BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
KJV is superior

I will briefly make my case that later translations (specifically, the NASB translation) are superior to the KJV, then I will respond to Pro's only argument. Essentially, translations are not inspired. Only the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts were directly inspired by God, as per 2 Timothy 3:16. The translations were not inspired, and in fact the KJV contains many errors which have been corrected in later copies. Even if it hadn't been corrected, you can't lay claim that the KJV is superior because the translations were not inspired, only the original texts were inspired. The KJV contains a number of errors in translation, most notably with some of the numbers. For example, in 2 Samuel 8:4, we read that David took with him seven-hundred horsemen, but in 1 Chronicles 18:4, we read that David took with him seven-thousand horsemen. Quite a difference, and a definite contradiction. Now, it's not a true contradiction, because we know that humans are flawed and that this is simply an error in translation (not an error with the original texts), but this illustrates that the KJV is not inspired, and is certainly not superior to other translations. There are many more contradictions present but this is sufficient to make my case. Pro's ArgumentI'm not about to read through all the verses and compare them to the KJV. I don't think it's necessary. The KJV is an archaic version, and later versions were used based on more reliable manuscripts to translate into our modern versions (the NASB is generally considered one of the most reliable modern translations). I will give an example of a change the NASB makes that is a reasonable change from the KJV. Let's take 1 John 5:7-8 for example. The KJV reads: "For there are three that bear witness in Heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in Earth: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree as one. "Verse seven was translated by King James' scribes as an obvious reference to the Trinity. The problem is this is not what the verse actually says in the original inspired texts. The NASB renders 1 John 5:7-8 as follows: "For there are three that testify: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and the three are in agreement. "Very different renderings. The KJV adds the additional text due to additional text in some late manuscripts (and since they were additions to late manuscripts, that means they almost certainly don't belong in our Bibles). These additional words were inserted to prove the doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinity can be shown through other verses, but the KJV adds verses that almost certainly don't belong. So later translations are not guilty of "Satanic" omission of verses, and certainly any honest person, after weighing the evidence, would realize that the KJV is not superior. In fact, it is inferior to some modern versions. I await Pro's reply.
KJV is superior

The King James Version(KJV) is superior compared to modern versions for several reasons. In this round I would like to mention errors concerning the omission of verses found in modern versions. The following verses are removed: Matt 17:21, Matt 18:11, Matt 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44,46, Mark 11:26,15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, Romans 16:24 New International Version(NIV) New American Standard Version(NASV): Matt 17:21, Matt 18:11, Matt 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44,46, Mark 11:26,15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, Romans 16:24, and Luke 24:40 are removed Revised Standard Version(RSV): Matt 17:21, Matt 18:11, Matt 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44,46, Mark 11:26,15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, Romans 16:24, Luke 24:40, Matt. 12:47, Matt 21:44, Mark 16:9-20(THATS A WHOLE PASSAGE), Luke 22:43,44, 24:12, John 7:53-8:11(WHOLE PASSAGE), and James 1:8 New Revised Standard Version(NRSV): Matt 17:21, Matt 18:11, Matt 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44,46, Mark 11:26,15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, Romans 16:24, 2 Corinthians 13:14, and James 1:8 New Century Version(NCV): Matt 17:21, Matt 18:11, Matt 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44,46, Mark 11:26,15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, Romans 16:24 Now that is just examples from 5 modern versions. The King James Bible has all of those verses. I believe the Bible(KJV)is the Word of God and if so, then to remove whole verses(NIV removes 63,625 words altogether) is absolutely SATANIC! Removing 63,625 words would be the equivalent of removing Obadiah, Jonah, Haggai, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, and Jude. It just removes a word here and a word there so you dont notice it. This is not the only reason that the KJV is superior but this reason alone should convince any honest person.
KJV is superior

The KJV version of the Bible is superior to all other English Bible Translations made since 1885. Round 1 :acceptance Rounds 2-3:main arguments/ rebuttals Round 4:conclusion/last minute rebuttals Burden of proof is on both sides. I need to show KJV IS SUPERIOR To all translations since 1881. You need to show how AT LEAST ONE English translation since 1885 is superior to the KJV.
Ban Semi-automatic assault rifles

First of all, thank you for joining this debate. Now in terms of what you said, I do agree that people are part of the problem. I"m saying ban assault rifles, but I also think we should increase help for mentally ill people and people suffering depression. That said, there will always be someone that slips by the system, and that person will get a gun. There are just too many people with problems to be able to controI. I know there are things in place to stop mentally ill people from getting guns, but right now it is very easy for a mentally ill person to get a gun online or through the gun show loophole in many states. Also, though there are exceptions like the shooting you mentioned, most people will kill more people with a semi-automatic rifle rather than a pistol. Two of the biggest mass school shootings in America, Sandyhook and Stoneman Douglas school shooting, were done using semi-automatic rifles. It"s unlikely that the Parkland deputy would"ve been scared to go in and face the shooter if all the shooter had was a pistol. Also, I"m not saying this is the only reform that has to be done, but I think this would be a start. If you wanna talk about gun reforms as a whole, I"m fine with that too Up to you
Ban Semi-automatic assault rifles

I understand where you are coming from and it may seem that because assault rifles have been used in the majority of mass shootings. Something I find wrong with your statement is saying that assault rifles cause mass shootings. This statement is wrong because guns don't kill people, people do. You probably have heard this argument many times and it does have validity. Guns are just an object they need a person behind it to pull the trigger, they need a person to pull that trigger. A very common rebuttal to this response is "by that logic landmines don't kill people, people do, or bazookas don't kill people, people do. The first thing that is wrong with this is that a gun and a bazooka or landmine are very similar but aren't the same. With a bazooka when you shoot it you do not have entire control of who or what you hit, you maybe aiming at a crook but the explosion from the bazooka kills innocent bystanders along with it. It was not your intention to kill the innocent bystanders along with whoever you are aiming at. With a gun it is entirely dependent on the person, their intentions and abilities. Well how about misfires, true and valid but they are very rare. Therefor guns aren't the problem and people are so banning assault rifles would be pointless people will still kill each other mass shootings will still occur. Besides pistols can pretty much equal assault rifles in destruction take the Virginia Tech shooting 32 killed excluding the shooter's suicide https://en.wikipedia.org... the third deadliest mass shooting in America. What is an assault rifle anyways what particular feature on a rifle makes it an assault rifle is this an assault rifle take a ruger mini 14 vs an ar15 both guns that are semi automatic can hold a 30 round clip and have the same caliber are they both assault rifles? Is the main problem magazine size as you mentioned a 180 round magazine?
Ban Semi-automatic assault rifles

Your data is seems legitimate but what is a mass shooting? According to the FBI, the term "mass murder" has been defined generally as a multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered, within one event, and in one or more locations in close geographical proximity. https://fas.org... This can be found on the second page at the start of the second paragraph. Your data displays a mass murder as 6+ people being required to count as a mass murder yet it fails to include any mass murders in the statistics that had 5 to 4 victims. This chart failing to include the actual definition of a mass murder does not disprove that the assault weapons ban did anything. Lets assume for the sake of argument that mass murders rate did decrease during the assault weapons ban. First of all correlation isn't causation just because mass murder rates decreased during the assault weapons ban doesn't mean it was the cause for it, there could be many other factors such as better mental health during the ban which would prevent much more death than a restriction on a gun. Another problem I have with the assault weapons ban is how could it practically save lives according according to Wikipedia the criteria of an assault weapon are: Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock Pistol grip Bayonet mount Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one Grenade launcher Most of the the features banned are cosmetic such as a fold/telescopic stock, pistol grip. Flash suppressors may arguably be combat effective, but banning it won't lower lethality of the weapon all it does is lower gun flash in low light situations. Grenade launchers aren't used in any mass shootings and are already banned. As for the bayonet mount someone can zip tie a knife to a gun. Most of the bans would have little practical effect the only thing that the ban did right was a magazine limit.
Ban Semi-automatic assault rifles

Sorry it took so long to respond Statistics prove otherwise about the effect of assault rifles on the number of mass-shootings and deaths. (Which include school shootings) https://www.washingtonpost.com... This diagram shows that their were less deaths and mass-shootings when assault rifles were banned. In terms of the thing you said about the police, I agree banning the assault rifles would not effect whether or not the police would have trouble apprehending the shooter, but if the shooter killed couldn"t kill as many people in a short amount of time, then he would be apprehended by the police before he killed as many people as he might of killed with an assault rifle. Also, I do agree there must be steps taken to stop mentally ill people from getting guns and they are part of the problem, but they are not the only part. You can"t regulate all mentally ill people. There are too many of them and many of them don"t reveal their illness until after it"s too late. There will always be someone who has their mental evaluation, goes insane, and then causes a mass shooting before his next mental evaluation. Plus, if you haven"t committed a crime yet and you have not publicly shown any signs of insanity yet, background checks would not work. I"m not saying they wouldn"t help, but they wouldn"t solve the problem completely. Also, law abiding citizens wouldn"t need to use assault rifles to protect themselves when all the enemy could get would most likely be a pistol or hunting rifle.
Ban Semi-automatic assault rifles

I bet that officer wouldn't have walked in even if it was an air soft gun, but I digress. Ah I understand, you want to ban assault rifles as a form of damage control. People will still hurt each other but if we just banned this we might save some lives. This argument certainly left me stumped for a day it acknowledged my main point and played around it completely. Still I might argue that an assault rifle isn't more effective in a school shooting. Mass shootings generally occur in a gun free zone meaning that the victims are unarmed. This begs the question is an assault rifle really more effective than a pistol assuming both of them have the same magazine capacity? In my opinion they would be equally effective because the victims are unarmed so the shooter can't outgun them, also it is close quarters combat and well within the effective range of a pistol so inaccuracy wouldn't be much of a factor. Pistol ammo usually 9mm weigh much less so a shooter can carry more ammo. Overall I think the reason why shooters choose AR15s as assault rifles is because of how easy and cheap it is to find a 30 round magazine compared to a 30 round magazine for a pistol. I must admit ar15s are more controllable but like I said most mass shootings take place in close quarters combat were accuracy isn't the largest factor. About how police would have an easier time dealing with a shooter, in most of the mass shootings the shooter usually surrenders or suicides anyways so they don't really engage in a fire fight with the police. Overall banning assault rifles won't save lives, but rather they would hurt law-abiding citizens who use assault rifles for self defense. Even though like in a school it is close quarters combat this is different because intruders can be armed so an assault rifle would be deadlier than pistol. At this point I think the best action to take is to make it much harder for mentally people and criminals to buy guns so better background checks and mental evaluations.
Masturbation Should Be Required To Be Taught In School

In this round I will show my arguments on why I disagree with "Masturbation Should Be Required To Be Taught In School". I don't think it's necessary. And "necessary" is a key word because it shows my position as I don't claim masturbation is bad or school teaching masturbation is bad.Another key word is "require".I will start giving some definitions.School: an institution where instruction is given, especially to persons under college age. [1]Teach: to impart knowledge of or skill in. [2]Require: to ask for authoritatively or imperatively; demand. [3]So the resolution is "Demanding schools to impart knowledge of or skills in masturbation"Argument of Con:I can't see any good reason to demand schools to teach students about masturbation.Masturbation has indeed some benefits but I think it would cause more problems than it solves, considering that "Masturbation is going to happen for a majority of males and females" anyway.C1: Sex education is already controversial. [4]Controversy: a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion. [5]People have different beliefs and opinions on a lot of things, and sex education is a controversial topic.People disagreed on if sex education should be given or not, and also on how it should be given. There were programs like comprehensive sex ed and abstinence-only sex ed that showed the opinions of parents, teens, teachers and politicians. [6]Some people don't like what they teach. [7]Some people create movements against it. [8]What it's clear is that masturbation would create more controversy. The opinions on masturbation are also divided.[9][10][11][12][13]C2: Sex education is about prevention of problems caused by sexAbstinence, condoms, birth control, etc help to prevent a lot of negative things that are caused by sex. Masturbation benefits don't affect this side of the problem. Teaching prevention is important because it's not something that is innate or natural. They have to learn this, for this reason it is necessary.Masturbation is something people learn on their own. They can, it's something instinctive. And although it has health benefits they are not about preventing something that was caused sex.Small issuesNow, these are really small issues when you look how people were able to introduce sex education in school, but when you take both with the fact that most people masturbate on their own [11] it's inevitable to ask ourselves " Is it really that urgent?", "is it really that necessary?" "Is it a good idea to demand schools to teach it?"Probably not. Thanks for the debate.Sources:1. http://dictionary.reference.com...2. http://dictionary.reference.com...3. http://dictionary.reference.com...4. http://dictionary.reference.com...5. http://teachingsexed.com...6. http://www.guttmacher.org...7. http://www.kitv.com...8. http://watchdog.org...9. http://naijagists.com...10. http://en.islamtoday.net...11. http://kidswithoutgod.com...12. https://bible.org...13. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Masturbation Should Be Required To Be Taught In School

Masturbating offers many benefits besides the feel. As the pro side I will be proving that teaching children when they are the age of 11, being that is the average age to hit puberty, would be an effective way to improve lives of both boys and girls. The con side must show the harms of masturbation being taught in schools. I did not post this round to be perverted, but because masturbation is a legitimate way to decrease health risks and to help improve quality of both male and female lives. Please make sure to back up all facts with sources, do not plagiarize or just make statements with no facts. The round rules are as followed: Round 1: Acceptance and Greetings - Just simply say, "I accept." Round 2: Your Stance and Initial Arguments - State your case and your contentions to back up your claims based on the topic. Round 3: Additional Arguments and/or Rebuttals - Bring up arguments that you forgot to bring up during round 2, and counter arguments made by the pro side. Round 4: Rebuttals ONLY - No new arguments can be made, only explanations of why your side is currently winning the arguments in place. Round 5: Concluding Statements - State why you believe that the debate is won by your side, and sign off.
If a creator and an anti-creator do exist then we should not follow the teachings of the bible.

......... First of the resolution is purely hypothetical. It says quite specifically "if". Thus whether Satan is a creator or not is completely irrelevant as we are still examining a hypothetical situation here. Secondly I never said he was a creator, I said he was an anti-creator, a term that in this instance means nothing aside from the fact that he, or she I suppose, is opposed to god. Having cleared up this issue.... I will now go on to present my idea. We should not follow the teaching of the bible because it is probable that Jesus was in fact Satan in disguise.
Merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component of K-12 teacher compensatio

The main theoretical argument against merit pay is that it will undermine cohesions in the school, pitting teachers against teachers. Evidence. There is evidence from a recent student of a Texas merit program that indicates that merit pay does not improve educational outcomes. It's not fairly measurable. Merit determinations are generally measured on based on overall improvements in standardized test scores. Standardized testing is a heavily criticized method of measuring educational success. It's not fair. Teachers who teach the developmentally challenged and socioeconomically disadvantaged generally have a more difficult time at getting students to achieve according to determined standards
Meditation should be compulsory for all citizen of post-industrialized societies.

Firstly I purposely gave this debate an inaccurate title. No person has the right to have authority over another (parents and children excluded), therefore a law stating all people must meditate is wholly wrong. However, education about meditation should be taught in schools as a compulsory and offered to all citizen on a free and leisurely basis. People in post-industrialized societies are suffering from overloaded subconsciousness. Technology has created a symbiotic relationship with the brains of all who use, smart-phones, tablets, laptops, desktop computers. This combined with the perpetually erratic daily encounters people are experiencing is leading to a state of neurosis, characterized by an increasing number of people displaying psychopathic and sociopathic behaviors. The free and unrestricted transmission of information people are receiving is creating a data surplus stored inside the brain. The conscious brain processes a small amount of the information an individual receives whilst the rest is stored in their subconscious. Meditation functions as a biological virtual memory dump, allowing people to become more at peace within themselves and with the people around them. Meditation should be at the core of any post-industrialised/ technologically advanced society, albeit all societies.
gay/lesbian/Bi/Pan/all those types of people people should be treated the same.

I completely agree with what you're saying about how LGBT should all be treated the same because they are all humans at the end of the day. However, I personally disagree with those kind of people and I'll tell you why. First of all, these people are dividing the society; as I've mentioned before in the other debate it's not about inequality, people who are against same sex marriage and all doesn't mean they don't support equality; it's just weird and makes people have mentalities, and other people are obviously gonna go against it cause it's dividing people and isn't even part of nature; if you want to look at in a non religious point of view; mother nature has only created marriage for the man and woman, and these kind of people are disrupting the nature and traditional way of marriage. And no one said they're criminals, it's just disgusting and common sense it just seems wrong. This society is being divided and there's no unity amongst us; and one of the reasons is simply because some weird people jumped outta nowhere saying that homosexuality should be allowed and gay and lesbian marriage should be legalised. Now its gonna disturbing for alot of people seeing a gay or lesbian couple making out in public.
gay/lesbian/Bi/Pan/all those types of people people should be treated the same.

I feel like gay/lesbian/Bi/Pan/all those types of people SHOULD be treated the same. I mean they are human beings too. All they have done is like the same gender. What's wrong with that? Gah! It's so horrifying (hint the sarcasm) I mean like, it's not like they are criminals or something, I mean they just like the same gender. So that's how I'm going to start the debate. Here are my rules: No cussing...ALOT-You can cuss a little I don't care but like we ain't having a cuss war Be nice-Yes I sound like a parent but I'm just saying, we can still be nice even if our opinions are different Try to keep the conversation appropriate-Again, I don't care but I also wanna stay on topic Finally, have fun!-Relax! I ain't gonna kill you! I'm not even that good! Oh and you can make your own rules too