BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible is the infallible word of God

I will not go into another in depth argument due to my opponent's computer lacking a notification. I will just leave my opponent to respond to my round 3 argument and end with this: Gen 32:30 states, ""for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. " However, John 1:18 states, "No man hath seen God at any time"" Both statements cannot be true. Either there is an error of fact, or an error of translation. In either case, there is an error. And if there is an error, then infallibility of the Bible (in this case the King James Version) is falsified. This is just one of many examples of contradictions that are found within the bible. If the bible is in fact infallible (incapable of error) then no contradictions could be possible. I ask the voters of this debate to look at the evidence provided by myself and to observe the contradictions I have placed before you. These are not opinions, these are facts.
The Bible is the infallible word of God

Hello all, I would like to debate with someone (preferably a fundamentalist) that the Bible is not the infallible word of God. Anyone is welcome to accept the debate. I look forward to seeing what others have to say. The debate will go as follows: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Argument Round 3: Rebuttal Round 4: Rebuttal/Closing These definitions will be used. (from Merriam Webster) Infallible - incapable of error. Bible - the sacred scriptures of Christians comprising the Old Testament and the New Testament. God - the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe. (I know they're fairly obvious, but I'd rather be specific and not deal with confusion)
Heath Leger's Joker was the best joker in the franchise

While I do like Heath Ledger's version Mark Hamill's is just the best for some reasons. 1. Laugh: Mark Hamill's version nails the joker's laugh perfectly something Ledger's seems to struggle a bit with it. 2. Real Evil: With his new appearance in The Killing joke we see what Hamill brings to the table. A truly twisted joker with no morals as it should be. Joker at it's core is a sociopath with no redeeming qualities. 3. Unstable: With his appearance in the Arkham series shows that while intelligent, his joker is truly unstable. Even when facing death Hamill's joker trashes his last hope to stab batman. And truly he has some sick sense of humor.
Heath Leger's Joker was the best joker in the franchise

Ok sorry about that my auto correct changed the name and about the film it's just because I was thinking about it in the way they came out and I think its weird how the 2nd one was called the Dark Night and the third one was called Dark Night Rises but that's a subject for another debate. Any ways I don't think that Mark Hamils interpretation of the joker isn't better then Heath Ledger because the Joker in that version relied on the more funny version such as gags as traps and not actually being very evil
Heath Leger's Joker was the best joker in the franchise

In The Dark Night Rises Heath Leger (In my own opinion) was much better for a couple of reasons:1: While Jack Nicholson was a good Joker has "equipment" was more then gag weapons such as the the flower on the shirt.2: When Heath played the Joker he didn't have the sort of characteristics you would usually expect for a Joker but he had qualities that made him shine... and of course the pencil trick... you have to love the pencil trick3:Heath made the Joker look like a anarchist more than a mad psychopath with when he burned a massive pile of money saying "Its not about the money... its about sending a message... everything burns" and also with them amazing puns The Joker: If we don't deal with this now, soon little, uh, Gambol here won't be able to get a nickel for his grandma. Gambol: [explodes] Enough from the clown! [He rises to his feet; Joker does too, opening his coat to reveal a cluster of grenades, attached to a string around his thumb] The Joker: Ah-ta-ta-ta! Let's not *blow*... Man No. 1: SH** The Joker: ...this out of proportion.Looking to have a casual debate, just about the different Jokers in the series
God does NOT exist!!!

My opponent does not has no argument. He has a bunch of baseless assertions. My opponent is making the claim, which means he has the burden of proof, unless otherwise specified. It was not specified that he didn't have the full burden of proof, which means that he has it to the fullest. He has proven literally nothing except that he knows how to use the caps lock button. For this reason it is impossible for my opponent to win, and therefore it is unnecessary for me to provide any arguments against him.
Why Heavy Gun Control Is Bad and Why The Second Ammendment Is Good

first let me say I am glad to be here and you seem like a very intelligent person compared to my dumb 8th grade colleagues, so thank you for being competent and not just an absent-minded word hurler. OK, so you first point was that gun control is not really effective and the example you used was Mexico. My problem with using Mexico as an example is that it's gun control was imposed far to late and is not enforced in the right way. Drug cartels make up the government in many places and in others they act simply without the government. This is not the case in the U.S. because the government in our country at least right now is mostly in control, and therefore would simply do better just off of that. I also think we should look at a country like Japan where only the military is allowed to have guns. In Japan the murder rate is .31 in 100,000 per year; which is 8th in the world and very impressive for a highly populated country. The U.S. is 126th in the world with a 4.88 per 100,000 murder rate per year. The U.S. is therefore a more dangerous place than places like: North Korea, Iran, Cuba, and even syria. Japan's liberally formed gun control works very, very well and I don't see why this is not an option here. Second, you brought up school shootings. Yes, we can agree that school shootings happen when mentally unstable people get their hands on guns. However, I do not agree with your chosen method of dealing with this problem. First I think we must realize that mentally unstable people will simply not shout out that they are hurting mentally before they do something like this, which would make it hard to not sell them guns. Then we must look at the gun show loop-hole where you are hardly ever required to even show id. We will never come up with a system that can stop all mentally unstable an disabled people from purchasing guns. Therefore I feel an outright ban is truly in order if not some very strict reform. This brings me to your point about how the second amendment is so that we can overthrow the government if necessary. I feel that this is totally not why the founding fathers created the second amendment either. When they created this they were being ruled from across a massive sea by one cruel man and they had no power to take control diplomatically. We are in a very different situation. First, the fact that we have a large government is good in this way because it means that power is balanced so that one person can only have a limited amount of power. Second, we are part of a democracy and not a monarchy. This means that a citizen does in fact have control of the government and has the rights necessary to influence what the government does. This takes away the need for a violent uprising entirely anyway. your so called " government tyranny" is impossible with a fair democracy. Thanks, tag...your it.
Why Heavy Gun Control Is Bad and Why The Second Ammendment Is Good

With all due respect, it really doesn't matter whether the guns they bought are bought within legal limit or not. The problem is not the purchasing of guns, the problem isn't the selling of guns, the problem is the mental stability of the clients. Gun control has been known to actually cause more problems with crime and shootings, if you want an example take a look at Mexico and other countries around the world with a high murder rate. Gun Control has clearly been proven to not work, however, I am in favor of controling the purchasing and flow of guns based on the stabilitity of the buyer. Allow me to elaborate on the sentance I stated in the last paragraph above. I believe you and I can both agree that School Shootings are a result of mentally unstable people who get their hands on guns. As a result, I believe that guns should only be sold to people above the age of twenty-one (which is the age I believe). Also, if you have a mentally unstable child in your house you should not be permitted to hold a gun unless you have an approved safe and so forth. This works because it doesn't break the second ammendment of the constitution and it keeps those who are pro-gun happy. "OK let me start with what the second amendment is, the right to bear arms to form a well regulated militia; IN A TIME OF WAR!" I must say that you are only partially correct with this statement. Albiet that yes, this is the purpose, it is only part of the purpose. The purpose of the second ammendment is to arm the people of the United States to protect themselves from a government tyranny, that is what the founding fathers formed it for. I, myself, with the growing use of "Big Government" which is supported by the left, I fear that a Government Tyranny may arrise within the next two centuries. I am in support for the second ammendment for this reason. It was made to allow us protection from Government Tyranny. Also, I'd like to thank you for accepting this debate, it's always enjoyable to discuss intellectual conversation. Back to you!
Why Heavy Gun Control Is Bad and Why The Second Ammendment Is Good

OK let me start with what the second amendment is, the right to bear arms to form a well regulated militia; IN A TIME OF WAR! The second amendment was created when we were fighting for our freedom against the British. While I am no fan of violence, it makes sense that citizens would need to carry weapons in the case of an attack. However, we are not at currently at war on our home soil where people would need to carry weapons for self defense, and therefore the second amendment is void. Next, I think you may not be in favor of gun control due to things like terror attacks and/or school shootings. 80% of school shootings are done with legally bought guns. If banning guns would stop 4 in 5 shootings then I am all in. Also heavy gun control would make it harder to get illegally bought guns so this furthers my point. Gun control may make it harder for you to hunt, but that is not the freaking problem of the now dead students. I look forward to your next statement :)
Guns should be illegal

You have no sources so i cannot believe any numbers you give me. I cannot believe you Malta stories either. Neither can the voters of this debate. And you completely ignored my 12 cases of mass shootings stopped which was backed up with a source. Here is the line again: "Here are 12 cases of a mass shooting crippled by this: http://controversialtimes.com...; But the people who died thing was because they created the constitution and we should preserve it. Mainly a pathos argument though. Still has logical payload though. And if we had teacher with guns, but they took a course or something. Or if we just had security guards or police at schools that would solve the issue. The only thing a gunman is afraid of is a good gunman. The penalties will not stop criminals, laws won't stop them from being armed, armed civillians will stop them. Also backed up by this source: http://controversialtimes.com... This was a good debate. Thanks pro.
Guns should be illegal

If criminals get guns illegally, which I'm not saying they don't, they do it because there is a LACK of security. Henceforth, why are there over a 100 reported school shootings in the USA? Because teens have easy access to guns, including those by their parents. Yes that contributes to your fact that they steal their guns, however, if the parents or whoever they get their guns from, never had them in the first place, hundreds of lives would've been saved. Just because thousands of people died in the 1700s in the American revolution, doesn't mean that Americans should own guns. Consequentially, suicide bombers/terrorists (e.g. Eric Harris), died to prove his silly point, that doesn't make it just either. Moreover, Malta (if you don't know where it is, buy yourself a map) is just a tiny island that was involved in world war 2, thousands of people died as well, however Malta didn't give gun rights to people to protect themselves, they increased security measures and have never after been involved in such causalities (unless they got the guns from hunters, or bought illegally). They were dominated by the 1) phoenicians 2) carthaginians 3) Byzantines 4) arabs 5) normans 6) french 7) british and yet they don't pass BIZARRE gun laws. Mention ISIS? They're not American, however they are not European either. Moreover, how are the Christians persecuted? Have you forgotten the KKK? And most Americans vote for Christian politicians, they trust Christians more, if you're Christian in America, you don't have to worry about your religion being a cause of discrimination.
Guns should be illegal

Once again criminal DON'T buy guns. They are stolen. Proofs: https://www.nraila.org... http://www.gunfacts.info... STOLEN not BOUGHT. Just better system will NOT help. And there is not chaos in America. The middle east is chaos. ISIS? Yeah, ISIS. That is a chaotic situation. Not 'Murica. And 'Murica is 'Murica. Our country exists because we wanted to be free. Worship how we want to. And here you go saying we shouldn't be so free. America is a sanctuary for persecuted ideologies, like christians or homosexual people. Still don't like the idea of freedom? You can get any job you want. The only thing against this is competition for these jobs. And our culture? Two words: Modern. Music. Film content, and remember the issue with "The Interview"? Violence throughout? Pornographic? Nudity? Sexual content? No problem here. (not that i am supporting the listed) Still complaining about how free we are? Our freedom is a huge part of American culture. People DIED trying to get what we have. They took a ship across the ocean then told the world's largest power to stop taxing us. To stop ordering us. To give us independence. Then we won a terrible war. Nearly 4,500 people died in the American Revolution. If we can't own guns then our freedom thousands of people died for is threatened and our constitution is violated. Thank you.
Guns should be illegal

If there were a better system, criminals wouldn't be able to access guns. How come in the UK, mass shootings are rare? Because they have good gun control, but if you talk about America for example, there's total chaos because people are too "free", they will carry their bible and their shotgun and their confederate flag. Moreover, "they don't do background check on criminals?" They should, and in most cases (the USA yet fails again) people get asked for their criminal records, hell you even need one to apply for a job. Guess you're the one debunked.
Guns should be illegal

You will have to take Burden of Proof, only makes sence. Ok, so one of my largest arguments you announce to everyone, "shootings will never get eliminated because we don't live in a perfect world." We need guns because criminals DON'T buy guns. They illegally obtain them. Criminals DON'T go through background checks. They will get a gun and it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. Here are 12 cases of a mass shooting crippled by this: http://controversialtimes.com... You have been, disproved. Good luck to you pro.
Guns should be illegal

Those in the army/police forces should be the only ones to bare arms, thus this would GREATLY reduce shootings. Thus, there should be a strict procedure to ensure that illegal guns do not get in the country, this could be easily done by putting forward harsh fines/jail sentences for those caught importing or caught using illegal guns and also by checking parcels in customs (I can see the flaw in this one because it could reduce privacy). However, this also implies that hunting would have to be illegal which is quite controversial with a low of people. Moreover, this is not a bizarre idea, a lot of countries have strict gun laws. For example, the UK had a school shooting in the 1990s, only one, because after that, they made it illegal for citizens to bare arms. Furthermore, my position is that strict gun laws will greatly reduce shootings, however I am aware that people still have means to get arms and therefore shootings will never get eliminated because we don't live in a perfect world.
Peyton Manning is better than Eli

Eli Manning is a two-time Super Bowl MVP and three-time Pro Bowler. In this, just his 10th pro season, he will very possibly crack the top 20 in career passing yards, touchdowns and completions. At age 31, he has plenty of time to pile up enough statistics to earn entry to the Hall of Fame. Another Super Bowl victory would virtually guarantee enshrinement as well. Peyton is old as crap, Eli with definetly have a longer legacy than Peyton Will as he has many years to go.
God is unlikely to exist

Relevant Definitions:1. God: noun A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.2. Exist: intransitive verb Have objective reality or being.3. Unlikely: adjective Not likely to happen, be done, or be true; improbable. 4. Evidence: noun The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.5. Logic: noun Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. Debate Specifications:This debate is attempting to solidify the probability or improbability of God's existence, contingent on a logical argument advocated by substantial evidence. For that reason, it would be preferable for CON to be an actual believer of a monotheistic religion in order to eliminate the use of semantic ploy and distinguish our arguments with unique perspectives (atheist vs. theist). The Burden of Proof will be on CON, as he is attempting to negate the topic; if the BOP shifts, I will further advocate my argument.
beliefs dosnt exist, religion dosnt exist, to you

There are no ways to prove or disprove the existence of a legit religion. That's like asking someone to show you an alien for proof of the existence of extra terrestrial creature. They can't do it. Now, I can't prove the existence of any religion by grabbing a god out of nowhere and shoving it in your face, and you can't disprove the existence of any religion by denying it all. But, I will say this: Religion is our way, as humans, of explaining things that can't be explained. If an event that defies the laws of universal sciences takes place, then we just say that it was a miracle. Supposedly, many people don't want to have the thought of not understanding something in their already clouded mind. Therefore, people give a reason to everything. In conclusion, I can't prove the existence of anything to you unless you're asking me to mail the Buddha to PO Box.
God is sexist.

This is the definition of sexist. 1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women 2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex These are some quotes in the Bible. "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (1 Timothy 2:12) "Do not allow a sorceress to live." (Exodus 22:18) {Note the -ess}. I am interested in your response; I have plenty of more verses.
Legalizing Marijuanna

Marijuana is a WEED which means it steals water from other plants. Those who grow it are actually destroying hundreds of ecosystems around the world. For example, in Brasil, they have a problem with losing their rainforest. This is actually because many drug dealers around there grow their plants in the secrecy within the forest. All of the marijuana plants are actually killing trees that are hundreds of thousands of years old. Besides the environment, marijuana is terrible for you. When smoked, the smoke goes to your brain and kills billions of brain cells. Although they can grow back, these new brain cells don't have the same information, making your iq lower by on average 54 points, according to a study by Harvard University. Additionally, even though people use it "medically" (It DOES make you hungry, which is true) people just smoke it in hospitals and die from cancer. For the argument on why it would help the economy, well it would actually HURT it. The more it's legalized, the more people die. With less people to trade stocks, start businesses and take jobs, the legalization of marijuana would send us into another great depression.
Legalizing Marijuanna

I most definitely think marijuana should be legalized everywhere. I mean, there isn"t really any real harm from it. Nobody has died from it, it"s not a deadly drug so why not? Besides, there is a pretty big usage of marijuana already. Marijuana is used in just about every state, although people don't have rights to it and it"s illegal in most of the states. I think that if marijuana was legal, it would help a lot of people stay out of trouble. If people are already using it then why not go ahead and legalize it? There should be an age limit though. Since 21 is the legal drinking age, i feel that 21 is an acceptable age to purchase it. Just like alcohol, marijuana isn"t for children. In my opinion, when you"re 21, you are old enough to make your own choice and even though people say people aren"t really grown till they're 25, 21 is old enough to make your own decisions and decide what is right and wrong when it comes to something like this. Everyone smokes cigarettes. Marijuana is totally less dangerous than that. It doesn"t give you lung cancer or mess up any of your cells. It even fights cancer cells! Not only is it better than cigarettes but it also reduces diabetes or chances of diabetes. Oh and did i mention it decreases obesity? Yes, it does. Obesity isn"t for everyone, this way people who don't like it has an easier option plus what they're already doing to lose the extra weight. It"s totally understandable that people will use this drug for all of the reasons. They're probably going through a hard time in life or they just want it just because. The reason i think it should be legalized is because physically it cannot kill you unlike other drugs. Its been proven and articles says it. Making marijuana legal would also decrease the use of pills. A lot of people take pills for many things, some even overdose on it. People could substitute the pills for marijuana. It"s a lot safer and not such a huge risk. And it totally puts people in a better mood and that is great.