponent has made the resolution absolute since he did not specify faith to Christians. He just stated faith in general, meaning it must apply to all people. Therfore, since faith is subjective, you cannot affirm. [Contentions] Contention I: The Bible contradicts morality, and thus cannot be the sole authority on faith. Morality is defined as, conforming to a standard of good and right behavior.Throughout the bible, most clearly in the Old Testament, immoral acts were committed on the side of God. E.g. The destruction of entire populations, old people, adults, kids, etc. A specific example is the destruction of the Midianites. Killing is clearly an immoral action. Therefore, by affirming you are condoning the action of killing people and entire populations. If this is the morality being shown through the Bible, should that be the basis of people's faith. *I reserve the right to make any new contentions within the next 2 rounds. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Transdisciplinarity

Watch the video first: https://vimeo.com... The structure of a universal transdisciplinary and holistic thinking is: 1) breadth of vision beyond the boundaries of disciplines, 2) the adoption of a complex thought and 3) access to the symbol and to the imagination, as a human dimension. In this sense, transdisciplinarity is the intellectual space in which images that become symbols and metaphors are born, allowing us to rethink the problems, reconsider alternatives, take advantage of the interrelations between seemingly disparate elements. In other words, we need to adopt a way of thinking that will restore man in the process of knowledge, reassembling the different knowledge into a single Science of Man, which is open to the contributions of every discipline and every culture, able to look beyond their borders, to the reality as a whole, to continue the progress to which humanity has been dedicating for thousands of years.
Chocolate biscuits are better than sex.

Well, it is obvious that our social groups have somewhat different approaches. In my circle of friends, sitting around talking about one's sexual experiences for all to hear would be considered "socially awkward". If those experiences happened to occur while alone, even more so. Discussing whether a delta creme beats a creamy chocolate hardly raises an eyebrow. Speaking of awkward, empires have fallen because of sex. Presidents have been brought to the brink of impeachment over it, televangelists have lost congregations of millions. When was the last time a humble chocolate biscuit caused such havoc? This debate has been fun.
Chocolate biscuits are better than sex.

Experienced enough. Thanks to my opponent for accepting this debate. I suggest the winner should be entitled to a prize nominated in the topic itself. Chocolate Biscuits: Cookies, made from chocolate. Better: More desirable, satisfactory, effective, appropriate, advantageous or well advised. Sex: Intercourse. May or may not include oral stimulation, depending on whether you are a democrat president. Chocolate biscuits are far more desirable than sex for the following reasons. Chocolate biscuits are cheap - a couple of bucks a pack for pretty good ones. Sex is expensive - unless you have a spouse or regular partner, in which case it is really expensive. Chocolate biscuits satisfy for longer. A few cookies can provide pleasure for hours. My spouse tells me 45 seconds is pretty good going for the alternative. Biscuit crumbs are easier to clean up - simply brush them away. Even with the chocolate variety, a simple wipe with a wet cloth usually suffices. Sometimes that is good enough for sex also, but more rarely. Ask Monica. It takes a lot of chocolate biscuits to make you fat. One sexual encounter can make you very fat if you aren't careful. No one looks at you funny if you eat a chocolate biscuit alone.
Condoleezza Rice was a good Secretary of State

Condoleezza Rice was a professor at Stanford for 6 years from 1993 to 1999 and then was the national security adviser for President Bush from 2000 to 2004, so she was very qualified for her job. While she was S.o.S. she implemented a foreign policy she pioneered called "Transformational Diplomacy", a foreign policy that championed the expansion of democracy in nations that already had it the expansion of democracy into nations that were void of it. This policy had many effects which include - Relocating diplomats to where they are needed the most, such as China, Indonesia, Lebanon, Egypt, etc - Installing diplomats in places such as Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan and Angola - Coordinate with nations to fight regional problems that focused on terrorism, drug trafficking, and diseases Condoleezza Rice was a good Secretary of State because she reorganized the intelligence agencies within the US to become more coordinative in anti-terrorism efforts following the aftermath of September 11th and the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan. She also firmly believed in the idea that the US should not only confront and sanction governments that support terrorism but to also confront the ideologies that inspire terrorism as well. Condoleezza Rice also was a key player in negotiations between Israel and Palestine over a peace deal between the warring states. She witnessed a deal almost be agreed upon and even though the deal failed she reaffirmed the Bush administration about how peace in Israel was not a lost cause. http://www.jpost.com... http://usforeignpolicy.about.com... http://www.actfl.org... http://www.cbsnews.com...
Condoleezza Rice was a good Secretary of State

Condoleezza Rice was the secretary of state under the second Bush administration from 2004 to 2008. I feel that she did a good job at being the Secretary of State. By good job I mean that she performed as the secretary of state very well and accomplished quite a number of things in the four short years she was the Secretary of State. The Con must offer evidence that she was not a good secretary of state. 5 rounds, 5000 characters, 2 day time to argue.
The Bible Contains Inaccuracies

I have set up this debate in response to an exchange between Strider97 and I on an opinion thread [1]. I will be PRO; Strider97 will be CON. I want to make it very clear that I own 100% of the burden of proof; CON need only refute my arguments. Below is the actual claim being questioned: "...there is a great deal in the bible that is not factual..." Now, that phrase is vague and not fitting for a formal debate. Therefore, the claim that I will be arguing for is: The Christian Bible contains at least five inaccuracies. I trust this is similar enough to the original language to satisfy CON. I chose five in order to keep the debate manageable for both parties, and also for anyone else on DDO that might be following along. Before I dive in, I just want to restate that CON need not make the case that the bible is inerrant, it is up to me to show that the bible contains at least five inaccuracies. Round 1 will be for acceptance; I will make my case in Round 2. CON can then address my points as he sees fit. Since CON will have the final say at the end of Round 4, I reserve the right to add new examples as I deem it necessary. If CON is unable to refute at least five of my examples, I will win the debate. If four or fewer of my examples are left standing at the end, CON wins the debate. As a final bit of housekeeping, the bible I will be using is the King James Version (KJV). [1] http://www.debate.org...
The Bible Contains Inaccuracies

I hope this can be enjoyable and educational for both of us. The Law of Non-Contradiction I am going to begin with a brief description of the Law of Non-Contridiction, for reasons that will become apparant shortly. The Law of Non-Contradiction basically says that contradictory statements cannot both be true. If it is true that A=B, then it cannot also be true that A≠B [1]. Internal Inaccuracies According to the Law of Non-Contradiction, if two different claims regarding the same event do not agree, one of them must be false. For instance, if the bible claims that Joseph's father was named Jacob, and then later claims that Joseph's father was named Heli, one or the other must be false. This is, in fact, the example with which I will begin. 1) Joseph's Father Jacob is Joseph's father (Matthew 1:16). Heli is Joseph's father (Luke 3:23). 2) Earthly Languages Each nation had its own language (Genesis 10:5). Everyone on the Earth spoke the same language at the time of the building of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1). 3) Moses' Father-in-Law Jethro was Moses' Father-in-law (Exodus 3:1). Hobab was Moses' Father-in-law (Numbers 10:29). 4) Punishment for Parent's Sins Children are punished for the sins of their parents (Exodus 34:7). Children are not punished for the sins of their parents (Ezekiel 18:20). 5) When did Baasha Die? Baasha died in the 26th year of King Asa's reign (1 Kings 16:6-8). Baasha was still alive in the 36th year of King Asa's reign (2 Choronicles 16:1). 6) Should Good Works be Seen? Good works should be performed publicly (Matthew 5:16). Good works should be performed in private (Matthew 6:1). Language I chose to word the above examples in language that is easy to access. However, to properly apply the Law of Non-Contradiction, the statements must be read as logical opposites. I will restate the same six examples in such format below: 1) Joseph's father is Jacob; Joseph's father is not Jacob. 2) Everyone spoke the same language; Everyone did not speak the same language. 3) Jethro was Moses' Father-in-Law; Jethro was not Moses' Father-in-law. 4) Children are punished for their parents' sins; Children are not punished for their parents' sins. 5) Baasha died in the 26th year of Asa's reign; Baasha did not die in the 26th year of Asa's reign. 6) Good works should be performed publicly; Good works should not be performed publicly. Conclusion I have shown six examples of internal contradictions in the bible, which, according to the Law of Non-Contradiction, cannot both be true. Of each pair, one must be an innacurate description of history. Therefore the bible contains at least five inaccuracies. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
River Song was wrong to change the fixed point in time in 'the wedding of river song'

Hey~Alexander~~ Thank you for posting this debate. I look forward for a great debate! Lets not insult the preciousness and the greatness of Doctor Who!!!!! And please forgive my grammar, you know! I'm KOREAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!And you are as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Wow~Al is calling me Al??? Haha!) P.S=Can you slobber me??? I might slobber you first!!BEWARE~~~~~~~~~~~
Repubican policy is affected more by Darwin that democratic policy is.

First of all I'd like to say that the point of this debate is not to prove that Al Gore wastes energy. That has nothing to do with the topic of this debate. Second of all this debate is on the collective general policy of the republican party. On that note I will get into why republican policy reflects darwin's ideas. To start off I will try and sumarize the current republican stand point. What is said to happen is that if the rich are let to themesleves that through their own generosity the money will some how trickle down to the poor. What should be changed is the minimum wage. It has not gone up at the same rate as the CEO's have. In 1978 the average CEO made 35 times the average worker. In 2005 the CEO made 262 times what the average worker made. Why do you defend these people who make so much? I'm not saying take all of their money, just don't give them breaks. Warren Buffet, the third richest man in the world, said he was taxed only 17%. His secretary who made $60,000 paid 30%. A progressive tax law is essential to our nation. A half of a percent tax increase on the top 1% would be enough to pay for universal health care. This cannot happen though, because the 'fittest' of our country feel that the poor are where they belong. You stated that not all of the richest people are republicans, and that is true, but republican policy helps the rich and hurts the poor. I would have to say that the majority of those in poverty work their tails off. They do the jobs now one else wants to do and they are an essential part of our country. It is time for all of our citizens to be lifted out of poverty. A high minimum wage would allow all citizens the ability to truly obtain financial freedom.
Repubican policy is affected more by Darwin that democratic policy is.

First of all, lets start of with some stats fun. Did you know that the richest 400 Americans have as much money as the bottom 50% of our nation's citizens? That's 57 million households. Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn't happen. Did you know that 1 billion of the 2.2 billion children on Earth live in poverty? Are you telling me that we can't try to help all of these people because the bible says there will always be poor people? I thought we were supposed to try and do everything possible to help those less fortunate than us. Darwin's theory is that the strong survive and the weak die out. Republican views of the situation are that the poor are poor because they are lazy. Millions in America work more than forty hours a weak just to put food on the table. Government control could easily solve the problem. Government is only corrupt and evil if that is the way we want it. It's a democracy for crying out loud! If repubilcans really do care about the poor, why do they shoot down plans to help them? They tell people to support themeselves, but how do you do that at seven bucks an hour? You don't, and thats why people get sucked in by credit card debt. That's why people go uninsured and end up dying without health care. I understand that poor will always exist, but is that a justification for not trying to do anything about it?
Repubican policy is affected more by Darwin that democratic policy is.

I don't see how you can say that the poor are not helped in this country, with all of the social programs in our system, not to mention all of the privately operated clothing and food drives, rescue missions, etc. Are there still poor people, yes. There always will be. The Bible says that. Now, should we all just give out all our money to everyone who needs it? No. Because the Bible also says that if a man doesn't work, a man doesn't eat. I work for a church that is in the downtown district of my city. We have people come to the door several times a day, every day asking for assistance in the form of food, money, clothing, etc. Some of them are legitimate needs, but many are not. Many are poor because of substance addictions, mental illness, and other problems. Some have no need at all, and are just looking for a quick buck. Am I saying the system is perfect, no. But I am saying that people try, are trying, and saying the conservative policy and the Republican Party are not providing for the poor and are silently supporting Darwinian theory is just not accurate.
Repubican policy is affected more by Darwin that democratic policy is.

Although republicans say that they condemn Darwin, they are the biggest supporters of his survival of the fittest theory. Right-wingers say that their policies are highly influenced by the bible. If that were so, wouldn't we actually care for the sick and poor? Wouldn't we directly give them what they need instead of hoping that the money would some how trickle down? If you feel that current conservative policy does what Jesus wanted use to do than I am ready to hear your argument.
doctors who perform illegal abortions are essentially the same as serial killers

It does not matter if the abortion is legal or not. If the woman was going to give birth to an unhealthy or sickly baby that would not survive ans she could not fund a legal abortion - the doctor was doing a good deed to help the woman and help the child not suffer anyway. The child is not yet able to make decisions - so even though the woman does not have the child's consent - the women is doing what is best for her child and herself as well - to make sure that everyone will be okay in the end.
doctors who perform illegal abortions are essentially the same as serial killers

if a woman and hit man agree to kill her husband, that is taking the husband's consent out of the equation. likewise, the child's consent for a later term abortion where abortion would be illegal cannot be part of the equation.also, 'saving a woman's life' cannot be one of the considerations in this sceanario, because that would be legal abortion, and we are talking about illegal abortions.
doctors who perform illegal abortions are essentially the same as serial killers

If both the doctor and the woman reciving the abortion agree to it and it is consensual - then why would the doctor be considered a serial killer? The doctor did not kill the baby for a negative reason or just to kill - they do it for the patient and to help save a woman's life if she cannot survive with the baby. He is not forcing the baby to be killer - the women in question is agreeing to it. So why would that be considered serial killer material?
Every child is an atheist

It's is hard to say for sure that every child is born an atheist because it is not like we can ask a baby and get an answer. However, the fact that they are more credulous and they respond to their surroundings show that they can formulate their own opinions and create their own belief system. Otherwise, they would not have any emotions; the first action babies perform when they come out of the womb is crying, which means they have emotions. They cry because they don't like their new environment; therefore, they have the belief that their new environment is scary and bad. This means that the children are not born with a lack of beliefs.
Every child is an atheist

I apologize for the confusion. I must clarify my argument: Every child is born an atheist. Though I must admit, I believe that every child (newborn to adult) is an atheist, I can only conclude that, before exposure to religious dogma, a child enters the world sans religion. There is a body of scientific evidence that supports the idea that fetuses can respond to external stimuli. Even though I have read those studies, I cannot dispute them. I remember being in my third trimester. All four of my children responded to loud noises and pressure. However, what you are stating doesn't make any sense. Are you implying that fetuses can react to a religious environment from inside the womb? If that was the case, wouldn't fetuses be able to respond to every stimuli that they were exposed to...when they are born? If you were in an accident during pregnancy, would your nine-year-old suffer from PTSD? No. Show me a scientifically conclusive study, and I will invalidate my argument. I have four children. None of my children were introduced to religion INSIDE the womb, (following your argument), much less, OUTSIDE the womb...until they were introduced to the religious environment. None of them, from birth until ten years old, could verbalize the concept of "god". None of them knew anything about Christianity or could identify a single concept regarding it. My five year old stated that "when a person dies, they become stardust." Most of her friends would have responded, "They go to Jesus." Many people would say that a person cannot be good without a moral compass, specifically, a supernatural being who directs good and evil. If every child is born a "believer", how do you explain the continued civilizations of non-religious countries? Wouldn't the birth rates demonstrate a forward movement TOWARDS religious affiliation, rather than AWAY from it?
Every child is an atheist

I believe that every child is born atheistic. To clarify, Atheism refers to a lack of beliefs in a god or gods.The popular definition of atheism is a "belief against any gods." A child does not understand deism, unless that environment is introduced to them. Most people confuse religion with human empathy. We do not hurt people because we know how it feels to be hurt. We do not kill people because we don't want to see the people we loved killed. For example, when we pinch someone, they cry. When it happens to us, it hurts. It's the concept of pain that causes us to cringe when we see skateboarders straddle rails on YouTube. We understand pain, physical and emotional...because we have all been there. Religion exists because of these fundamental concepts that link us all together: pain and fear. Children grasp the idea of causing harm. They cannot adopt a philosophy based on harm...unless the concept is introduced to them. Religious belief is dependent upon geography. If a child were born in India, they would most likely "believe" in Hinduism. If a child were born in the American South, they would most likely "believe" the Christian god. If a child were born in China, they would most likely become Buddhists or Taoists. How many Native Americans, before colonization, were "Christian"? Exactly zero. They were animists, or usually polytheistic, depending upon location. The Native American culture originated over 12,000 years ago. Where are the ancient texts describing any modern god? We cannot accept nature as a "god", so it is not included in our definitions of modern theism. What child is not enamored with puppies and kittens? What kid doesn't find their first snowstorm amazing? We can label anything "god". Introducing a set philosophy, or instituting rules based on religious dogma, does not validate a parent's worldview. It simply obscures the fact that their children are born innocent...without fear of the pain and suffering, under which we created these gods.