BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Creation of pseudo history

History is full of lies. The past kings and leaders have been eulogised in history beyond their true worth concealing their true colour. If today"s history can be so brazenly tampered with in this enlightened era we can imagine the state of affairs in the foregone era with very poor or no communication facilities. People with bogus honesty and integrity are being eulogised as great personalities completely masking their fraudulent activities. It is well-known that the present day so called leaders, ministers, and legislators do not have the human quality of honesty and integrity. They may be great orators, linguists, poets, quick witted persons, actors and what not. But honesty should be the main criteria for assessing great men and women. But we find that honesty is completely buried deep while talking highly of these men and women. This shows that we are repeating and committing the same mistake committed by our forefathers of yore. Giving a pride of place in history for those fraudulent personalities is dangerous for the our future generations. Now journalism is utterly misused by the dishonest and misguided media personnel for their own survival. Let us not create pseudo history by portraying dishonest persons who have committed grave crimes against humanity as great men and women because they were able to become rulers or excel in some areas of social activity. Instead, let us highlight the TRUTH about how the present day politicians and even the so called highly educated persons fool the common man by their fraudulent activities to garner power and position in the political arena or officialdom. What nonsense is this history that buries truth deep? Let us not live in a fool"s paradise by making it appear that all is well while the fact remains that there is absolutely no morality not only in politics but also in all other social activities. It is very disturbing to note that the media pours eulogies on persons of dubious integrity openly. Let the media not contribute to the creation of pseudo history as in the past. Creating pseudo history again and again will not only lead to chaos in the present but in the future as well. The frequent escalation of strife between different groups and nations seen the world over is the result of creation of pseudo history by concealing the TRUTH.
Abortion

I shall use the same opening arguments I used before. Contention 1: A logical reason why abortion is wrong. I would like to begin with this quote: "To prevent birth is anticipated murder; it makes little difference whether one destroys a life already born or does away with it in its nascent stage. The one who will be a man is already one. " Tertullian (160 - 220) 1. Murdering a human is wrong 2. Abortion is murder 3. Therefore, abortion is wrong Assertion 1: Murdering a human is wrong Most sane people would agree with this assertion. Assertion 2: Abortion is murder By definition, murder is the unlawful killing of another human being. We need to determine why the fetus should be under this protection. Evidence 1: A fetus can dream Many pro-abortion activists say that a fetus cannot think. However, we have discovered that they can, in fact, dream. Therefore, the fetus must be conscious. I encourage any pro-choice activists to read the article Baby's First Dreams following this link . http://www.sciencedaily.com.........; Evidence 2: A fetus, by definition, is a human! Many pro-choice activists argue that the fetus is not a "human" until it is born. Let me ask you this question, what makes a human fetus any different than a dog fetus? Is the dog fetus not a "dog" because it is smaller or because it is not yet born? No. Then what makes human fetuses different? Furthermore, whether you agree with that argument, I want to ask you and any pro-choice activists this question: "Why isn't a fetus a 'human? '" Contention 2: Abortion is morally wrong because of the emotional side effects. There are major consequences to ones actions. Abortion is no different. Here is a list of some of the emotional side-effects to an abortion. Regret Anger Guilty feelings Shame Impared self-confidence Depression Anxiety Lonliness Souce . http://www.americanpregnancy.org......... In fact, abortion INCREASES the risk for cancer! 8 medical organizations in 2006 RECOGNIZED this fact. For more information, go to this link . http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com......... All experts recognize first risk that abortion denies women an opportunity to reduce their risk for breast cancer through childbearing! (also from same page Contention 3: There are better options than abortion I contend that adoption is a better option than abortion. This is because adoption allows the fetus the right to life and it also allows the mother to be relieved of raising the child if she is unable to.
The laws in the world should change

Given 1000 characters, I will provide only one point, as requested. -con case- 1) Not everything "serious" is reciprocable, in terms of effect. My opponent's case is only regarding "serious" crimes, but he fails to define "serious". I define serious as "of grave or somber disposition, character, or manner" [1] Given the definition of serious, let's identify a "serious" crime or two. I choose adultery and rape. As for the first, to reciprocate the effect of adultery we need to analyze the situation. The adulterers are both happy. To punish adultery, you would need to make them not happy; making the adulterers have sex would probably not teach them a lesson about not having sex. As for rape, the rapist is relatively "happy" while the victim is sad. If the rapist happens to be kinky, I contend that he would enjoy being raped. Thus, the law proposed will fail to be effective. -source- [1] . http://dictionary.reference.co...
The laws in the world should change

This is what laws should turn into: 'Whatever you do to other person should happen to you' So basically if you murder; you will be murdered. If you steal money; you will be confiscated the same amount of money. But only for serious crimes like adultery , murder, theft etc. My opponent should present why current laws should not change into ones I have presented. I am waiting for your response. ROUND1:Accepting debate,presenting your first point. ROUND2:More statements and points. ROUND3:Conclusion.
Jesus was gay and John the Evangelist was his boyfriend.

"Jesus was gay and John the Evangelist was his boyfriend." I do not dispute that John was Jesus' boyfriend. However, I do deny that Jesus was gay. Jesus having sex with lots of men does not make him gay. He also had relationships with women, which make him "bisexual". I do not disagree with your arguments, except for the point that Jesus didn't have sex with women. He did. A lot. Everyone knows that after John snogged Jesus, a woman would come and snog his bum. That is my argument.
Jesus was gay and John the Evangelist was his boyfriend.

For the sake of argument, let's suppose that the New Testament is an accurate historical document and that Jesus actually existed. Now, let's examine the facts: 1 - Jesus never got married. Indeed, there is no record of him even having a steady girlfriend. Some Biblical scholars have suggested that Mary Magdalene came on to him once (1) but he clearly did a runner because there is no evidence in the Bible that they actually got off with one another. 2 – Jesus was, however, in love with one of his disciples. We know this because at the last supper Jesus got his kit off and his boyfriend came over and snogged him in front of everybody – which was a very improper display of public affection, if you ask me. "He riseth from supper and laid aside his garments" John, 13:4 "Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples whom Jesus loved" John 13.23 (See illustrations: A; B) Now, although the disciple remains anonymous in this passage of the Bible, most Christian theologians believe his boyfriend was actually John the Evangelist. (2) 3 – Although homosexuality is widely condemned in both the Old and New Testaments, Jesus never said a word against gays. This is strange, because he had something to say about pretty much every other aspect of life and he got quite upset about things too. For example, he completely trashed some market stalls just for trading on church premises. "Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves." Matthew 21:12-13 So we can see that he was very self-opinionated and had a tendency to get irate, but, tellingly, there's no passage in the scriptures like: "And Jesus entered the inn and there did He find many men wearing garments of black leather, and who were adorned with peak-ed caps and had big bushy moustaches. And Jesus did witness them behaving intimately together. And lo, Jesus did overturn the pool table and did snapeth the cues and verily did he curseth those miserable sinners. Then Jesus spateth and did say unto them: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." His failure to criticise homosexuality clearly demonstrates that he was himself gay and that he didn't want to appear hypocritical by condemning alternative sexual practices. Therefore, in the light of all this incontrovertible evidence, I hereby submit that Jesus was gay and John the Evangelist was his boyfriend. Thank you. Sources: (1) http://www.lectio.unibe.ch... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org... Illustrations: (A) http://en.wikipedia.org... (B) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Jesus was gay and John the Evangelist was his boyfriend.

You have my apologies for not approaching this debate as you have, but I recently have conducted myself in a less than admirable manner on this site and I just wanted to give what could be interpreted as theism-bashing a rest. I'll stick with the route of levity for now. You argued ten reasons why you believe no girl would touch him, but that has nothing to do with him being gay. There are plenty of straight men that no girl would ever be interested in, but that does not make them homosexuals by default. However, I will address your points. <<1 – He had long lanky hair.>> See? Gays don't do that do, so Jesus couldn't have been gay. He was clearly a bisexual. <<2 – He had a beard.>> Many bisexuals have beards and many women find them attractive. <<3 – He used to go around wearing an old robe and a pair of sandals.>> Again, no self-respecting gay would be caught dead in that get up. <<4 – He still lived with his mum.>> This is a characteristic most commonly found in straight men. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) <<5 – He was only a simple carpenter so couldn't afford to take girls out for nice meals.>> Gay men are known for having more disposable income than most, so he couldn't have been gay. <<6 – He was sleeping with men so probably had the ancient equivalent of AIDS.>> Who didn't? <<7 – He spent most of his time hanging around with his mates doing weird magic tricks with loaves and fishes and things.>> Okay... magic is pretty gay. <<8 – He was a boring bastard* who used to go about lecturing people all the time.>> Gays don't lecture - they simply like to talk about themselves... a lot. <<9 – He was a Jew, so would not have eaten bacon sandwiches for breakfast and everybody knows all girls love something warm inside them in the morning.>> He was very fond of fish tacos, which is what made the women come back for more. <<10 – All of the above.>> Just 'no'. Also, Jesus was deeply conflicted and often confused. Yes, bisexual indeed. No doubt about it.
Jesus was gay and John the Evangelist was his boyfriend.

That's your argument? Hmm, yes, well, thank you Solo for joining the debate and for discussing this important ecumenical matter with such enlightened consideration! So, just to recap our respective positions then, here's what my opponent and I agree on: 1 – Jesus had sex with at least one man. 2 – His boyfriend was called John. And here's what we disagree on: 1 – Jesus also had sex with women. You see, I don't know about that. Here's ten reasons why I believe no girl would touch him with a bargepole: 1 – He had long lanky hair. 2 – He had a beard. 3 – He used to go around wearing an old robe and a pair of sandals. 4 – He still lived with his mum. 5 – He was only a simple carpenter so couldn't afford to take girls out for nice meals. 6 – He was sleeping with men so probably had the ancient equivalent of AIDS. 7 – He spent most of his time hanging around with his mates doing weird magic tricks with loaves and fishes and things. 8 – He was a boring bastard* who used to go about lecturing people all the time. 9 – He was a Jew, so would not have eaten bacon sandwiches for breakfast and everybody knows all girls love something warm inside them in the morning. 10 – All of the above. * I mean in the literal sense of the word – http://www.merriam-webster.com... - Mary (Jesus' mum) was raped by the Holy Ghost, but luckily for him, his Joseph (Jesus' dad) didn't make her have an abortion.
Andrew Luck will be the greatest Quarter Back in NFL history

Luck and the Colts would have at least gone to the Super Bowl, but the New England Patriots actually cheated in the AFC championship for the Super Bowl spot. Ah, the old Deflategate scandal. It's incredible isn't it? How a couple of deflated balls could make a team lose 45-7. To be honest, either way it would have gone, the Patriots still would've won. 45-7 isn't because the balls were "underinflated", it's because the Patriots did to the Colts what they should've been getting all year. (Biased Broncos fan here) Luck is already putting up better numbers than Joe MontanaIs he putting up more wins? Joe Montana's win percentage was unprecidented and something that no QB will match again, besides maybe Russel Wilson who has been winning, even though no one likes him. I do not think Luck will become the greatest of all-time. With that in mind, he will be a no doubt hall of famer, giving that no significant injuries occur.
Andrew Luck will be the greatest Quarter Back in NFL history

Well, as to Montana winning the Super Bowl that year, Luck and the Colts would have at least gone to the Super Bowl, but the New England Patriots actually cheated in the AFC championship for the Super Bowl spot. And I have no doubt in my mind that the Colts could beat the Seattle Seahawks. Luck is already putting up better numbers than Joe Montana, and I have no doubt that he will be the greatest Quarter Back in the history of the NFL, and I look forward to hearing your final rebuttal. Thank You.
Andrew Luck will be the greatest Quarter Back in NFL history

Well, as to Luck receiving a crazy, career ending injury, that is very unlikely to occur. As you have most likely seen in Luck's game play, he gets hit quite frequently and runs on several occasions. He has also gotten up and shrugged off any of these hits, and also doesn't allow them to get into his head.Key Example: Bo Jackson. Bo Jackson was a freak of nature, who often hit people as a running back instead of getting hit. Bo did something that was never done before.. He popped his hip out of his socket. I'm not saying Luck could get hit hard and then be injured, he could tear his achilles or even his ACL and never come back the same. As to the 16 interceptions, Joe Montana also threw 16 interceptions in the 1990 season with the 49ers.Guess what! They won the SuperBowl that year! I don't care if he threw 70 INTs! He won didn't he? That's the thing with guys like John Elway and Dan Marino. They were amazing statistical features, but they didn't win enough when it mattered most. If you watch/listen to the Colts' games very carefully, then you will hear Luck telling the defenders "good hit", and "nice one" among other things, to which the defenders have stated gets in their heads.To be honest, Montana probably didn't talk to the other team. Montana was all-business on the field. He didn't talk trash, nor did he say nice things to his opponents. He didn't need to. He let his play do the talking.
Andrew Luck will be the greatest Quarter Back in NFL history

Well, as to Luck receiving a crazy, career ending injury, that is very unlikely to occur. As you have most likely seen in Luck's game play, he gets hit quite frequently and runs on several occasions. He has also gotten up and shrugged off any of these hits, and also doesn't allow them to get into his head. As to the 16 interceptions, Joe Montana also threw 16 interceptions in the 1990 season with the 49ers. I would also like to state one of Andrew Luck's most useful weapons, which he actually uses unintentionally.... his kindness. If you watch/listen to the Colts' games very carefully, then you will hear Luck telling the defenders "good hit", and "nice one" among other things, to which the defenders have stated gets in their heads. Did Montana have this aspect?
Andrew Luck will be the greatest Quarter Back in NFL history

Luck had 40 touchdowns, versus Montana's record of 31Montana played 13 games that year that he threw 31. And, might I add, that he threw 31 TDs AND won a SuperBowl. http://www.nfl.com...And this is only Luck's THIRD season.How many INTs did Luck throw last year? 16? Ah. That's insane. Also, who's going to be able to tell if Luck could be the greatest QB of all-time. Cam Newton was putting up insane numbers until his 4th year. Luck could have a crazy career ending injury and the stats he has now won't do him any good. So, him being in his 3rd year and saying he will be the greatest is like saying LeBron James would've been the greatest basketball player of all-time when he was coming out of highschool 12 years ago, it's just not okay to say.
Andrew Luck will be the greatest Quarter Back in NFL history

But it turned out that Richardson didn't live up to the expectations placed upon him. And I also believe that Andrew Luck will lead the Colts through 6+ Super Bowl wins. Oh, and if you wish to not except the rookie statistics, then how about the season that just occurred; Luck had 40 touchdowns, versus Montana's record of 31, and Luck also passed/rushed for 4,761 yards, versus Montana's record of 3,944 yards. And this is only Luck's THIRD season. My sources are (a less credible) Wikipedia and (a more credible) Nfl. Com My sincerest apologies for not siting the sources earlier.
Andrew Luck will be the greatest Quarter Back in NFL history

SITE YOUR SOURCESI don't care about all of this stuff he's done as a rookie. The reason that the Colts don't have a running back, is because running backs want to go to a team with a WINNING quarterback. How many wins did Luck get in his rookie year? 11-5. Guess what. Monatana didn't PLAY his rookie year. So for you to judge on a numbers standpoint, I could really care less. How many SBs do you honestly think Luck will win?
Andrew Luck will be the greatest Quarter Back in NFL history

Andrew Luck has not just broken Manning's records, he has also broken a ton of other NFL records; Here is just a short list his records: Most passing yards in a single game by a rookie quarterback: 433 (vs Miami Dolphins) Most passing yards by a rookie in a single season (4,374) Most game-winning drives by a rookie quarterback (7) Most fourth quarter comebacks by a rookie quarterback (7) Most passing yards for a quarterback through his first 2 seasons (8,196) Most passing yards for a quarterback through his first 3 seasons (12,688) Most passing yards for a quarterback through his first 5 postseason games (1,703) Most consecutive 350-yard passing games on the road (5) Fifth highest passing yards total in a playoff game (443) (Wild-Card game against the Kansas City Chiefs on January 4, 2014) First quarterback to throw for 350+ yards in five consecutive road games Third player to throw for 3,000 yards in the first nine games (which Joe Montana did NOT do) Not to mention the fact that in his first three years as a quarter back in the NFL, Luck has been to the play offs each time. And the only reason why Colts didn't make it to the Super Bowl is mostly because of these two things: The Colts had a terrible running back, not point any fingers (Trent Richardson), and also the Colts have had a terrible offensive line. Luck gets knocked down almost every single play. Now tell me, did Joe Montana have to work with this?
Andrew Luck will be the greatest Quarter Back in NFL history

I'm dying right now. Just because he has broken some of Manning's records as a Colt doesn't mean he will be anything. Manning isn't even the best QB of all-time and I'm a Broncos fan. Let me know when Luck goes 5/5 in the SuperBowl with multiple MVPs, and records. Joe Montanna is the greatest QB of all-time and always will be. But, lets hear your argument.
The Trinity is a true doctrine of the Bible

My opponent has forfeited the previous round. Pull my previous arguments over to this round. Allow me to give a quick refresher. 1. Parts of the Trinity doctrine are not stated in the Bible, or at least my opponent has failed to show that they are - and thus, the doctrine cannot be considered one of the Bible. My opponent has not referenced any verses that even mention the Holy Spirit, one of the three members of hypothetical Trinity. The verses he cites at most show that, according to the Bible, Jesus is in some way one with the father - whether that is in the same way the Trinity doctrine requires is unclear. But the Trinity doctrine requires far more to be true, and my opponent has not shown the other parts to be true. 2. The Trinity doctrine contradicts some parts of the Bible. If not one consciousness, one could hardly consider Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit to be one. However, it is made clear in the Bible that Jesus and the Father do not have the same consciousness or the same will. They also don't have the same purpose, the same form, or really anything else that would be even close to sufficient for calling them the same being. 3. Due to "true" being used to modify "doctrine" rather than an adverb being used to modify "is," the resolution makes two claims - that the Trinity is a doctrine of the Bible and that the Trinity doctrine is also true. My opponent has only even attempted to show one of these things. He has not made any sort of argument that the Trinity doctrine is true.
The Trinity is a true doctrine of the Bible

The Bible says that there is only one true God who is God by Nature, the only God who deserves our worship and prayer. Jesus taught that His Father is God. However, on the other hand, the Scriptures repeatedly say (both explicitly and implicitly) that Jesus Christ is God by Nature (John 1:1; John 1:18; John 20:28; Colossians 2:9; Philippians 2:6; 2 Peter 1:1; Titus 2:13; John 10:30) as well as describing the Holy Spirit as having all of the same qualities and attributes as The Father and The Son. I look forward to having a serious debate about the Trinity doctrine, based on the Holy Scriptures.
The Trinity is a true doctrine of the Bible

My opponent did not post a closing round. This constitutes the acceptance of my counterpoints to the points he posted in round 4. Having forfeited three of five rounds, and having not addressed the points I made in R4, my opponent was clearly not dedicated to actually partake in the debate he created. Even if you, the readers and voters, do not agree with the points I made, my opponent failed to address them. Even if you have reasons why my R4 points were wrong, my opponent did not. It is he I am debating, and he who must make arguments against my own. . . and he who failed to do so. Thanks for reading, thanks for voting, and thanks to my opponent for the debate.
The moar, the (not ALWAYS) merrier

My apologies. Broken computer. Left two other debates waiting for me as well. Anyway as I said before the X,Y,Z model applies to anything including brownies. Just imagine X is a plate that has brownies in it but not enough for you, and Y is a plate filled with the perfect amount of brownies. Y will always be more, in a good way (merrier), than X no matter what you replace it with.