BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ishmael was the real child of promise, not Isaac

To use the textual corruption answer, my partner needs to do two things: (1) He needs to show an earliermanuscript that shows the non-corrupted text; and (2) He needs to explain just howthe alteration of alerations were achieve without anyone noticing. Because my opponent has not produced viable evidence to show either of the two, we can discredit his argument . To show the part about the "only son", the King James Per-version makes it appear that way. Take a look again at how the KJV translates it:In Genesis 22:2 it says "And he said, Take now thy son, thineonlyson Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. "If we take away the first comma, we see that it is clear what the author had intended. Compare this to the Living Torah Translation which reads, "Take your son, the only one you love-Issac. .. "In Judaism, men could have more than one wife (as they can in the Koran)--as wel as concubines (or lesser wives). A first wife did not necessarily have precedent over ater wife if they were of equal status. Hence, when King David married Bathsheba, she became the mother of David's heir--even though David aready had otehr wives and children. In the case of Hagar, Judaism places her in a position of honor. We know that she was an Egyptian princess--so she was indeed respected, even though she was the handmaiden to Sarah. G-d made a promise that he son (Ishmael) would not be forgotten--but he was not given the covenant. The assumption that because Ishmael was born first is false, or else Esau would have inherited the covenant instead of Jacob. Genesis 22 My opponent cites Genesis 22:17 as proof: "That I will surely bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand that is on the seashore, and your descendants will inherit the cities of their enemies. " This is figurative and is to show that the offspring of Issac would be inumerable (wich indeed they are). My partner has not shown viable evidence to prove that this covenant could not be fuflled. Remember, this covanent is STILL in effect today. Thanks for a fun debate. Sadly, this is a faith debate and is hard to convince either side. I ask the voters to vote not on your bias, but who did the better job at debating. Good luck :-)
Ishmael was the real child of promise, not Isaac

Thank you for your interesting and well thought out arguments. In this debate, I am attempting to refute my partner's suggestion that Ishmael was the promised son of Abraham.To remind everyone, this is NOT about the truth of the Bible, nor is it about the truth of the Koran; rather, this debate is about which of Abraham's sons weas the promised child. Genesis 22My partner uses this chapter to suggest a "corruption", which is begging the question what the Hebrew means. Below, I have submited both the Hebrew and English version of the text: And He said, "Please take your son, your only one, whom you love, yea, Isaac, and go away to the land of Moriah and bring him up there for a burnt offering on one of the mountains, of which I will tell you." ב. וַיֹּאמֶר קַח נָא אֶת בִּנְךָ אֶת יְחִידְךָ אֲשֶׁר אָהַבְתָּ אֶת יִצְחָק וְלֶךְ לְךָ אֶל אֶרֶץ הַמֹּרִיָּה וְהַעֲלֵהוּ שָׁם לְעֹלָה עַל אַחַד הֶהָרִים אֲשֶׁר אֹמַר אֵלֶיךָ: Ah, so now we see that the King James Per-version is in error, not the Bible as a whole. When we do a quick analysis of the Hebrew text, we see that the text has the words "Please take your son, your only one, whom you love..." Issac was the only son that Abraham loved. Indeed, Abraham had 2 biological children, but loved only Issac and did NOT love Ishmael. The great scholar and commentator Rashi says, "He [Abraham] said to Him,“ I have two sons.” He [God] said to him,“ Your only one.” He said to Him,“ This one is the only son of his mother, and that one is the only son of his mother.” He said to him,“ Whom you love.” He said to Him,“ I love them both.” He said to him,“ Isaac.” Now why did He not disclose this to him at the beginning? In order not to confuse him suddenly, lest his mind become distracted and bewildered, and also to endear the commandment to him and to reward him for each and every expression. — [from Sanh. 89b, Gen. Rabbah 39:9, 55:7]" [1] Moreover, my opponent argues that the scribes knew that the text clearly said Ishmael, but nonetheless they changed it in their vainglory. The question begged is how my partner knows this. To refute this assertion, all what one must do is look at the dead sea scrolls (a lot older than Islam), which clearly puts Issac as the promised child. In conclusion, we see that my partner's arguments fall under a quick analysis of Hebrew. Thank you. Reference[1] Rashi's Commentaries on Genesis 22
Jeremy Crbyn

There is a huge similiarity between Crbyn and Obama in 2008. (Outside of the fact Crbn won't get elected PM). It's that of Change. Crbyn ran his entire campaign on change and hope much as Obama did in 2008. The thing we have to realize here is that it is easy to say that you are going to change something, but it is impossible to do so. Another huge issue is there is no large expierence that Crbyn can chose from. [1] He doesn't have people that can help him out as there's not a whole lot of of Socialists in power. With that he really cannot mobalize much against David Cameron. [2] So even if people no showed to the polls we can see that such an event will happen regardless in a Democracy unless you make voting complusery. My opponent is just simply caught up in the whole "Change" surge as many Americans were in 2008 when they voted Obama. Corbyn is just making a general threat to purge out his opponnents though just about every canidate says that making it a bland promise. [3]There are many things that the Middle Class in the UK still want. Leaving the Euro isn't one of them amongst many of Corbyn's bold moves. [4] My opponent claims I have no evidence to back my Moderation claim (source 4), but we can see that with over 100 Labour Party MPs defying Corbyn and going against him is already showing a fracture in the party of which I perdicted last round. My opponent goes to slam Ms. Thatcher, but we have to look at the economy. He says that the UK hasn't recovered, but if we observe the chart bellow we can see that when she took over the economy was crashing and in a terrible state, but she increased UK profit margins in the economy by 12% in her regin as Prime Minister. s://thenextrecession. files. wordpress. com. .. ; alt="" />With that I have refuted all of my opponent's points and have shown how Corbyn is a terrible choice and I showed how he's already splitting the Labour Party. With that I thank you and please vote Con! Sources1. (. http://www.theguardian.com...) 2. ( . https://www.gov.uk...) 3. ( . http://www.independent.co.uk...) 4. (. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...)
Jeremy Crbyn

I accept you are American and that you may not be actually aware of Labour History in this country, but frankly to say "It would be highly impossible" for him to be elected as the next British Prime Minister is foolish in the highest degree. He was given no chance to be elected leader and looked what happened. I will also inform you that 17 million voters did not vote in this years election. Who knows how these people will vote in the next one? Since Jeremy Corbyn won the leadership election last Saturday 50,000 new members have joined the labour Party, this is a significant number. I disagree with your view that Blair was Left , he was definitely centre if not kicking to the right. On what do you base your opinion with regards the 'Middle Class' ? What on earth do you mean by "People look to preserve Capitalism and being able to work well and abandon their party for that of the Conservative Party" ? With respect you have totally no idea that this is the case and have no evidence to back it up. You make an assumption. As regards Margaret Thatcher "Cleaning the House" as you put it, she certainly did that. She used the Police Force like A Fascist Dictator would have done to break the Miners Strike. Thanks to that woman this country has never recovered from the effects. She also took this country to an unnecessary war with Argentina which could easily been prevented, just so she could win the next Election, which she won on a landslide. Her Cabinet then proceeded to get rid of her before the country did. My argument is this, Jeremy Corbyn is good for British Politics because it WILL get people talking and asking questions as to whether or not there is a GENUINE alternative to the present system? Because as I said, it's about time we had one! By the way, we must not forget the 17 million people that did not exercise their right to vote in the last election, they might just be listening......watch this space.
Jeremy Crbyn

I'll note to my opponent that I'm an American, so I'm not well read in British politics, but I'll give it a good shot. First I would like to point out that it would be highly impossible for Jeremy Corbyn to get elected Prime Minister due to the fact that very little Leftwingers actually get elected in Britian. We have to look at the Blairite rule which shows that everytime the Labour Party moves left it loses elections. [1] We can see is the reason for this is that the general base is more moderate than not. When the Labour Party moves left, even Socialist left, it worries much of the Middle Class. People look to perserve Captialism and being able to work well and abandon their party for that of the Conservative Party. Labour's Logic My opponent brings up a great deal of questions about nationalization and other things. We have to remember last time Britian had such a large government. Margerate Thatcher had to come in and clean house. Doing this Thatcher broke up unions and saved the UK from a great economic collapse and helped nail down Inflation in the UK. Continuing with the Labour Party, especially a socialist, you'll wind up in a heep of trouble. Sources1. (http://www.theguardian.com...)
Jeremy Crbyn

The recent election of Jeremy Corbyn as the new Labour leader is the most positive event in British politics for a generation. At last the voters of the United kingdom will have a genuine choice. The fact that Jeremy is a true Socialist will spark off a national debate that has been a long time in coming. The question of whether or not the electorate of this Island will embrace Socialism over Capitalism will unfold over the next four and a half years. Most political opinion as well as media opinion thinks he and the Labour party have no chance of achieving this. I for one am not so sure this will be the case. I think over this period of time before the next election, both he and his supporters will pose some fundamental questions. Do we want a fairer society? Is there another way to deal with the current economic crisis? Should public transport and energy production be Nationalised? Should we get rid of the Trident nuclear program. Should we introduce a National Education system based on the same principals of the NHS? Should we redistribute wealth more equally. Should it be made law to vote? These and many other questions will be asked and presumably answered. Surely that has to be healthy and positive for the nation as a whole? I have total faith in the people of the United Kingdom and their ability to make a choice, which they have been denied for so long.
Application of knowledge in schools

I look forward to our debate and testing out your paper! I am a college student too and hope I can help. I agree with you in some areas, but I will just play devil's advocate when necessary. "As of now, the education system seems to focus mostly on getting students to know the theories, not to get help them understand and apply it in real life situations." I attend a technical institute and it focuses on a project-based curriculum. That type of education is about the best you can get for applied training. This school grants Associate's in Applied Science degrees so it is intended to be applied education. You cannot expect your higher education to mold you into the perfect individual for any career. The education can only take you so far; it is up to the individual to actually adapt and apply it themselves when they join the workforce. That is being a professional which schools of higher learning attempt to teach you as much as possible. Additionally, the company that hires you will train you for a short period to teach you their system. My school, along with many others, offer internships for some programs which help out even further. You can also find internships on your own with many companies. "While many students do understand the concept, it seems that the majority of the students are incapable in applying such technique to improve their lives and relationship with other people." I would like to see the source you used for this subject in your paper for reference. I have not taken psychology yet (I will next semester), but I understand the concept and will take your example. Again, it is up to the graduate to adapt to the given situation and apply the knowledge they acquired in their education. It is a well-known fact that higher standard of living correlates with higher education so that backs up my argument. Standard of living covers a vast area of topics including pay, personal/professional relationships, family, environment, etc. Source: http://www.nwitimes.com... "While business students do know the theories of advertising and do really good in case studies, many of them are incapable of actually advertising products when they are told to." I would like to see the source you used for this subject in your paper for reference. I am a business student, although marketing isn't my favorite subject I still feel fairly confident in it. This goes back to my basic argument that it is mostly up to the graduate to adapt and apply what they learned in their education. In this case a marketing major should definitely be able to adapt to a marketing career, especially if it is what they are passionate about. Also, marketing majors often include internships. "...I believe it will be best for students if they will be taught not only the theories but also how to apply the knowledge in real life." The best way to do this is with case studies in the classroom and with internships in the workplace. Both of those solutions are already available. Business majors especially already have internships often built into the curriculum.
Application of knowledge in schools

Hi guys, this if my first time having a proper debate. I am writing a paper regarding the current education system and would like to debate its effectiveness to find out the flaws of my arguments and beliefs. Here we go. As a student, I believe that the current education system is not very effective. As of now, the education system seems to focus mostly on getting students to know the theories, not to get help them understand and apply it in real life situations. This has resulted to several problems such as unskilled college graduates and individuals who are not fond of learning which prevents optimal growth both to the individual and to the economy. For example, in psychology classes, students are taught positive reinforcement, a method to increase the rate of behavior by rewarding an individual every time they engage in that behavior. While many students do understand the concept, it seems that the majority of the students are incapable in applying such technique to improve their lives and relationship with other people. Another example is business classes. While business students do know the theories of advertising and do really good in case studies, many of them are incapable of actually advertising products when they are told to. As a student, I believe it will be best for students if they will be taught not only the theories but also how to apply the knowledge in real life.
Existence of God

You're not really debating, but writing down two very general statements, then trying to tie it to your argument. I'll try to do a rebuttal anyhow. "God is the greatest conceivable being." Where is your proof? How do you know this? Have you seen him? Have you met him? Have you heard him talk to you? Absence of proof is proof of absence. "It is greater to exist than not to exist." I don't have any idea how this is an argument for this topic, or for the point of view that God truly exists. "Therefore, God Exists." Your first "argument" has no proof to back it up. Absence of proof is proof of absence. Your second argument is almost irrelevant. So tell me, how did you arrive at this misconception?
No evidence for free will, only evidence for its absence.

The topic of this debate is that there is no evidence for free will, only evidence for it's absence. You took the "Con"position, meaning your argument is oppostite, opposed to, the debate topic. My postion is pro and I am supposed to be arguing in support of the debate topic. If you don't have free will, how in the world can you choose sides and how in the world can you have any idea what you are saying.....if you don't have free will, nothing you say has to make any sense because you are only saying what the fizzes in your brain make you say. It's a good thing you are excusing yourself from being responsible for your choices, because you are not making any sense and who can blame you if you have no free witll? Which side are you on? Are you on the Con side saying we have free will, or are you actually proving you are incapable of choosing by your own free will which side of the argument you stand on, and the fizzes in your brain compell you to talk like your elevator is skipping a few floors? If you really are trying to prove you have no free will, all you are doing is trying to excuse your own bad behaviour by saying you have no self-control, and therefore you think you have the right to exist outside of the fire of Hell. You have to take responsibility for your own actions. Saying you are not responsible does not get you off the hook.
No evidence for free will, only evidence for its absence.

"My opponent claims I did not refute his argument, but then argues agaisnt my refuttation which he claims I did not make." The New Oxford American Dictionary defines refute as "prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove". Nowhere in Pro's round 2 did he disprove my initial statement. "His whole 3 argument is agaisnt my Round 2 assertions. I guess my opponent has no free will to exercise rational thought or engage in logical conversation." Pro states that we do have free will. "I'm sorry, this is just toooooo stupid. I can't take it any more. You have no free will to vote. You must vote in favor of my opponent if you are as insane as he is." Pro states again that we do have free will. I think the debate is over. I would like to point out that nowhere in Pro's arguments did he give evidence for free will, or refute my evidence.
No evidence for free will, only evidence for its absence.

\My opponent claims I did not refute his argument, but then argues agaisnt my refuttation which he claims I did not make. His whole 3 argument is agaisnt my Round 2 assertions. I guess my opponent has no free will to exercise rational thought or engage in logical conversation. I'm sorry, this is just toooooo stupid. I can't take it any more. You have no free will to vote. You must vote in favor of my opponent if you are as insane as he is.
No evidence for free will, only evidence for its absence.

Pro has yet to refute Con's opening argument. "How can you argue if you don't exercise your free will to do it?" Pro is presupposing that you need free will to do actions, but in my round 1 argument I stated why that is not true, Pro has not still not refuted my round one argument. "Are you responsible for your argument, or is it the fault of the chemical fizzes inside your head?" Yes it is the consequence of innumerable previous events; a chain reaction. "If you are in no control of your thoughts and cannot be responsible for them, how can you say that you can compose any arguemt at all?" I don't need to say it, it is apparent, because it has been done. "If you have no control over your thoughts and actions, no free will, then you are only a machine. I am a human. A human cannot make a machine believe it is human." The New Oxford American Dictionary defines machine as "An apparatus using or applying mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task." The difference between me; a human, and a machine; is that a machine is not alive, and I am. (The functions in the brain and through out our cells are not mechanical.) "I accepted this challenge because it is an act of free will. I did not have to do it, I chose to do it. I did it because I think it's funny that you are trying to convince yourself that you are not responsible for your thoughts and actions." Pro still has not shown any evidence for the existence of free will. Pro chose to pick this debate because it appealed to him. Why did it appeal to him? It appealed to him because of environmental factors and genetics that he has no control over, and he wanted to act on his appeal because of even more uncontrollable events that have effected him. "If you were one of my privates, I would tell you to drop and give me 100 push-ups, then run ten miles through the hills. When you got back, I would say, "well private. I'm giving you a choice. You can say you are responsible for your thoughts and actions or you can give me another 100 pushups before you run the same 10 miles. What is your choice?" Pro seems to prefer to win debates by threatening those who he has "power" over. "Would your answer be programmed by the fizzes of your brain, or would you be responsible for your choice proving you exercise free wiill?" Someone could not be responsible unless they had free will, there fore you could not know they were responsible to prove that they have free will. This is circular reasoning. "Earth calling, you are not a robot. I hope you don't run yourself to death arguing with your CSM" Not having free will does not make someone a robot, as shown in one of my rebuttals located above. I would like to point out that Pro still has not addressed my round one argument. Rather he has asked how we could not have free will, presupposing that we do have it, without showing any evidence.
No evidence for free will, only evidence for its absence.

How can you argue if you don't exercise your free will to do it? Are you responsible for your argument, or is it the fault of the chemical fizzes inside your head? If you are in no control of your thoughts and cannot be responsible for them, how can you say that you can compose any arguemt at all? If you have no control over your thoughts and actions, no free will, then you are only a machine. I am a human. A human cannot make a machine believe it is human. I accepted this challenge because it is an act of free will. I did not have to do it, I chose to do it. I did it because I think it's funny that you are trying to convince yourself that you are not responsible for your thoughts and actions. If you were one of my privates, I would tell you to drop and give me 100 push-ups, then run ten miles through the hills. When you got back, I would say, "well private. I'm giving you a choice. You can say you are responsible for your thoughts and actions or you can give me another 100 pushups before you run the same 10 miles. What is your choice?" Would your answer be programmed by the fizzes of your brain, or would you be responsible for your choice proving you exercise free wiill? Earth calling, you are not a robot. I hope you don't run yourself to death arguing with your CSM