BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible is never wrong.

It is difficult for me to prove that the Bible has no errors until such supposed errors. Also, to my opponent, the more supposed errors you bring up, the less I will be able to address each one. Therefore, the detail of my responses is partially in your hands. For my introduction, I hope to accomplish three things. First, I will explain exactly what I mean by scriptural infallibility. Secondly, I will explain why I personally believe in scriptural infallibility. Thirdly, I will provide several principles to guide us when we think there may be an error. Scriptural Infallibility: This is the idea that scripture is perfect and without error. This is about the quality of scripture, not about the extent of scripture. This also does not mean this perfect infallible source has been unaltered, nor does it mean we can perfectly translate it. Our current copies are not infallible, nor are our translations. For example, the ending of Mark is a later addition, so it is not scripture, nor is it infallible. I personally believe in scriptural infallibility because I believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead based on the evidence. While this is a point of contention and is beyond the scope of this debate, it is the foundation for my belief. Since Jesus rose from the dead, I choose to have the same view of scripture that He had. Since He obviously had an extremely high view of scripture, so should I. Also, since God is omniscient, it makes sense that His revelation is perfect. Scripture itself also claims to be inspired and of God, but I will not use scripture as evidence of its own infallibility. Principles for possible errors: 1) Investigate the instance in the original language. 2) Examine the historical and contextual information. 3) Examine authorship, subject, and audience. 4) Understand that mystery accounts for some things as we do not have all knowledge, but it cannot account for instances of explicit contradiction. 5) Resolve instances of paradox. These seeming contradictions clear up when definitions are established. 6) Find out whether it is a metaphor or literal. We would be in serious error if we interpreted Jesus to claim to be a literal loaf of bread. 7) If you must assume something for a contradiction to appear, don't assume that. 8) Examine the science or history again to make sure you are correct. 9) Examine other scriptures that address the same subject. 10) Take textual variants into account. Since my opponent is claiming the existence of errors in scripture, the burden of proof is on him. If it can be shown that there is an error in scripture, I will stop believing in scriptural infallibility. If you believe any of the above principles are illogical, I would be interested in understanding why.
The Bible is never wrong.

I would like to have a debate with someone who believes that the Bible is inerrant; i.e. incapable of being wrong. Here's the introduction to my argument: The Bible was written by different people with differing perspectives over a very long period of time. Naturally, the Bible is full of differing (and even conflicting) messages about right/wrong, theology, history, etc. Serious study of the Bible reveals that it is riddled with contradictions and inaccuracies. Much of what the Bible teaches is just plain wrong: morally wrong, scientifically wrong, historically wrong, theologically wrong. Do you disagree with me? Consider accepting this debate! Provide a short introduction to your argument in Round #1, summarizing your position or beliefs re: the Bible. No insults / ad hominems Remember the subject of the debate (keep it relevant) Post a comment if you're interested in debating me!
Is jesus real

I believe that he is real , the reason we disagree with it, is we all have sin but some were in our hearts good is there because he created us. Two thousand years ago, a man named Jesus Christ set foot on our planet. Our world has never been the same since. People are still asking, """Who was this one who changed the way we think about God and about ourselves?" Jesus made radical claims about his identity, but he also presented himself as a compassionate, humble servant with a mission to save us from sin. Jesus was a mystery to those who saw and heard him. To the masses he was the great physician who healed the blind, deaf and lame. To the down and outcast he brought hope. To his enemies he was an imposter. To his followers he was the promised Messiah. But did Jesus claim to be God as Christians believe? that why I believe he is real
Target is better than Walmart

The price difference is actually significantly different as I can go to Wal-Mart and spend less money on groceries than I can if I go to Target. As Target may have Starbucks, Wal-mart stores have a variety of different restaurants inside of them like McDonald's and Subway. Alex from Target was actually a social experiment to see if people would actually pay more attention of employees if they were 'attractive'. But now, no one even remembers him. Wal-mart is better so get used to it
Target is better than Walmart

Wal-mart is better than Target because they're prices are a lot more affordable for lower-income families and you can find things easier. Depending on where you live, Wal-mart could be closer than Target so the distance away from you is really subjective. Wal-mart has opened up self-checkout lines and they have been up for a while. Wal-mart sells lots of things as well as Target, just not as expensive.
Gun Control

http://www.factcheck.org... As you can see here, as the gun ownership increases, the homicide rate has decreased for three straight years. Also, mass shootings occur where there's a large group of unarmed people in one area. Why haven't there been mass shootings at sporting events? It seems like a perfect place for that, however there are armed guards at the entrance and snipers on the tops of stadiums. So it seems that we protect our president with guns. We protect our sporting events with guns. We protect banks and other government buildings with guns. However, when it comes to our schools, we have no protection against guns at all. Knowing that there are armed guards or teachers in a school building would protect everyone in that building much more than hiding in a corner and locking the doors. Furthermore, a criminal will get a gun no matter what the law says. Law abiding citizens deserve the right to be able to protect themselves even if it means using deadly force. Whatever happens next is up to the courts and justice system to determine, but those defending themselves never have the chance to do something if their rights to bearing arms is taken away.
Gun Control

While those countries do have stricter laws and a lower rate, Switzerland actually gives and trains every adult citizen with a gun and they have one of the lowest gun violence rates in the world. Even lower than the UK or Australia. Even look at Texas. They have one of the lowest crime rates in our country because a criminal knows that there's a good chance that a household or convenience store has a gun somewhere on the property. School shooters choose schools because it's like shooting catfish in a barrel. There's really no one in the area that can stop someone besides a gun, and it takes at least five minutes for police to show up.
Gun Control

The last time our government tried banning something all together was Prohibition. The main reasons for this were to reduce overall violence, reduce domestic violence and reduce sexual assault. Remember what happened when they finally banned alcohol? Crime rate went up, domestic abuse rates went up, and people opened up Speakeasy's and illegally sold alcohol. As many people like to say, "history repeats itself." Banning guns all together would completely piss off a good majority of the population, and there would still be the illegal sale of guns which would go mainly to criminals rather than in the hands of law abiding citizens.
Donald Trump

I'll be honest, that was an interesting video, however, I still like him. Here's what I got from the video: 1. He's changed his opinion on multiple issues. I don't see anything wrong with that, if anything, I think he was smart to become a Republican in recent years. Look, times change meaning that a policy that would have worked years ago might not work today and a party that may have appeared favorable once may not appear as favorable now. In 2000, when Trump ran for president under the Reform Party, he believed in universal healthcare as an option. The idea that he maintains that belief, despite what the video said, is ridiculous. In early 2015, he brought up the idea that the government should start making deals with hospitals to help low income Americans. Later, a spokesperson (not Trump himself) stated that Trump would be open to a universal / market-based system that would open up a variety of choices. Today, his official healthcare plan affirms that he supports a 100% free market system, where insurance companies must compete nationwide - the exact opposite of universal healthcare. 2. He's donated to and supported the Bill and Hillary in the past. That makes Trump living proof that we have corrupt politicians in Washington; in fact, that's what brought down primary rivals like Sen. Rand Paul (who accepted money from Trump). The video starts going into conspiracy theory-mode; it theorizes that because Trump donated to them, he secretly supports them and is part of an elaborate plot to make Hillary our next president. First of all, there's no evidence. Second of all, if donating money means working for someone, wouldn't Trump also be working for Rand Paul? And wouldn't he have refrained from calling out Hillary for accepting his donation? 3. He's not extremely religious. I'm okay with that. He said that he does not ask God for forgiveness, and then the video pulls up Bible quote after Bible quote - but who really follows every word of the Bible? If you did, you'd be a criminal; the Bible says that we should stone our children if they are disobedient - which is considered murder, and murder is a crime. The video is basically anti-Trump propaganda with little to no factual information. SOURCES: http://www.politifact.com...-/ https://www.donaldjtrump.com... GOP DEBATE: "I've given you money, too." -Trump to Sen. Rand Paul
Donald Trump

"He lied about Hillary being a sad excuse for a candidate." But, in my opinion, she is! She was criminally negligent and she knowingly lied about Benghazi, she had a private server as secretary of state (which is illegal) and she had classified information on it, her campaign deleted 33,000 emails, she has never accomplished anything sufficient, she admires notorious racists like Robert Byrd and Margaret Sanger, she was endorsed by the KKK (Trump isn't the only one) and received a $20,000 donation from them, she considers Libya a success (even though Obama considers it his greatest failure), she gives secret speeches to Goldman Sachs and other banks and corporations (she refuses to disclose transcripts or allow the press to listen). Trump is correct in many of the points he makes in the quote you provided. He says, "I said 'Mexico is sending', I'm not knocking immigration or immigrants." Mexico published pamphlets explaining how to cross our border illegally. He is actually pro immigration, though he is firmly against illegal immigration. He continues: "She speaks about 'my tone' and that"s the problem with our country's leaders. They are more worried about tone than results! It's not about being nice, it's about being competent." I'd take a competent leader over a nice leader any day. As for the Politifact argument, I agree with you. Like I said, Trump wasn't my first choice; early in the election, I liked Jeb Bush. After the second debate, I was considering Carly Fiorina. Once she dropped out, I immediately turned to John Kasich. Only after Trump won the nomination did I support him. But that doesn't mean I won't rally behind him and support him over Hillary. I think that, overall, he is a good candidate. SOURCES: https://www.donaldjtrump.com... http://www.nytimes.com...
Donald Trump

"Sadly...The American Dream... IS DEAD" It isn't! Not yet... but if he wins... it will be!. Hillary Clinton called Trump a racist and Trump responded: "Failing candidate Hillary Clinton, who is desperately trying to hold on to her lead in the democratic primary against Bernie Sanders, is knowingly putting out lies about my stance on illegal immigration. I said "Mexico is sending"" I"m not knocking immigration or immigrants, but rather am very critical of the country of Mexico for sending us people that they don"t want. Likewise I am very critical of illegal immigration and the tremendous problems including crime, which it causes. She is desperate, she is sad, and she is obviously very nervous when she has to revert to issues that have already been settled given the absolute accuracy of my statement. She speaks about "my tone" and that"s the problem with our country"s leaders. They are more worried about tone than results! It"s not about being nice" it"s about being competent. Hillary should spend more time producing her illegally hidden emails and less time trying to obfuscate a statement by me that is totally clear and obviously very much accepted by the public as true. I am honored, however, that she is attacking me, instead of Jeb Bush. Obviously she knows that JEB is no longer her real competition. The last person she wants to face is Donald Trump." He lied about Hillary being a sad excuse for a candidate. He lies unintentionally and finds it hard to stop. I know what you're thinking: "I need evidence!" This is a part of an article I found on a website: Donald Trump is a serial liar. Okay, to be a bit less Trumpian about it, he has trouble with the truth. If you look at Politifact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning site that examines candidates" pronouncements for accuracy, 76 percent of Trump"s statements are rated either "mostly false," "false," or "pants on fire," which is to say off-the-charts false. By comparison, Hillary Clinton"s total is 29 percent.
Donald Trump

I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree with you. Now you said, "Donald Trump is racist because he believes that blacks are lazy". There's no proof that he actually said that, except that an ex-employee claimed to have heard it. That would be like if I worked for Disney and claimed I heard Bob Iger (the current CEO of The Walt Disney Company) make some racist remark - there's no hard evidence that he said it other than my claim. On top of that, no other Trump employees have claimed to hear that quote. "He thinks white supremacists are heroes." He disavowed David Duke's endorsement as soon as it came up. In fact, if were talking about who admires white supremacists, let's talk about Hillary Clinton: she admired both Sen. Robert C. Byrd (a KKK member - look up some of his quotes) and Margaret Sanger (a racist who called for the use of Nazi-like eugenics programs to exterminate African-Americans). Watch the video I'll link to below. "He once saw 1 or 2 Native Americans and said 'They don't look like Indians to me. They don't look like Indians to Indians'". Actually, he was talking about a Native American casino that was expected to open near one of his own. I don't know where you got the 'one or two Native American' thing from, that's false. He later clarified that he was referring to mafia members who infiltrated Native American-owned casinos - source on that below. "He might want to kill our current President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama." That's a serious accusation! I'd like some evidence. "You know, voting for him is a terrible idea." He's not my first choice, but I'll take him any day over Hillary, to be honest. And if your argument against him is that he is 'racist', I think you should look at Hillary, who, as I stated, claimed to admire Sen. Byrd and Margaret Sanger. I'd like to thank you for the challenge, Drago31, and for not bashing me for my support of Trump, but I'm afraid I do not agree with you. I hope you will look at my points, and perhaps include some sources for your information as I will include some for mine. SOURCES: http://www.elderstatement.com... http://articles.latimes.com... http://www.courant.com... Here's the video, as promised, about Hillary Clinton. I hope you will watch it and find it as interesting as I did.
Donald Trump

Dear The Conservative Socialist, Donald Trump is racist because he believes that blacks are lazy and he is a liar because he thinks he is the "least racist person". He also teases Native Americans too. he once saw 1 or 2 Native Americans and said "They don't look like Indians to me. They don't look like Indians to Indians!" He thinks white supremacists are heroes. Who knows? He might want to kill our current President of the United States: Barack Hussein Obama. You know voting for him is a terrible idea, The Conservative Socialist, and unless you want Donald J Trump turn the land of the free and the home of the brave, from sea to shining sea, support me so we can stand against him! Thank You, Drago 31
Four Square is the best playground pastime

Nine square is a game with a rubber inflatable ball. You start in 9th square and work your way around the square to be king. To start the game, the king bounces the ball and hits it again to another square where that person has the choice of bus stopping it in air or simply hitting it again into another square. If the ball bounces in ones square twice or zero times, that player is out and goes back to 9th square. If a player hits an inside line, he/she is out, but if one were to hit an outside line, he/she would not be out, but in fact in and able to play. Just an observation- this debate is about a 'past time', so pro must prove it has been a 'Past time' for a number of people. 1. < > Just because it may be a good game for you, does not make it everyones. You yourself hadn't heard of nine square, so someone else is very well likely to not have heard of four square. Also you think everyone plays this? So people in North Korea think of four square as a great pasttime? What about Bolivia? Seychelles? Does everyone in the USA know about four square? 2. < > I find it hard to believe you never argue. I know a lot of people that are so convinced they are right that they do not leave. And even if 'majority rules', the person will still feel angered that they got out when they actually didn't. 3. "I'd like to assure you I have never seen a serious injury in my days. Yes, I've witness three or four knee scrapes and jammed fingers, but these are typical playground injuries that I'm sure we've all experienced no matter what pastime we've participated in" Even if it is not a 'serious injury', why take the risk? I can assure you that more people get hurt playing four square than they do on the slide. How many knee scraps or jammed fingers are there on the slide? I can't even think of a scenario where that would be the case. The fact is, a person could, as we call it, powershot it at a persons face, which I have seen 2 times in the two days I was at church. You could very well get a bloody nose with a powershot. 4. <> THOSE THINGS HURT! I don't know if someone has ever chucked one of those balls at your face, but they kill. They were actually outlawed at my school because of injury possiblity, along with dodgeball. My offense- 1. my opponent did not respond to my long line argument. I challenge him to answer this, and how having a longer line would be better. 2. Nine square is much better because of the line. You don't have to spend all day waiting in that line when you have something better to do. It also allows for more awsome moves. 3. There is soooo much arguing in two square, its not even funny. The person that gets out is so convinced he is safe that he will not leave. Even if he does leave, it could lead to resentment among the other players. 4. It hurts when you get a bloody nose. I don't know if pro recognizes this, but I know it hurts. I'm sure people watching this debate would rather not get hit with a rubber ball. You could also get hand and knee scrapes when playing, as well as the occasional finger jam.
Four Square is the best playground pastime

First, I'd like to go deeper into your alternate game; just what is nine-square? I have never heard of it and would love if you could elaborate. Back to Four Square. I've been playing the game since I was a young, 4th grade sapling, and have been addicted it to since. I go to a relatively small school, with each grade being one conjoined class and have ever had no more than 21 people in the class. Most of us have been together since the elementary school, and are very close, almost family; I guess classmate blood is thicker than water. Every recess, no matter what the weather conditions, about half of us play a rousing game of four square. Appealing to both genders, our games typically consisted of six boys and three girls. We use plenty of special moves each game and play with exuberance, intensity, and passion, but kept the lightheartedness that has bonded us together. We hardly ever aruge, and when we come across a controversial call, we either simply redo the play, or take a vote, known to us as "Majority Rules". Our games are fast-paced, and we were oblivious to everything outside of those four squares during our games. Classmates waiting in line cheered us on, showing their support for our beloved friends. Going back to your claims of possible injury during four square games, I'd like to assure you I have never seen a serious injury in my days. Yes, I've witness three or four knee scrapes and jammed fingers, but these are typical playground injuries that I'm sure we've all experienced no matter what pastime we've participated in. Also, going back to reference with being hit by the ball; we use a rubber, inflatable ball, with a soft exterior. Members of the line get hit with this ball about once a game, and it comes up on a bounce, so the line members usually catch it or harmlessly bounces off their leg. The concept of a ball coming full force and speed at a person's face is highly unlikey in our games. Through the fire and the flames (hyperbole...I've never came close to suffering a burn at recess), four square has bonded my friends and I together, and has become not only a playground game, but close to a lifestyle.
Four Square is the best playground pastime

Hello. I will be somewhat abstract in my opening argument and get in deeper later. I would like to disagree with you statment that four square is the best past time. Four square keeps you in a seemingly endless line waiting for your turn. I have just got back from a church retreat where we play four square A LOT. The line takes forever, and I find myself waiting more than playing. For this reason I believe nine square to be a better option. There is more playing time, it allows more kids to vote on who they think is right, and it allows for more special moves. It also captures all of the advantages you claim, but is better because it has my advantages. Also, four square encourages arguing. From my personal experiences, there is more arguing than any other playground game or sport, for that matter. This is a result of letting the kids decide and not having a referee. It is very difficult to judge whether something is in or out, or if it touched a line or not. Of course, the person that got out is almost always going to say they are not out, even when they know they are. Eventually, kids are feeling more and more tense as the game goes on. And you suggest that "even unexpectedly getting hit by the inflated, rubber ball." is good. Why would that be good? A kid could very well get hit and get a bloody nose. Many kids could also fall and scrap their hands and knees when going after the ball. I don't see many nosebleeds or broken bones in going down a slide!