BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Conditional Immortality is Biblical

Cool. Thanks for accepting. I look toward to an interesting debate! As stated in round one, I believe that the Bible supports the idea that the soul is naturally mortal. The first Biblical evidence I'll use is found in Genesis 3:22* which says "Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever"" This passage gives the idea that mankind would only become immortal after eating from the tree of life. I'll sum this up with a question: Where in the Bible does it explicitly state that the soul (and therefore man) is naturally immortal? * http://www.biblegateway.com...
Conditional Immortality is Biblical

I've recently come across the idea of Conditional Immortality. Meaning that your soul achieves immortality only through salvation from Jesus Christ. Which therefore means that "hell" is not a place of eternal punishment. I, as the Pro in this debate, agree with this idea and challenge Con to defend the traditional idea that the soul is naturally immortal. Round one is for acceptance. Also, I will be using the Bible as my main source in this debate. I hope that Con will do the same.
Jesus Never Existed

My opponent fails to understand that it not just Romans in the heart of the Roman Empire that don't have any record of Jesus. Roman's in Palestine, including Ciaiphus and Pontus Pilate, have not left us with any reference to Jesus. We have not found anything from anyone during that time period. The earliest references to Jesus are Paul's letters the the churches. “Josephus would have known if Jesus was some made-up myth as to state otherwise implies that he wrote totally accurate history other then the three passages mentioning Jesus, John the baptist, and James” How would have Josephus known this? Josephus would had to rely on other peoples knowledge to events 70 years before his writings, about events before his birth. We know that the rest is historically accurate because it has been verified from other sources. The only other source is the Gospels. It is not normal archeology, or anthropology, to use one source to verify an account that verifies the original account. There is some debate as to if the relevant passages were added in the 4th century. That is a subject for another debate. My opponent as failed to put them self in the mind set of historians and the general public during this time period. This is a time period when if someone told what happened 100 miles away you would take there word on it. That historians had very little to go on other then word of mouth, there was no archeology. There was libraries full of information but access was given to a privileged few. A time when not many people lived until 50. Finding someone that witnessed an event 30-40 years ago was no easy task. While it was done it was long and costly. “By pro's erroneous logic, we can't be sure that anything Josephus's histories actually happened because it happened before he was born. Beyond that, any historian from any period cannot be trusted because that were writing about events in the past and thus could in no way record an accurate account” This is how archeology and anthropology works. If the writer is writing on events before they are born or them selves could not have witness then they are checked for accuracy against writings from the time it happened or from people that could have witnessed the event. There is cases were physical evidence proves the writer correct. Plato wrote about the Trojan war. There was no other writing to back this up and so Plato's account was deemed inaccurate. The discovery of the city of Troy showed that Plato's account was accurate. The history books have been changed to reflect this. How accurate the Gospels are outside of the account of Jesus is another debate outside the context of this one. My op-pent as several times state that I am calling it mythology. I am not calling the bible or Jesus mythology. I am stating that the relevant data as not been discovered to date. There are many well trained, and educated, archaeologist and anthropologist looking for this missing data. Jesus may well prove to be a real historical person. This data may or may not show other accounts accurate. I hope that I have shown my evidence in a effective way that shows respect for the religious nature of this debate.
Jesus Never Existed

My opponent has claimed that to prove the existence of Jesus, I must find a source that mentions him from the time of his life. Well, all most all of our information about this period in time comes from historians. Historians wrote about what happened before them, not what was going on at present. Past that, most historians were romans and a lot more concerned about events going on in the heart of the empire rather then far away in Palestine. Josephus would have known if Jesus was some made-up myth as to state otherwise implies that he wrote totally accurate history other then the three passages mentioning Jesus, John the baptist, and James. By pro's erroneous logic, we can't be sure that anything Josephus's histories actually happened because it happened before he was born. Beyond that, any historian from any period cannot be trusted because that were writing about events in the past and thus could in no way record an accurate account. To claim this is truly ridiculous. More then this historians, we also have the gospel accounts, do we not. While Pro my call these "mythological," lets take a look at the opening to the Gospel of Luke. "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." Does this sound like mythology??? No, it sounds like history. The author states that he is trying to make an account of the life of Jesus, and he believes he has thoroughly investigated this. Another reason why Luke is considered very accurate is that the author also wrote the Book of Acts. Luke clearly knows the geography of the region and the various customs and practices of the various cities. My final argument will be one of practicality. Let's think about this. Christianity says Jesus is a historic figure and talks about his interactions with other historic figures we know about. Who would make up a religion that takes place in there time frame and makes easily disprovable claims? Who would convert to this religion? We know of an early church in Jerusalem, how would they have come to accept a religion that makes claims about a guy who never existed interacting with Ciaiphus and Pontus Pilate who we know exist!
Jesus Never Existed

It is general agreed upon that the death of Jesus was around 30 AD. There is no historical references to Jesus from this time period. Romans were know to keep many records and to this date there has been no Roman, Jewish, or Christian references to Jesus during his life or shortly after his death. The earliest record of Jesus come from Acts written between 50 AD-62 AD depending on your source. Making the time the gospels were written between 50 AD-100 AD, again with some variance depending on ones source to as late as 120AD. This leaves a gap of at least 20 years between the crucifixion and any historical references. The references my opponent as used are not from the time of Jesus. * The reference of Josephus comes from “The Antiquities of the Jews” written in 93AD. Josephus was not born until 4 years after the crucifixion * Lucian of Samosata lived from 115-200 A.D. So Lucian was not born until 95 years after the crucifixion. * The reference of Tacitus comes from “Annals’ written in 116AD or 96 years after the crucifixion * The references to Rabbi Hisda and Rabbi Jeremiah bar Abba comes from the Jewish Talmud written between 400-700 AD or 370 years after the crucifixion. In order to show that Jesus was a real person we need a reference dated between around 5BC–AD33. This is just simply lacking at this time. While the evidence that there was Christians, as early as 50 AD, has plenty of references. This evidence can not show that Jesus was a real person only that there was people that believed he was.
Wind power is unlikely to be economical within ten years

Thanks to RoyLatham for agreeing to debate this topic and issuing this challenge. I am sure this will be the most challenging debate I've had so far at DDO. Just to clarify, since San Francisco has a large wind farm that my opponent is familiar with, I will use it as a base for most of my data, as I attempt to prove that similar farms are possible across the United States. Also, wind energy cannot provide all the required electric power for homes and businesses due to the intermittency of wind. However, I will prove that when Wind Energy is generated along with other means of electricity generation such as coal, natural gas and nuclear energy, wind energy will be cost-competitive with them and be an economically viable means for generating electricity in the United States.I accept my opponents definitions and the shared burden of proof. Good luck.
Wind power is unlikely to be economical within ten years

Will wind farms soon compete with coal, natural gas, and nuclear power plants as an economically viable means for generating electricity in the United States? Thanks to my opponent for proposing this timely topic. For this debate, wind power is electric power generated from wind energy for delivery over the power grid to users. Wind power is now generated using wind turbines of various kinds, often large propellers, driving electric generators. http://en.wikipedia.org... "Economical" means commercial cost competitive with other means of generating power such as coal, natural gas, or nuclear energy. The cost of wind power includes the capital costs of building and installing the wind powered generators, the costs of tying the power to the grid, and the cost of providing a backup system when necessary if there is no wind. For competing systems, the costs also include fuel costs. One way to compare costs is to compute a cost per kilowatt hour delivered to the consumer. For this debate we are considering the unsubsidized costs. Those are the costs that would occur under free competition, without government mandates or incentives.. "Unlikely" means having a probability less than 0.5. The resolution affirms that it is more likely that wind power will not be competitive within ten years than that it will be competitive. The burden of proof for this debate is shared. Voters are to decide whether wind power is less likely (Pro) or more likely (Con) to be competitive. This round is for definitions and acceptance. Arguments begin in R2.
Ping Pong is not the best of all sports

FINAL REBUTTALS1. More calories: yes, I conceded this point.2. However, it must be taken into notice that nobody does the 1500m, pole vaulting AND the 100m one after another. Thus, they are considered pretty much seperate sports with different types of skills. 3. The old man who can handle T & F: still, nothing suggests they won't get a heart attack as previously mentioned.Animal: Killing is full of gore and blood...which is not good. There is a reason Saw is rated R. :PTrack lack of shoes? Your feet will get hurt without those sneakers. Just look at the video below.Running's joint pain: ping pong has many healthy effects similar to those of T & F, as all sports do. They both increase strength (even if only a bit), endurance, skill, speed, and mental moral. And while both sports may require practice, T & F gets really tiring and boring doing the same motion over and over again, while each ping pong game is different from the next, so you never get bored.Popualrity? Sigh... I suppose I can't counter this.Injuries: that ping pong video was dumb. Based on my opponent's logic, if in Track and Field one does not look carefully and practices in confined spaces running back and forth, they could have easily hit their head on a pole as well.Money: Eh. Oh well.Conclusion: congradulations, my opponent. It seems that you did manage to refute most of my points. However, it is up to the voters to decide the ultimate winner. I've had an interesting look-in to Track and Field. It is a bit unfair that Track and Field includes so god-darn many sub-sports within it, but I agreed to take upon the challenge. In addition, I missed my chance to post a funny ping pong match I found online (that could prove ping pong a better sport in casual play--more fun--and thus superior)-- () XD If I lose this debate, I won't stop proving ping pong better than all the sports in the world--I'll just have to limit it down to one particular event next time and research harder. Good debate.Vote me.
Ping Pong is not the best of all sports

I accept, and wish to prove Ping Pong better than the sport Pro presents.Pro may choose to present any sport to go against Ping Pong and prove it to be superior. You may not choose the "parody" of the sport but rather the sport itself. For example, my opponent may choose Chess, but may not choose "Upside-Down Chess" to battle against Ping Pong. However, he may still mention how many parodies Chess has and come to a conclusion that it is better than Ping Pong, having so much variaties.He may also choose to try to uphold multiple sports being better than Ping Pong, making my job harder, but making his job harder as well. Fictional sports are included for the sake of fun and challenge within this debate. Two examples are Calvinball and Pro-Bending.Sport: "an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature". It may not have to be physical, as long as it is recognized a sport by the Olympics company or Wikipedia, it is a sport.Source: http://dictionary.reference.com...Wikipedia full list of sports: http://en.wikipedia.org...
God's Justice

In a story three women are scheduled to be executed the first is hanged for aborting her rapists baby the second dies in the gas chamber for murdering her abusive husband the third is stoned for adultery. Each of these girls blames God claiming He forced upon each of them evil men. When asked to repent and to ask for forgiveness the women one and all shouted obscenities at God and insisted they were perfectly innocent of everything in their lives. Nonetheless these girls all entered into the Kingdom of Heaven as God's servants. I will take the position God is acting rationally and it's a good thing. Not all of the story of course but the part where they enter into His Kingdom to be His servants that's good. By the way the man in the adultery case was murdered by the second woman after he raped the first woman Con can take on whatever part of it he or she wants
God is not real

Ofcourse there is a possibility we are wrong, but that's true for a lot of things. So much science is theories and assumptions. The possibility of being wrong is not a proof of being wrong. Universe is everything we have discovered or imagined so far. There are multiverse theories stating that there are parallel universes. You are saying the universe was here all along, but people try to extrapolate time to before the universe. They try to imagine and contemplate. Very few believe in the idea of universe existing from infinite years ago. To answer to your what ifs, we don't know, but that doesn't mean you are any more right than I. It's possible there's evidence out there of planets being created by some process, but then again, people ask- who initiated that process? Again the view of God as someone who created humans is arguable. Many theists believe in evolution. I agree the world has been around for 1000's of years, but what made it exist? Bible isn't an argument I have used or will use at any point. If you're not saying that you know there is no God, you are agnostic and not atheist so please get your definitions clear. Again ideas of pleasing God and karma and even heavens may not be true, but the idea of a creator may. No one says God controls death and birth. No one says God approves slavery, opposes women or kills people naturally attracted to the same sex. Humans do that. They do it for social reasons. But how this society came into existence may have God as an answer. No one says God is a leader. Today we look to politicians and humanitarian as leaders. Not all religions believe in heaven and he'll. God isn't restricted to particular religions or beliefs about his powers and control over beings. But the existence of a God cannot be disproved. You can have personal opinions, but the topic of this debate is that God is not real, which is an affirmative statement. This can not be proved with all certainty. The lack of existence of a creator cannot be disproved by any amount of science.
God is not real

Yes but what if we are wrong, what if we have been wrong this whole time. Maybe not everything has to have been created. And the universe is everything, so logically without the universe the universe couldn't have been created. The universe could have been here all along and maybe it didn't have to be created. We haven't found out everything and all we know is a very small amount. What if really far away in space everything is different, different than the world we know. It may show us some evidence of planets being created and new dimensions. Scientific based theories that have had years of research done and evidence of evolution is much more reliable than just thinking that a floating spirit with magical powers went bam! and the world was made. The world has shown us evidence that it Has been around for much longer then 10 thousand years. With the power of science and logic I don't understand how people can still believe in something like God. I mean the only little bit of proof is the bible. But there is no proof that the bible is real. See there is always a loophole for us atheists to disprove God. I am not saying that I know there is no God but I am saying that I am not going to turn away from evidence and logic because there is a chance that God is real. There is no point wasting my life and trying to please God in everything that I do if there is no certainty of his existence. And I would like to ask some personal reflect questions or maybe answer them in your next argument. Why does God kill innocent people for no reason? How does God know the future if we have free will? Why is Gods plan for some people death at birth? How come God sounds so loving and fair when he approves slavery, doesn't think woman are important and kills people that are naturally attracted to the same sex? How could you make this type of God your leader? And if I do not believe in God because my parents have never taught it to me(they have) do I have to spend all of eternity in Hell?
God is not real

You say it doesn't make sense of something outside the universe exists. Not making sense isnt a logical argument. Also God as a being performing miracles is one of the forms people have said God may assume. In essence, God is imagined as some being with powers or knowledge greater than humans and with some sort of involvement in creation of the universe or life. Just because you personally can not imagine a God doesn't logically disprove the existence of one. Now for my main argument, if you are into physics,you will know that simulations of the big bang have been done with variations in fundamental quantities and it has been found that if some quantities, like mass of a proton or charge of an electron were even slightly different, a universe like ours couldn't exist. This leads to the belief that there must be something beyond or above that has fixed these values at the exact values which allow life and a universe like ours to exist. One more question which the existence of god would answer would be how did our universe start, or how was it created?
God is not real

I believe that god does not exist for many reasons. I will just be saying for now the simple reason of logic. Its not very hard to use your brain and when i use mine, i dont really see a spirit outside of the universe. The universe is everything in the world and it doesnt make sense if something is outside of it. Im not going to belive in something that i cant see or something that there is absolutely no evidence for. Also why did God only perform miracles back when nobody needed them, i mean he doesnt seem to be doing much now and the world needs it more than it did before. Anyone with a brain could understand why God does not exist. Thankyou!
Pop music isn't real music...

Alright, don't really understand what your trying to get at, however you failed to rebut every single point I had, so I'm assuming you gave up and are agreeing with Con. I reaffirm that pop music is music because it is is made up of rhythmic patters. There is no line that determines whether something is music or not, similar to how there is a very broad line between paintings. Ex. Leonard Da Vinci v. Picasso. I also never changed my argument. I always stated pop music is art music simply because we can not just say, I don't like it, therefore it's not music. I'd also like to point out that ultimately my opponent failed to prove pop music is not real music, you also go really bitter at the end, so I am assuming that that was your way of saying that you know you did not prove your argument. Thanks http://www.artesmagazine.com... http://www.museupicasso.bcn.cat...
Pop music isn't real music...

Alright, as affirmative, the burden of proof is on you. I don't even listen to pop music, but you can't just say somethings not music simply because you don't like it. Music: The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... As you can see, it is by definition, music. This situation is very similar to how people say a certain genre of music isn't art, but they think that the genre of art they listen to is. Thanks
Pop music isn't real music...

Pop music is not "real" music. If you turn on your popular local radio station most of the songs that are being played are Pop. Every Pop song is mostly about the same thing if you break it down. They are either about relationships, partying, and sex. We could be making music about real problems instead of people breaking up with their girlfriend/boyfriend. It's not really creative. They mostly all have that same upbeat tune too. So many people today are so closed of to other genres or music like Rock, Dubstep, Punk, Classic Rock, Ect.
Debate.org is part of the propagand machine because Ron Paul is not an option on this site.

Mongeese, your comming off a little hostile but I guess that is ok because I came out a little hostile at debate.org. You debate very well. But a person on the comment page already told me pretty much what you just said and so I realized that I was wrong and if you read my comment I apoligize to debate.org. So, sorry for the mistake. And his name is not John Paul it is Ron Paul. Gotcha! Probably didn't spell that right, sorry again. This debate is dismissed. Soo solly.