BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christianity is true

First, the early dating of the gospels. The early church fathers (The followers of the apostles) quoted the New Testament in their letters, and as these were written in the 2nd century we can assert the New Testament was completed before then. The Rylands Library Papyrus P52 is the oldest manuscript of the New Testament, ranging from around 100-150 AD, and as this is credited as the last gospel the gospel accounts existed before 100-150 AD Thirdly, the book of Acts, written by Luke to tell the story of the Apostles does not mention the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD, or the deaths of James the brother of Jesus, Paul and Peter which took place in the early 60 ADs. At the end of Acts Paul was still alive, and the fact that these important events in Christianity were not recorded by Luke, who was a historian and a doctor, shows that at 3/4 of the gospel and Acts were completed before 60AD, as Matthew and Mark were completed before Luke.
global warming is real

Id like to start out my case by clarifying the topic is about humans causing global warming.Definitions:glob"al warm"ingnoun a gradual increase in the overall temperature of the earth's atmosphere generally attributed to the greenhouse effect caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and other pollutants.Contention 1:75% of the 20th century increase in the atmospheric greenhouse gas CO2 is directly caused by human actions like burning fossil fuels. CO2 levels were 389ppm (parts per million) as of Apr. 2010 - the highest they have been in the past 650,000 years. [2] [1][4]Contention 2:Human-produced CO2 is warming the earth, not natural CO2 released from the ocean and other "carbon sinks." CO2 from fossil fuel combustion has a specific isotopic ratio [5] that is different from CO2 released by natural "carbon sinks." 20th century measurements of CO2 isotope ratios in the atmosphere confirm that the rise results from human activities, not natural processes. [3]The vast majority of scientist believe it. Here's a graph of global temperatures that proves we have a problem. Conclusion:My opponent only made one point and failed to cite his evidence, therefore his point is invalid. I on the other hand cited all my points, and have presented significant evidence for man made global warming. This is why I believe you should vote pro.1. National Research Council of the National Academies, "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years" (3.6 KB) , www.nap.edu, 2006 2.National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), "Global Climate Change: Evidence - How Do We Know," www.climate.nasa.gov (accessed Apr. 26, 2010)3.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), "Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis" (19 MB) www.ipcc.ch, 2007 4.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), "Global Climate Change Indicators" (249 KB) , www.ncdc.noaa.gov, Apr. 13, 20105.Robert Andres, PhD, and Gregg Marland, PhD, et al., "Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Fossil Fuel Consumption and Cement Manufacture, 1751-1991" (6.5 MB) Oak Ridge National Laboratory, May 23, 1994
Standardized testing should NOT be banned

In today's bustling society, technology is advancing at an exponential rate. With this rapid growth of technology, students are becoming smarter than ever. For example, not only do students have the luxury of researching things at the click of a button but students also have accessibility to a wealth of information which once would have taken days to find at a library . Because of the ease of researching , school tests and quizzes can no longer be a harbinger in determining the potential success that a student can achieve. Therefore to determine what can be accomplished by a student, a policy of taking standardized testings should be ensconced. Not only will this provide a fair and equal opportunity for all students across the United States of America, but it will also allow job employers and college admissions people to have a relative idea on whether the student would be a 'good' asset to the company. In addition by taking standardized testings, it will allow the college admissions and job employers to quickly asses the students scores and not waste more time than the admission staff has to use. Therefore, establishing standardized testing will not only allow the people to have a quick assessment of the student but it will also reduce possible wasted time on both sides of the party.
Homosexual men should be allowed to donate blood

My opponent basically ignored my arguments. I also agreed that there should be filters but went on to say MSM is not an effective one. I said the most effective filter regarding sex would be those who were protected versus those who weren't. A point never brought up by my opponent. He or she, (I'm sorry I didn't check your pic or name to confirm) listed MSM as being more dangerous then any form of prostitution but that was not my argument. I argued that unprotected sex is the most risky behavior. If my opponent can somehow argue that homosexual male sex is more dangerous than unprotected sex then he can prove it to be the most beneficial standard. But if he or she cannot then it will stand to reason that the FDC are using a filtering standard that is ineffective in comparison to a filtering standard that can be used just as easily. (Sorry for the short response but I am on a busy schedule) There may be a few capitalized I's, missing commas, and slightly misspelled words, but none of it should distract from the context. Again I do apologize to the readers of this debate for how rushed my response had to be.
Homosexual men should be allowed to donate blood

Round 1-Opening Arguments Round 2-Rebuttal Round 3-Rebuttal Round 4-Conclusive Statements Round 1-I do feel that homosexual men should be allowed to donate blood. The blood has to be screened so if there is something wrong with their blood it will not be used. So there really is no good reason to stop homosexual men from donating blood. I find the practice of denying someone blood based on an assumption of a willing donor to be foolish, especially when any skepticism can be easily proven. Homosexual men are not the only ones in risks of HIV/AIDS. Virtually everyone is at risk of contracting this disease. However, to single out one group of people and just stop them from giving blood means that you are discriminating against them based on a bias, and the unwillingness to test these blood samples shows an unwillingness to cooperate. This bias and bigotry has effected those in dire need of blood transplants and when it comes down to saving a life I'm sure their are no mentally sound people who would mind the clean blood of a gay man.
Mikal is the best debater ever OTHER than imabench

Ok, so... Mikal's acknowledgement -- he could be humble, for all we know! I could claim or "openly acknowledge" I'm a better debater than you, and that's obviously false! (because I know I stink) real world -- you have no proof that these guys are better than Mikal "other than imabench" -- I only typed this in the debate title so that nobody voted based on his popularity. Some debates, it's like a tie, and people vote for imabench because of his popularity. If you argued imabench was better it would be easy--seriously, he's a troll so he wins troll-debates, and even in non-troll debates, he uses really good sources and topics that are very hard to beat. "By showing other debaters...equal" -- If Mikal's equal with other debaters, they could be TIED as the best debater ever. Hey, it doesn't have to be a clear winniner!
Mikal is the best debater ever OTHER than imabench

I can disprove the resolution in two ways: By showing that there are debaters better than or equal to Mikal, hence rendering him not the best, or by showing that Mikal is better than Imabench. I intend to show both. I. There are debaters better than or equal to Mikal on DDO. Mikal in a PM with me openly acknowledged that Bluesteel and Raisor are as good, if not better than he is: Mikal's own testimony on his abilities is going to be preferred over my opponents idolatry as he knows better than anyone of his own abilities. II. There are debaters better than or equal to Mikal in the real world Face it, while DDO has it's fair share of intellect, even if Mikal was the best debater here he still wouldn't likely be the best debater in the entire world. The resolution says Mikal is the best debater *ever* other than Imabench. I have a good deal of respect for Mikal and we are friends but I think it's safe to assume that better debaters have lived such as Socrates, Plato, Lincoln, William Lane Craig, Margaret Thatcher, and many many others. III. Mikal is better than imabenchThe entire logic behind my opponents arguments is that since he has a high ratio, Mikal must be the best. This implies that the only weighing mechanism to determine if someone is a good debater is wins. Mikal hs won against imabench[1]. Thus, the resolution is negated by my opponents own implied framework. 1. http://www.debate.org...
Mikal is the best debater ever OTHER than imabench

I argue http://www.debate.org... is the best debater ever because of his insanely low lose rate and the number of debates he has won. (0ver 160! Oh my god! And losing merely one debate, and even THAT debate has only 5 point difference...) I do not argue about imabench...the sheer number of debates he has is just...wow. So make your argument about some other debater other than imabench! (how is that guy a troll, anyways? He's just this insanely good deabter.)
Mikal is the best debater ever OTHER than imabench

I. There are debaters better than or equal to Mikal on DDOMy opponents only response is: "maybe Mikal is being modest". This is a bad response for a few reasons: First, Pro *does not contend* that these debaters are worse than Mikal. It's one thing to disregard Mikal's testimony when we have reason to believe otherwise, but saying "hey, maybe he's wrong" is extremely uncompelling. Secondly, there are good reasons to believe that Mikal's assessment is valid. Both bluesteel and Raisor did real life debate and I know bluesteel at least has coached debate for many years. I encourage anyone who doubts the strength of these two to go read some of their debates, and you'll see why Mikal's self assessment is valid. Thirdly, Pro does not dispute that Mikal's word is the best way to weigh judge this as *no one* is going to know their own abilities more than the person themselves, not least a worshipper. II. Real world Pro claims I have no "proof" that these people are better debaters than Mikal, but let's get real. Socrates basically invented debate with the Socratic Method. William Lane Craig was described as so good that he "put the fear of God" into atheists. The Lincoln-Douglas debates over slavery were so good that a debate style has literally been named after them. In 2011, it was estimated that there have been around 107 billion people to ever live[1], so to assume that Mikal is the best debater ever when it's unclear if he's even the best on this website is just ridiculous. Active members of this site throughout it's history likely don't number outside the four digits, it's complete extrapolation to affirm the resolution and say that Mikal is better than all 107 billion other people to exist just because of this website. III. Imabench Pro argues that maybe imabench and Mikal are tied as the best debater. Unfortunately for Pro, that would still negate the resolution which says that Imabench is better than Mikal. Pro thinks the only way to judge a debater is by wins. Since Mikal has defeated Imabench and has a much higher win ratio, by Pro's own framework he's better. The resolution is negated. 1. http://www.prb.org...
required threshhold of faith required for Christians to be saved is not clear

Providing references and biblical basis for the condensed sinner's prayer does not mean there is any contradiction between the prayer and the bible. Pro would need to show how requirements for salvation contradict the simple sinner's prayer, or how the sinner's prayer leaves out an essential element, which she did not do. It seems Pro demands that in order for the requirements for salvation not to be "too vague or too listy/dogmatic," they must only have one item with no prerequisite knowledge of anything. This is moving the goalposts as "too many" could mean anything. I have established the exact threshold is trusting in Jesus and his sacrifice for the atonement of sins, which is what Pro demanded in R1.On to Pro's final round rebuttals:so, if someone tells you they rely on Jesus as savior, youd tell them they are not necessarily saved? for you would say they have to admit they are a sinner, ask forgiveness, believe he died for their sins, rose from hte dead, turn from sins, invite and trust in Him.Jesus covered all those items. If they trusted him, they'd have repented, asked for forgiveness, and believed Jesus when he said he'd rise again. It all boils down to trusting him. If they meant that, then yes. If they thought Jesus was saving them from 6 cent sales tax, they would not be saved. That hypothetical statement is not enough by itself to know the gospel.what if they were like Peter when Jesus asked "and who do you say I am?". and they said "you are the chosen one, the Son of GOd"Acknowledging Jesus' identity is not enough. Even the demons know who he is, as Pro stated in R1. would you then have to tell that person to make sure they get all the other essentials cause they still aren't necessarily saved?what if they believe the sinner's prayer but dont believe he rose from the dead?what if they believe most of the prayer but not that they are sinners?what if they believe the prayer except that He died for their sins? This debate has gone from what I was hoping was genuine knowledge seeking to nit-picking. The list of biblical references I gave in R1 can all be condensed into the sinner's prayer. There are no requirements left out. Yes, it requires pre-requisite knowledge, as does everything. My opponent is saying that a sinner acknowledging thier situation and repenting, and trusting in Christ and what he said is too complicated. Even if you don't believe in the Gospel, it is plain that the Gospel is simple.
required threshhold of faith required for Christians to be saved is not clear

"Dear Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner, and I ask for Your forgiveness. I believe You died for my sins and rose from the dead. I turn from my sins and invite You to come into my heart and life. I want to trust and follow You as my Lord and Savior. In Your Name."so con finally condensed it. so here we have it folks, the end all be all of salvation. you might want to do a double check, cause you might have started to do things he listed in round one, but suddenly he condensed it, so you might to check to make sure you got all the essential thigns. so, if someone tells you they rely on Jesus as savior, youd tell them they are not necessarily saved? for you would say they have to admit they are a sinner, ask forgiveness, believe he died for their sins, rose from hte dead, turn from sins, invite and trust in Him.what if they were like Peter when Jesus asked "and who do you say I am?". and they said "you are the chosen one, the Son of GOd"would you then have to tell that person to make sure they get all the other essentials cause they still aren't necessarily saved?what if they believe the sinner's prayer but dont believe he rose from the dead?what if they believe most of the prayer but not that they are sinners?what if they believe the prayer except that He died for their sins? i could see con standing firm on his sinner's prayers and saying all those examples are insufficient.how do you respond to the examples?
required threshhold of faith required for Christians to be saved is not clear

Eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood of Christ was used as a metaphor more closely linking it to sacrifice Hebrews were used to, where the family offering the Passover Lamb would dine on a portion of it. Those who did not were to be excluded from the Jewish community. (The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are, and when I see the blood, I will pass over you. No destructive plague will touch you when I strike Egypt. -Ex. 12:13) It was made clear at the last supper that as Jesus broke bread, he said "THIS is my body..." meaning the imagery in the Passover feast was the image of his sacrifice. Salvation is this: Honest-in-the-heart obedience to God, because of faith in Him, which results in trust in His Son, Jesus. If you love God, you will instinctively follow Jesus, and do as he commands. (My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.-John 10:27 No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.-Matt. 11:27) What did Jesus command? Jesus commanded that you must trust in his sacrifice on the cross for your sins. In order for the sacrifice to be relevant, you must acknowledge sin. That's why John the Baptist came, paving the way with baptism to repentance of sins. (Matthew 3:11) There is prerequisite knowledge for salvation (acknowledgement of sin, knowledge of Christ's sacrifice as the only worthy sacrifice) But all that is condensed into a sinners prayer: "Dear Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner, and I ask for Your forgiveness. I believe You died for my sins and rose from the dead. I turn from my sins and invite You to come into my heart and life. I want to trust and follow You as my Lord and Savior. In Your Name." The list is not complicated, and the above is backed up as a legitimate distillation of all the by the scriptures that I have provided in the last 2 rounds. If there is any confusion about requirements for salvation, please ask, and I will do my best to provide an answer from the Bible.
required threshhold of faith required for Christians to be saved is not clear

con gave a long list of things, loving God and others, trusting Jesus, eating Jesus' flesh, pleading the case of the widow and all that, declaring Jesus is lord and rose, etc etc.but i he does finally distill it, i suppose was his intent, to..."Salvation: The work is done by God, all we need to do is whole-heartedly accept the sacrifice (feed on his flesh, drink of his blood for the nurishment of real, everlasting life).'so he said from the get go that if you confess with yoru mouth that Jesus is lord and that he was rose from the dead, that is sufficient. and that is what the bible says. but here con says you must eat his flesh. (and other points con said different things. )apparently the bible isn't true that if you confess withyour mouth and that he rose from the dead yo won't be saved?con has some work to do distilling his salvation points
No Standard Moral Law is Free of Conditionality

I've spoken to the opponent and was told he did not actually forfeit, rather, time ran out. So, to be fair, I will allow my opponent to respond in this round to my case. I also extend all of my points from the last rebuttal into this, so my opponent will have to effectively refute them as well as answer my burdens. The burdens will be restated below(from the previous round): Burdens-The first burden is placed on myself. That burden is that i must prove that all moral laws have conditions. Since i have successfully fulfilled this, i urge a Pro ballot.-The Con still has the burden of proving that there is indeed a moral law free of conditions-An additional burden is placed on the Con to disprove my examples. If he cannot to do so, a Pro ballot is urged.-My final burden on my opponent is to link his case to the resolution. If he can not do so effectively, then the Pro wins todays round by default, because the Con has no premise to stand on and only refutations with nothing to tie to. I await my opponent's response and urge a Pro vote. :)
No Standard Moral Law is Free of Conditionality

Superfox, be reminded of the parallelogram that is David's head. Anyways, this round will be cases an the remaining rounds are rebuttals. Let me begin. P=Point E=example(s) Value:Conditionality-imposing, containing, subject to, or depending on a condition or conditions; not absolute; made or allowed on certain terms Value Premise:pragmatism-is a philosophical tradition centered on the linking of practice and theory. In simpler words, its the link between morals and the real world. Burden of Proof: If the Con cannot prove a single moral value to exists no matter the circumstance, the vote shall be given to the Pro. P1)Hypothetical Imperatives This idea basically states that when one ties morals into real world situations, the moral in turn does not become a standard always to be upheld, but rather a premise based on the conditions set forth. E:-The right to life is recognized in the ethical world as a standard. But tie this into pragmatism, and recognizes that killing can become morally acceptable. Killing Hitler could have prevented the holocaust and would be morally permissible due to the amount of lives saved. Justified war can also be recognized as a condition. P2)Moral Tyranny Conditions are a very necessary part of pragmatism other wise the moral value being upheld becomes a tyrannical law that oppresses people as well as create illogical and immoral situations. E:One has an obligation to helps other (on a moral perspective). Yet, under pragmatism, one doesn't carry an obligation to help an individual planning to create a nuclear bomb and annihilate a nation's population. And with this, i urge a Pro vote and await my opponent's response. :D
No Standard Moral Law is Free of Conditionality

i'm just gonna state logic at this point. I'll start with logic that'll back up what i said. i'm saying that moral law can be used in conditions. moral law is based on conditions. based on constructivism, what is morally permissible is based on the circumstances. Thus, something that's illegal doesn't make it moral. It was illegal to help slaves in the 1800s because of the fugitive slave act but it was moral because those who helped believed that slaves were equal to us and wanted them to live like us. so this explains that moral law is free from the conditions set forth. My opponent's first example says that killing can become morally acceptable. this means that murder is moral at times which leads back to my constructivism point because under circumstances if killing has to occur to fulfill moral goals then it has to be done. so his example fits more into constructivism more than pragmatism. My opponent's second example is contradictory because because he states that one has an obligation to help other people yet that same person doesn't have to at the same time. The last thing I will do is link my case to the resolution. My core value is morality. we're basing the case on moral laws. We should look to who better supports morality. My value criterion is quality of life because we are doing whatever it takes to achieve moral goals. My first contention is racism which is an example of what circumstance would using moral laws over legal laws be permissible. My second contention is the same as my first contention only referring to another circumstance which is in retaliation to an action already done to one person. By doing so we're benefitting our quality of life and achieving morality because the people in our society will be happy that we did what the attacking nation deserved. And it is for these reasons that I urge a neg vote for this round.