BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jesus contradicted the old testament, and his own standards, about stoning and/or putting to death

"The law already required that those in active sin be punished, so none of the accusers at the scene should have had any sin. "Their own consciences convicted them of their hypocrisy, and they left the woman alone, not because she did not deserve stoning, but because all of the accusers deserved harsh punishment as well, and they knew it. there was no requirement that those stoning be sinless. Jesus seemed to be limiting who should stone. maybe con's best argument is not that Jesus was limiting who 'could' stone, but who 'should' stone. but even still, if they took that approach, there would be no one who would ever be worthy to stone someone, and it was clealy established that it was somehting that should be done. i guess con might be able to argue that bottomline, though, jesus didn't necessaily contradict the law, he he just suggested that it 'should' be someone with no sin. he keeps his words ambiguous, so he may have contradicted the law, but we can also give him benefit of hte doubt. i would still posit, though, that what he was doing is better said to eb establishing mercy, through God acting through Jesus. without Jesus there to forgive her, she would be guilty and the law says to stone her, so she 'should' be stoned, even if it is better that the stoners 'should' be sinless.
Jesus contradicted the old testament, and his own standards, about stoning and/or putting to death

RebuttalsMy first three points were given in an attempt to help with the context of the fourth."It could be interpreted that Jesus was restricting who could stone based on their sins."This is why it's important to see that Jesus was not in a position of authority. The Pharisees were not asking him for judgement or instruction. They only wanted his opinion on the due punishment in the hopes that they could lampoon him. He was not giving instruction on how stoning should be carried out, nor was he modifying the law. He was simply giving an answer that simultaneously showed his support for the law while calling out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. The law already required that those in active sin be punished, so none of the accusers at the scene should have had any sin. Jesus was shedding light on the fact that the accusers were just as guilty as the accused, but their sins were hidden. Their own consciences convicted them of their hypocrisy, and they left the woman alone, not because she did not deserve stoning, but because all of the accusers deserved harsh punishment as well, and they knew it.I'm sure that this was an instance of Jesus being merciful, as Pro suggests, but it was also, and perhaps more so, an instance of Jesus calling out the religious leaders on their hidden sin. He did not contradict the law by pointing out that none of the Pharisees were obeying the law either.
Jesus contradicted the old testament, and his own standards, about stoning and/or putting to death

that Jesus was or was not in a position of authority doesn't matter, if Jesus did contradict the law. we are examining his stance in and of itself, so there's motives arent really relevant to that exact question. if they should have included the male as well, Jesus could have pointed out that there was no male involved too, as there should have been. this again is beside the point of whether jesus contradicted himself or not. if they were not sincere has no bearing on whether Jesus contradicted himself or not. but, you do provide a decent on argument on whether he contradicted himself. it could be interpreted that Jesus was restricting who could stone based on their sins. that would be a contradiction. then again, it could be said that Jesus was emrely offering a suggestion, that they don't necessarily ahve to stone, but if they do, it should be someone without sin. the problem might be whether they indeed had to stone them. if they did, there's no restriction that they be sinless. Jesus's suggestion then would have been an extra layer of requirement, or it would in any case hinder what should be enforced. with all that said, i've basically conceded this debate elsewhere. id argue the better argument, is that Jesus was wanting to forgive the sinner. there's no reason he couldn't, acting through God. such as a presidential pardon or a govenor pardon. in order to fend off the would be stoners, he wanted to ask them if they were at his level or not. without coming and and saying so. when they couldn't admit to being sinless, Jesus was able to state that he didn't condemn her despite breaking the Law.essentially forgiving her.
Abortion

So many people think abortion is all good because the child is "not fully formed." Aren't children still forming? Is it okay to kill an unborn child, but not a four year old? A baby is a baby, and it doesn't matter if they're born or not. Why would we murder a child? I know that this logic won't work for most people, but I'm going to get a little religious on you. Some people allow abortion because the woman was raped, but it says in Ezekiel (in the bible) in the eighteenth chapter and the twentieth verse, do not judge the child for the sins of the father. And if the birth would hurt the mother, why would that make a difference? Just because you'll be hurt, you can't just kill someone. It's not okay to kill anyone, especially a baby.
The God Hypothesis is the best scientific explanation for the origins of existence (2)

As you can see, my opponent has forfeited this debate. I encourage you all to vote con because pro, as I demonstrated last round, has not upheld their BOP and has forfeited the debate.Pro has instead decided to engage me in a message conversation, and I will reply to him there in a day or so, but in the context of this debate, I believe the winner is clear.
The God Hypothesis is the best scientific explanation for the origins of existence (2)

Every other time I've done a continuation of a past debate it hasn't gone well, but this time I'm feeling lucky. To save some time, let me recap what the arguments were in my last debate:Pro's caseA1. Nothing is infinite in reality (I argued that this wasn't necessarily true, and had no scientific basis)A2. Time must have begun (I argued that God's ability to create himself proves that this isn't necessarily true, plus the lack of scientific evidence around this point)B1. Prime mover cannot exist in time since it created time (I pointed out this presupposes B4)B2. As B1 for space dimensions (something the debate never quite got to)B3. Must be changeless as lacks dimensionality (I pointed out this was nonscientific as things without dimensionality aren't testable)B4. Cannot be abstraction since abstractions are not causes (I pointed out that God meets pros standard for abstraction and that abstractions are causes)B5. Must be a disembodied mind if not abstraction (again, not scientifically validated - science relies on metaphysics, but metaphysical explainations are not scientific as that's arguing in a circle)B6. Must be intelligent (downgraded by pro from omniscient) if created the universe (I pointed out that this is premised on our conception of what "intelligence" is, which is informed by the universe)B7. Must be omnipotent to defy physics (I pointed out that it need not have done this, and besides defying science makes you unscientific by definition)My Case (which was mostly left unrebutted - hopefully it will be looked at in more detail in this debate)C1. Problem of evilC2. Problem of loving too muchC3. Problem of personal relationship experienceC4. Omnipotence paradoxC5. Why us? C6. "Eternally existing" makes no sense without timeIn this debate, I won't be making any new objections, just defending those I have already made (but I'm happy to do that for five rounds if that's what it takes to make your refutations).
The God Hypothesis is the best scientific explanation for the origins of existence (2)

I felt that our debate ended abruptly and I think you felt the same way. I could of sworn I put the debate at 5 rounds and I did not expect to see some of the objections you made about the God Hypothesis. Lastly, I wanted and needed to respond to these objections and was disappointed that I could not get to them. I heard of other debaters making an extension of their previous debates. So after careful thought, I decided to invite you to another debate where we can continue our previous debate. I will state the objections you made that I did not get to and we can start where we let off. I put it to five rounds just in case you continue to raise additional objections and its my burden of proof so I would need enough room to respond to your objections. It's your call. FIRST round is acceptance ONLY Now, for the audience, if CON decides to accepts this debate, I encourage you to read our previous debate we had in order to get a understanding of this debate and properly vote on who won this debate by evaluating both debates. Here is the debate number : 22281
The elections that are occuring in 08 are fixed against ron paul

Actually, I did refute your main argument in my final paragraph. Here it is again: "I assume that by "fixed", you mean rigged. The elections are most certainly not rigged against one particular candidate by the current administration. I do not deny that the government has the capability to do so, but in this case there is no motive. I would understand the suspicion if Bush were running for re-election, as we have seen Watergate and similar situations in the past, but as Bush is ending his final term, his administration would have no reason to sabotage Ron Paul's campaign. Additionally, Ron Paul is a Republican. If the government were to "hack in and giving some of the other candidates votes, or just taking some away from him", don't you think they would target a Democratic candidate? Parties tend to like to continue their political legacy, if you will." I am not naive enough to believe that there is no deception in politics or even manipulations during the voting process. I just don't agree with your original argument: that the current administration is targeting Ron Paul, or attempting to sabotage his campaign, and I give my reasons why in the paragraph above. Even assuming that you're right, the government wouldn't risk being caught manipulating numbers of votes on just primaries. Also, your friend that helped you with information cited an incident in which human error was the huge factor. As you originally stated that "there is human error to take into consideration but there is only going to be a very small percentage that is error", and you were shown to be wrong, I cannot see how I can trust the rest of your argument - I don't know how much is a guess or just made up.
The elections that are occuring in 08 are fixed against ron paul

you see vantagepoint, you clearly state that all that is ron paul is that he is clearly a fad. for what i have seen at my school, i agree with you in that. but in your argument you dont argue the main point of my argument. and that is that there is a possibility that the elections may be fixed against ron paul or one of the other candidates. with all that goes on with politics there is many possibilities that an election can be either fixed against one of the opponents. my example of this is how ron paul has placed in some of the recent primary elections. in some of the states he should have placed in 4th, and there was once a chance he could have come in 3rd but some of them. but 5th place and 7th place are relalistic for how you say that he is a fad. but with how popular he is in some states, there is possibilities that the electronic computer ballotts can be fixed against a candidate because of poltics being scared they might not get the votes they should be. all i am saying in a nutshell is that the elections that go on today can be fixed against some one. i apoligize if you did not understand my previous argument, i didnt have much time to write it. - i look forward to your rebuttle sincerly, DeATHNOTE
The elections that are occuring in 08 are fixed against ron paul

Publicity and popularity do not correlate with the number of voters that will actually go to the polls. The majority of Ron Paul's fan base is college and high school kids - many of who can not even vote yet, or do not care enough more than to put a bumper sticker on their dorm room door, and yell "LETS GO!!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]UTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" around campus. Ron Paul is a fad to these kids, because of his liberal ideas about drug policy and such. He does not draw in as large amount of serious party voters as you may think, because his liberal views conflict with his Republican party affiliation. "the people that are coming in places higher than him are more likely to be the ones coming in lower places than him." I will not refute this, as the claim "more likely" is an opinion and is not supported by factual evidence. Please provide some statistics that show the likelihood of other candidates scoring lower in the polls than Ron Paul. Also, the "trained professionals" that count the ballots are actually regular people off the street who are typically paid about $6.00 an hour for their work for the day. Not that this is entirely relevant, but just a note. I assume that by "fixed", you mean rigged. The elections are most certainly not rigged against one particular candidate by the current administration. I do not deny that the government has the capability to do so, but in this case there is no motive. I would understand the suspicion if Bush were running for re-election, as we have seen Watergate and similar situations in the past, but as Bush is ending his final term, his administration would have no reason to sabotage Ron Paul's campaign. Additionally, Ron Paul is a Republican. If the government were to "hack in and giving some of the other candidates votes, or just taking some away from him", don't you think they would target a Democratic candidate? Parties tend to like to continue thier political legacy, if you will. I look forward to your response.
The elections that are occuring in 08 are fixed against ron paul

ok, with all the publicity that is coming for Ron Paul there is no way he keeps placing in 5th place for all of them. the people that are coming in places higher than him are more likely to be the ones coming in lower places than him. My next point brings me to the different ways that the balletts are taken. the hand voting balletts are more likely to be accurate because there are wittnesses counting every single one. sure there is human error to take into consideration but there is only going to be a very small percentage that is error, this is because these are trained professionals. the computerized ballotts are the ones that are going to be inaccurate. some people dont realize how easy it is to hack into one of the computers and give a candidate some extra votes. i conspirthize that the govermnent dosent want ron paul to become the next president so they are hacking in and giving some of the other candidates votes, or just taking some away from ron paul. this is why we need people to do the same but in favor of ron paul LETS GO!!! RON PAUL R[EVOL]UTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You do not know what the word God signifies yet you continue to demand 'proof'

Pro tries to get bold: "Are you implying that the provision of a definition is indicative of a person being aware of it's parameters." My response: No, I'm implying that to demonstrate, in a text-based online debate, that you know the significance of something, supplying a definition is a massive indicator of awareness. Furthermore, the resolution says that I do not know what the word god signifies. I have shown what god signifies with a google definition, repeatedly, which speaks to my ability to accurately identify and locate the concept and apply it in relevant cases such as the coherent debate about god creating life where both the voter and debater were able to reach a consensus on my definition of god from which my successful refutations emerged. I know what god means, and I continue to demand proof for any truth claims that involve god. Perhaps something disturbing about Pro's insinuation is that I "just wanted to kick a can down the road." Pro, you got me all wrong. I'm a teacher; I wish to educate people on basic principles of science that actually aren't complicated, though they sound as such. These principles are proven useful in god debates, because some of these people have seriously never encountered this information before and truly believe that it doesn't exist; I'm about showing them that. When people see their beliefs challenged in such a factual way, they tend to remember the facts really well. This rings true with students who have expressed contention with scientific concepts that I teach; they do really well on tests about evolution. I wasn't kicking a can, I know what god signifies, and I wasn't trying to play a game of "guess what I'm thinking" For some people god is a being/entity/existence, for some people it just represents the creation of the universe, and for some it's both. I reject the resolution. Oh, and here's some cool history on the word god. god (n.) Old English god "supreme being, deity; the Christian God; image of a god; godlike person," from Proto-Germanic *guthan (cognates: Old Saxon, Old Frisian, Dutch god, Old High German got, German Gott, Old Norse gu", Gothic gu"), from PIE *ghut- "that which is invoked" (cognates: Old Church Slavonic zovo "to call," Sanskrit huta- "invoked," an epithet of Indra), from root *gheu(e)- "to call, invoke." http://www.etymonline.com...
You do not know what the word God signifies yet you continue to demand 'proof'

MagicAintReal states:,'' in a particular debate that didn't involve you,'Surely the debate was 'public' and open to all Debate.org members to comment on. Is this correct?MagicAintReal states: 'Furthermore, you've wasted readers' time'How do you know this?MagicAintReal states: 'So what if google and my definition of god use the phrase supreme being?'Do you not think that this might be significant?MagicAintReal asks: Pro, did I provide definitions for god?Are you implying that the provision of a definition is indicative of a person being aware of it's parameters. You just wanted to 'kick a can down the road. It might be a Coke can, a bean can or a Billy can. What is it about 'God' creating the world(not) that you wish to reveal to our readers who's time is apparently 'not for wasting'.
You do not know what the word God signifies yet you continue to demand 'proof'

Pro concedes that I know what the word God signifies, successfully refuting the resolution. Pro, you have massive issues with a particular word, in a particular definition, of a particular concept, in a particular debate that didn't involve you, and has successfully been executed and voted on. Yeah, the fact that you keep harassing me about something so trivial lends itself to obsession. Furthermore, you've wasted readers' time with YOUR dramatics. When you quoted me in this round, your quotes demonstrated NOTHING...yep nothing. My quotes show that abiogenesis explains how life likely originated, and that abiogenesis is not a being...whoopty doo. Why is this indicative of "guess what I'm thinking?" So what if google and my definition of god use the phrase supreme being? To me, by providing definitions AND the chance for people to change them before the debate should highlight that I'm not playing a game of "guess what I am thinking," rather I'm allowing other definitions of god to flourish if need be for the debate. You're acting like I didn't provide definitions, and just expected people to guess what I'm thinking. Well, I provided a well supported definition, and allowed people to change it if need be. Pro, did I provide definitions for god? Yes? Then we're done here, because that shows that I do know the significance of god.
You do not know what the word God signifies yet you continue to demand 'proof'

MagicAintReal states: because "being" in the definitions implies creation ability; Life on earth most likely originated by way of abiogenesisAbiogenesis is a theory and not a beingI said at the very start of your debate that it was a game of 'Guess what I am thinking about' and I hope that others will concur with this assessment. All the amateur dramatics that you can muster will not change my opinion on this but it is refreshing to see that old debate stable, ie the ad hominem rear it's ugly head. Sure I'm a stalker , that's it.MagicAintReal: 'This may just be a debater who is slightly obsessed with me, and is harassing me for no real reason.'
You do not know what the word God signifies yet you continue to demand 'proof'

Pro has to demonstrate that I do not know what the word god signifies per the resolution. Pro concedes the debate: "You defined god using the Google definition: god - the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being." My response: Pro agrees that I defined god thus refuting the claim that I don't know the significance of god. Pro continues to concede by quoting me: "God signifies an agent in the creation of the universe." to which Pro replies, "Ok." My response: So, not only do I know what god signifies, Pro agrees with my definition of god by saying, "ok." Pro asks some weirdly worded irrelevant to the resolution question: "Does this mean that abiogenesis is the cause of creation but that it is not a being because it is a theory but that you want proof for a God who is a being who did cause creation.??" My response: Abiogenesis is an explanation for the origins of life on earth. It is not a being, because it is a theory. I want proof for god with regards to truth claims (origins of life/universe). God is defined as a being who caused creation, but obviously I reject that creation was caused by god. Pro continues to concede: "You are 'all over the shop' on this and you prove this by embarking on your debate with a haphazard notion of what the word god actually signifies within your own cerebral space." My response: So Pro agrees again that I have a meaning of god in my cerebral space. Also, this notion of god is also supported by other definitions, so what's the problem here? I reject the resolution, because Pro agrees that I not only provided a definition of god, but that I have a definition within my "cerebral space." We're done here. This may just be a debater who is slightly obsessed with me, and is harassing me for no real reason. I have defined god proving my knowledge of the word, and Pro has agreed to the definition in this round. We're done here.