BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The New Testament is Historically Accurate

SourcesI am starting with this comment because it is so odd. Remember my opponent first contended that Peter's death was recorded in the bible. He has changed his stance to Origen and Tertullian.3. MartyrdomThese people have been verified as being killed by viable by secular sources such as Origen and Tertullian. The death is Peter is very accurately recorded.It's not in the bible, my friend. And it's not in secular sources either. Origen and Tertullian were Christian, not secular.My opponent should apologize for gross negligence in stating sources, proven twice incorrect.Sources 2>> 1. I said don't use Wikipedia.>> 2. Please don't use it again. Rebuttal #1: This is one source out of ten. Please don't ignore the nine because one was Wikipedia.Rebuttal #2: Please replace my [5] source above with "Mary Magdalene, the clichés". BBC, Religions"Dropped argumentsOther religions have the same points in their favor, so should be treated with equal respect. My previous argument was 600 words and was not addressed in its entirety.Points regarding Mary Magdaline were ignored.Point regarding Peter as the adversary was ignored.Point regarding women as witnesses was ignored.Point regarding eyewitness accounts was ignored.Point regarding the power of death penalty to the Romans was ignored.Dropped arguments are like eggs. Once you drop them, you cannot pick them up again.Misquote>> First, your comparison of the New Testament to the Dodekathlon is that the New Testament was meant to draw believers away from Judaism and into ChristianityThat's not what I said. Read the first paragraph of Dropped Arguments above.Intentional Texts>> If I was going to make a religion that put its founder in a "good light" I would not include sources such as:>> John 6:54>> John 6:56>> Mark 10:21The New Testament was written to affirm an already grown religion. John was different than the Synoptic Gospels in that it was written for a Gentile audience. The Gentiles of the day would have known and revered such comments.Historical DetailsSo what. Every history book has historical details. Does this make them supernatural as well?Nonhistorical DetailsWhere did Joseph and Mary live before the birth of Jesus?[1]They lived in Nazareth, and traveled to Bethlehem because of a census.They lived in a house in Bethlehem, and moved to Nazareth after returning from Egypt.Who asked for the best seats in heaven?[2]James and JohnThe mother of James and John Who buried Jesus?[3]Joseph of Arimathaea Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus The Jews and their rulers Was Jesus taken to Caiaphas or Annas first?[4]Does God prefer castrated men?[5]Can God do anything?[6][1] http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...[2] http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...[3] http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...[4] http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...[5] http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...[6] http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
The New Testament is Historically Accurate

Two things:1. I said don't use Wikipedia.2. Please don't use it again. First, your comparison of the New Testament to the Dodekathlon is that the New Testament was meant to draw believers away from Judaism and into Christianity. If I was going to make a religion that put its founder in a "good light" I would not include sources such as:John 6:54 "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."John 6:56 " He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him."Mark 10:21" Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me."These were things that were hard to understand. If I was going to put my religious leader in a good light, I certainly would not add that my leader wanted his followers to sell everything they had or eat His flesh! (Of course these verses were taken out of context, but hey.) This would make it hard for a new religion to get off the ground. The only reason thses things would have been put in is if the writers were being completely honest.2. Historical DetailsLook at the Gospels:Luke 2:1-4 "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. 2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) 3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. 4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)"Just look at the historical details in those four verses. a. Caesar Augustus was the leader of Rome.b. He called for a taxation and census of the entire Roman Empire.c. He did this during the lesser reign of Cyrenius in Syria.d. Everyone was supposed to go to his birth city.e. Joseph was in Galille, which was in Nazareth.All these things are intricate details that have been verified by secular sources from that time, so the that part of the NT is historically accurate, down to the minuet details. The same goes for a large amount of the Bible. Felix, Caiaphas the High Priest, and many other ruler have been verified as having existed through archeology.3. MartyrdomThese people have been verified as being killed by viable by secular sources such as Origen and Tertullian. The death is Peter is very accurately recorded.SourcesThe BibleI Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, 2004, Chapter 10 http://www.biblegateway.com... http://www.biblegateway.com... http://www.nndb.com...
The New Testament is Historically Accurate

There was talk of a coverup even in the day of Jesus. Matthew 28:11-15 Do people rise from the dead? Yes, medicine shows this. After five minutes of no heartbeat though, the brain is a vegetable. History is written by the victors, in this case, the Christians. I would be hard pressed to prove that Jesus did not rise from the dead. HOWEVER. Why was he executed. Because of public outcry. He was causing a rebellion. I would state that Jesus of the NT was painted in an overly positive light.
intelligent design is creationism under a new label

Con was trolling; he never made any relevant argument instead simply whining about how troll debates(which this isn't) are unfair and make him feel bad. I showed how intelligent design is simply another label for creationism. Therefore I have fulfilled my burden of proof. Please keep your comments to yourself I am giving you a PSA and I am not whining because this true and if I show airmax What I just said he would not take it as a whinning debate. Basically you do not understand what I am saying and you will never evn understand. So is this how you would treat new players? This can help many people coming to this site. You must be copying and pasting everything in your argument and unless you give me burden of proof your is invalid. CONCLUSION Con was trolling; he never made any relevant argument instead simply whining about how troll debates(which this isn't) are unfair and make him feel bad. I showed how intelligent design is simply another label for creationism. Therefore I have fulfilled my burden of proof. You failed to give any buren of the proof I don't care if I win or lose so you can spam hate in the comments or voting I don't care I have no time t whine with a bunch of babies on this site
intelligent design is creationism under a new label

Counter rebuttal My opponent is trolling and placed the debate tempting me to join it which started from a poll which he instigated th debate. Problems with troll debates - It wastes time -It has no space for it - It makes the player feel badNone of the above are relevant.- It is irrelevant. My opponent is referring to creationsm vs evolution and is trying to fail to give burden of the proof by listing sources and not explaining them correctly. He is also trying to prove it from resources like Wikipedia which can be edited.I haven't listed any sources.CONCLUSIONCon was trolling; he never made any relevant argument instead simply whining about how troll debates(which this isn't) are unfair and make him feel bad. I showed how intelligent design is simply another label for creationism. Therefore I have fulfilled my burden of proof.
intelligent design is creationism under a new label

None of con's points are relevant to this debate Counter rebuttal My opponent is trolling and placed the debate tempting me to join it which started from a poll which he instigated th debate. Problems with troll debates - It wastes time -It has no space for it - It makes the player feel bad - It is irrelevant. My opponent is referring to creationsm vs evolution and is trying to fail to give burden of the proof by listing sources and not explaining them correctly. He is also trying to prove it from resources like Wikipedia which can be edited. You cant even give valuable proof of your statement and I have to tell you I cannot continue on with this debate until you change your ways
intelligent design is creationism under a new label

This is a debate that the user expects to win basically no one cares about the existence of anything. Just because your poor in grammar does not mean you cant spell. Reasons why not to judge debating skills. - it wastes time - It makes the user feel bad about themselves - It puts down falls on DDO - It makes the winner become greedy and most people on this site does not know what the point of debating on this site. There needs to be a change and also the change must be now. Right.now my opponent is trolling and he is using vocabulary to win a debate he is trying to degrade any bodies win ratio placing offensive comments to religious people.
intelligent design is creationism under a new label

CREATIONISM: The belief a divine being created the universe and life.INTELLIGENT DESIGN: Some features of the universe and life are best explained by an intelligent cause.So intelligent design suggests certain features of the universe are best explained by an intelligent cause. One of those features is "the fine-tuned universe."The fine tuned universe argues that the univeres physical constants seem to be fine tuned for life. So we have two criteria for the intelligent cause:1. Must transcend space-time(if the intelligent cause was subject to physical laws then it wouldn't have been able to fine tune the physical constants because it would never have a chance to form.)2. Must be able to "fine tune the physical constants of the universe.Now the question is what fulfills those criteria; the answer is very clear. A god is the intelligent cause. Only a god would transcend the universe and be able to manipulate the physica constants. So I've established that God is the intelligent cause. INTELLIGENT CAUSE-------GODCREATIONISM CREATOR---GOD(S)Both ID and creationism claim that God created the universe. Therefore intelligent design is creationism under a new name.
intelligent design is creationism under a new label

This is a speech for all of the people in DDO Speech you all may know me and you all seen me before once time to settle this once and for all. I have recently notice that on this site it is only about skill. Also this site makes a big deal out of spelling. Let me tell you something. I dont care what you think about my debating skills or how I spell a word. - just because I cant spell here does not mean I cant in real life. Also a debate is about gun and getting better with information. - Debating skills dont matter because you will all lose a debate even the ones who have 100 percentage even the no. 1 debater lost e -I will continue my speech
Pro is a more skilled and strategic chess-player than Con

I have provided more evidence to my claims than con has, and he has failed to see that i have posted my USCF account as well. Con said: " True, I don't have a chess.com account. But even if I don't, chess.com should not be the method of comparison."Which is why I linked my USCF account! What is the USCF? It's the rating and ranking system of chess based in the united states, the same exact format the Chess.com uses. I linked chess.com as games that I have played are on there, and I linked my USCF ( http://www.uschess.org... Con seems to have missed.) So far, Con is not even staying on subject, instead trying to debate wether or not the topic is relevant. I will not argue against this, as it is not the debate. I have linked my stats, and at this point I have proved I have more skill than Con based on experience alone. Con, please be relevant.
Pro is a more skilled and strategic chess-player than Con

The order is 1 off, then caseFirst Off: Education KritikThere is a rising prevalence in DDO in what are called "troll debates": debates which either a) have no real meaning, or b) are pointless to debate. Here are a few examples:http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...This debates qualifies as b) pointless to debate, primarily because this is debate, not chess. (more on this in the Case debate) Should more and more of these troll debates come up, the good education we once got from DDO will be adulterated and poisoned with useless debates, scaring off/turing off many intelligent debaters. This differs from the kind of education the pro advocates, which basically is nonexistent. Ultimately education should be the biggest impact in this debate. Even if I do not play chess often (I don't have a chess.com account, more on that in the case debate), the one thing that both sides of this debate and the voters get, is education, however much it may be. But engaging in these kinds of "debates" simply destroys it. Thus the alternative is to reject the prevalence of these troll debates (ie. the pro), and return to true debate, in which we discuss real-world issues. Last point: Kriitk outweighs and turns the case. 1) Magnitude: Education is literally a reason why we debate. Taking that away would take away the core of debate itself. 2) Probability/timeframe, education occurs in every waking moment. By doing the alterantive, we solve the case by putting these debates where they ought to be (in this case, a chess website)Next, caseFirst, this is the wrong forum for this debate. The only way to establish who is superior in a chess game is to actually play the game. Second, the pro's proposed method of comparison is not the best "comparison," primarily because I don't have a chess.com account. The best comparisons ought to be those in which people actually have a chance of meeting.Third, while we're at it, let's define what "better means":Better: greater than half (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). So in other words, the pro is trying to say his skill is better than half of me, half of my body. This is true, particularly because in the title, it says "more of a player than con". If the pro wanted to refer to the con's skill, the pro should have said "more of a player than the con is, as a chess player." The pro's grammatical vageueness enables me to conclude that the pro's claim is total nonsesnse. It's illogical to compare chess skill to a body.
Should Schools Have No Lunches And End At 12PM

Actually, You probably have no idea how much chaos that would cause, Kids eating during classes could cause a bigger problem for the janitors, kids in today's society leave trash everywhere. the amount of spills. this will also be a problem for people with allergies some kids can not be in the same area as other like people who bring in lunch. they may bring in a PB&J which or peanuts which is a problem for most people. Lunches allow students to take a break and relax and it also prepares them for the next class its kinda like a cool down session from the previous classes its not a "break" its a relief. So yeah lunch periods are very important.
Abortion sucks

I suppose I may lose this debate then because I guess I do not know what we are actually debating. Are you debating if the unborn SHOULD have rights or IF they have rights? As of right now, the mothers have more rights supported by the Constitution than the unborn. Abortion Sucks as your title states.... is simply a statement. Nothing more. You first argument states.. "The current living generation does not enjoy more Constitutional rights than does the as yet unborn future American citizens." Well... I am digging deep here... But that statement is wrong. The current 'living' generation DOES IN FACT have more Constitutional rights than the unborn. This is proven by the current rulings and laws in place that support the mother over the unborn. Therefore, the living generations is "enjoying" more constitutional rights than the unborn.
Abortion sucks

Yes women have rights, especially as society continues to accept and provide laws that support these positions. That said, you are correct, the Constitution does not say its a woman's right. But, in contrast, the constitution does not say she does NOT have the right either. The clear interpretation and applicability of the Constitution during the Roe V Wade trials was a painfully grueling. Still is today. I did not bring up the Constitution, you did. FYI, the Constitution / Bill of Rights are not the only sources of social governance we abide by. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Landmark Decision Source (Roe V Wade) - On January 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision in the case of Roe v. Wade, which recognized that the constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman"s right to make her own personal medical decisions " including the decision to have an abortion without interference from politicians.
The ruling in Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co should be in favor of Williams.

Walker-Thomas Furniture Store and Williams entered a contract where Williams would purchase items and would pay in installments. They entered an agreement and from the text within the contract there are phrases that one cannot understand. The contract says that "the periodic payments made by purchaser to the Company under this present lease shall be inclusive of and not in addition to the amount of each installment payment to be made by purchaser under such prior lease, bills or account and all payments shall be credited pro rata on all outstanding leases, bills and accounts due" (511.2.1) What does that mean? The text and content within the contract was written to mislead the customers. If a customer does not understand the contract, how can the contract then benefit both parties? This contract was unconscionable because as stated before it only favored the Furniture Company. Another factor that makes this contract unconscionable would be the fact that Williams on Government assistances programs and the Furniture company having full knowledge of this, and the amount she receives a mere $218.00 and that she had 7 children to support. The Furniture store still lease her the stereo. The Furniture in good sense knew that she would default of the contract. The main point that they knew her background and her financial situation made it an unconscionable act on the Furniture Company. From the reading Unconscionability and Contracts, it clearly states that the inequality of Bargaining Power in contract is unconscionable and therefore must not be enforce. (495.3.1) The actions of the Furniture Store proved and they showed that even though they knew that Williams could not afford the Stereo they still sold her the item, that had a $164 balance. If the Furniture Store was a good business, why not wait until Williams paid up her $164 balance and asked her to come again to purchase the stereo. Walker-Thomas Furniture Store knew the customer background and still sold her the item knowing that she will default because she was currently on Government assistance and that he had 7 children to support. Wioth any other company they would have refused her the sale of item and asked that she return when she is a bit more financially stable.
The ruling in Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co should be in favor of Williams.

According to your argument, Williams signed a contract and that's the end of it. She should be faced with the consequences if she failed to make her payments. The contract that only benefits one party is very one sided and unconscionable. Such contracts must not be enforced. As stated before Williams only had a balance of $164, she was in good standing with her payments and when she purchased the stereo, she defaulted. The contract stated that because she had a balance of $164 from her beginning purchased and defaulted then all of the items purchased can be repossessed. This is not acceptable. Contracts are essential in our every day dealings however there must be a balance between both parties. Though the Furniture store is providing a service where, they offer their customers a rent to own because they do not have the funds to buy product in full, or they lack credit to purchase other items. The discretion that the Furniture store is offering to the customers, is a bit manipulative. And I know, you will say how is this so? Their sole discretion is taking advantage of a situation that is already set up for the customer defaulting. At the time the customers thinking that this is a good deal because this is all that they can afford. However it is a system that is made to trip them and make them default thus loosing all their money and items paid for. This contract is not unconscionable and therefore must not be enforced. You argue that this is the same scenario with individuals with credit card. I do not see that. Credit Cards Bank do not issue cards to anyone. You must have a Job and reasonable income and also a good credit. None of these criteria are available to the clients that support Furniture store. The furniture store charges a high and obscene interest rate. Hence we can see from the $1800 total value of items purchase and the total amount to be paid was $14,000.00 Based on that amount how can you claim that this contract was not unconscionable? From our readings on Formalism we can see that though some judges will stick to the law and uphold the contract. As they did. When the case was appealed, the ruling in favor of Willaims showed that other factors must be taken into consideration and companies taking advantage of those who do not understand contracts must be stopped.
The ruling in Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co should be in favor of Williams.

I do understand that Furniture company is there to make a profit, and they are supplying the general public with items they may want and need. The way the Furniture chooses to operate his business is a bit shady and the company's policy is set up to manipulate the customers into thinking that the Store is working to help them acquire said items but in the end the Store is really scamming customers out of whatever little money that they may have and also to repossess the items should they default. The store made its policy on the fact that the customers do not understand, or that they lack education, monetary means and also knew that Williams was a customer on a low budget. The Store chose to service customer on low budget for a number of reasons: 1. The Store portrait itself as a Vendor that is trying to work with its customers who are having difficult;ties purchasing items for cash. 2. They established their business to target low income clients who will default of items and they can both collect the money and reposes items. 3. Williams total value for items purchased was $1800 however the total amount to be paid was $14,000 how can this practice be fair.