BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Did Jesus commit suicide? He foreseen his betrayal and death.

I will be arguing that Jesus did not commit suicide. Lets get the definition of suicide first. Suicide : the act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally Now that we know the definition. Lets discuss. 1. Jesus didn't commit suicide by definition Jesus foresaw his death, yes. However, he did not take his own life. For example, in the hypothetical scenario where I am a cancer patient and I decide to shoot myself, that would be suicide. If I in a different example, had a friend shoot me instead, my friend's actions would be considered homicide. Jesus essentially gave his permission to the Romans/Jewish leader to have him executed. However, he did not take his own life. His death was and still is considered death by crucifixion. 2. Suicide is a sin in the Christian Bible (1 Corinthians 6:19-20) [19] Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; [20] you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body. (1 Corinthians 3:16-17 NIV) [16] Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you? [17] If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God&'s temple is sacred, and you are that temple. I feel as though these verses make it clear that suicide, the act of one destroying their "temple" is considered a sin as demonstrated in Corinthians. Suicide is clearly a sin. If we assume that Jesus foresaw his death, then we must also assume (for the purposes of this debate) that Jesus was the Son of God. Now, the purpose of Jesus' death on the cross was the be a perfect, and sinless sacrifice for the world. So, since suicide is a sin and Jesus is sinless, Jesus could not have committed suicide. I await my opponents response.
The Earth Is indeed a sphere

We both agreed that in this round, I would answer my opponents questions.My opponents arguments"Ah, sure.I would first like to ask, how could you explain, and Im sure youve been asked this, but what about Eclipses? And, do you believe in orbit? If you do, are other planets flat as well such as the sun and/ or mars, jupiter, etc? How could that be possible, if you even believe so?I would like to ask also if you beleive that Earth has a core/ gravitational pull or point. If so, where? Im troubling to grasp on how your idea of our earth could be flat. These are some simple points, but Im sure its meaningful."Answers1. Eclipses explained.While it might seem like a strange concept at first, many flat Earthers believe eclipses to be caused an object Rahu (originating from Hindu Mythology) instead of the Earth's shadow [1]. 2. Flat PlanetsDepends on what you view it as. Many flat Earthers (again) believe that there is a dome encasing the entire Earth. This can be confirmed and verified in a number of ways [2]. Just hope you don't mind watching a long video. How does this explain flat planets you ask? Well, many flat Earthers also believe that the stars are in the firmament located on the dome. And planets. and galaxies [3]. 3. GravityGravity is a theory, created to support the globe Earth assumption. There is no definent proof that gravity is the reason things go up and down. I personally believe that objects fall because they are more dense than the air, and objects rise because they are less dense. [4].Sources:1. https://tinyurl.com...2. 3. youtube.com/watch?v=6deQXN6sPeM4. youtube.com/watch?v=-V-ZfRXReKM
The Earth Is indeed a sphere

To Address your Photo Argument: I'm sure this is unprofessional, but when using Google as a source it said that you needed an 50,000 aptitude, not 35,000, which is a somewhat big difference. To explain the photos however, I cannot access the first one. I can see the second example, though. I have seen you're other debates, claiming that NASA admitted to fake photos, so I assume that you believe these aren't, and are the real deal. I used a level, the ruler looking tool with three spaces inside used to tell if something is straight, on each photo after copying it digitally onto screen in my home office. I went to the lowest looking point, and placed the level so that it was completely straight and in no way crooked. The photo, however hard to see with the human eye, is indeed curved. This doesn't go for the second photo in that set, seeing as how its too blurry to tell when the starting point of the line begins, but I can only assume that it applies to that photo as well. To Address The Chicago Skyline Argument: I can only conclude the video that I was lead to is incorrect. I'm sure that whoever made the video didn't place the camera themselves, and if anything got it from another person in "The Flat Earth Society" as I had been lead to believe is what people who have the some beliefs as you are labeled into. For all I know, it could have been that he added the Google map thing in the beginning as an effect to further convince the audience. Also, I'm sure that if you looked into it you'd be able to trace this all the way back to some stock photo site. To Address your Arctic Midnight Sun: Its proved that the sun has a possibility of not setting in the arctic. I don't exactly understand your point here. Sorry.
The Earth Is indeed a sphere

Since you're new here to this subject, I've decided I'll go a bit easier on you. I will answer both of your questions in the next round. Argument 1. No curvature We are widely told we can see curvature at 35,000 feet. However, there are a number of images showing that this is not the case. 80K Feet (15.15 Miles): https://i.imgur.com... 121K Feet (22.91 Miles) and 317K Feet (60.03 Miles): https://photos.google.com... Argument 2. The Chicago Skyline It is one of the most compelling arguments that convinced me into a flat Earth. According to the globe model, this should be impossible and Chicago should instead disappear over the horizon but this is not the case. The common explanation is that this is just a mirage, but if you have actually seen a mirage you will know this is not true. https://gyazo.com... Argument 3. Arctic midnight sun. (This argument is credit to Eric Dubay) The "Midnight Sun" is an Arctic phenomenon occurring annually during the summer solstice where for several days straight an observer significantly far enough north can watch the Sun traveling circles over-head, rising and falling in the sky throughout the day, but never fully setting for upwards of 72+ hours! If the Earth were actually a spinning globe revolving around the Sun, the only place such a phenomenon as the Midnight Sun could be observed would be at the poles. Any other vantage point from 89 degrees latitude downwards could never, regardless of any tilt or inclination, see the Sun for 24 hours straight. To see the Sun for an entire revolution on a spinning globe at a point other than the poles, you would have to be looking through miles and miles of land and sea for part of the revolution! http://4.bp.blogspot.com... - Here is a gallery of the phenomenon.
The Earth Is indeed a sphere

Ah, sure. I would first like to ask, how could you explain, and Im sure youve been asked this, but what about Eclipses? And, do you believe in orbit? If you do, are other planets flat as well such as the sun and/ or mars, jupiter, etc? How could that be possible, if you even believe so? I would like to ask also if you beleive that Earth has a core/ gravitational pull or point. If so, where? Im troubling to grasp on how your idea of our earth could be flat. These are some simple points, but Im sure its meaningful.
Liberals should become more optimistic about the opportunities for success in the U.S.

The Liberals are far from a path to economic prosperity. But compared to the borrow and spend mentality of the Republicans in the last 40 years they are doing so much better. There's not much I can say about this whole topic, I myself am a fiscal conservative and the 1 major thing that would pull our economy out of our rut is to abolish the federal reserve and return a to gold standard. But don't ask me, let's ask the man who PASSED the federal reserve act. "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit.We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." - Woodrow Wilson 1919 Liberals have good intentions at mind. Free health care. Free education. All good ideas. But their idea of government involvement in EVERYTHING is so inherently flawed in that it's against the spirit of the constitution which wanted as little involvement as possible....
Liberals should become more optimistic about the opportunities for success in the U.S.

I used to be annoyed by liberals and their deeply pessimistic attitudes with regard to one's chances for success in this country. It seems to me that, for the most part, they have a contempt for our capitalistic society and believe it stifles opportunity rather than offers the most access to it. I do not wish to argue whether liberals are correct in their critiques of capitalism. It's just that I've become acquainted with some very bright liberals on this site, and I'm starting to worry that their own prospects for success are being compromised by their despairing outlooks. If it is true that we get what we expect in life, I'm not so sure the liberals are on a path to economic advancement.
Christianity is more believable than Atheism.

Is Atheism better than Christian or is it the opposite? Christianity is the better one of the two. I mean yes, Atheist might not have to worship God or do events they don't want to, but at the end of the day Christians come on top. If Atheists are correct on that after death there is nothing, and Christians are wrong about an eternity in Heaven then we both die and nothing happens. But if Christians are correct, then after death, Christians go to Heaven and Nonbelievers go to Hell. To be honest I would rather be a Christian than an Atheist because if Christian are correct, everyone other than Christians go to Hell. So why be an Atheist when nothing after death happens but when you're a Christian, go to Heaven and spend eternity in mansions and eating and being with the True God. So if you think this is completely wrong, then prove me wrong. You better get some research, 'cause I'm ready for ya.. xD
Christianity has had more positive than negative effects on society and the world.

Thank you for accepting. As a reminder, please do not read this argument until round 2 is over. The positive effects of Christianity are listed below: Christianity is an advocate of human rights. In the Roman empire, infanticide was common, and it was legal to kill a child. [1] Constantine, the first Christian Roman emperor, was the one to finally outlaw it. [2] Christianity was also a large factor in the abolition of slavery. According to historian Glenn Sunshine, "Christians were the first people in history to oppose slavery systematically. Early Christians purchased slaves in the markets simply to set them free." [3] In addition, two thirds of the American abolition society in 1835 were Christian ministers. [4] Martin Luther King Jr. was also a Christian minister, and he is a great example of a human rights supporter. [5] Christianity is responsible for high literacy rates. Christianity has been a leader in education because Bible literacy was so important to Christians. The first law to require education of citizens was passed by American Puritans in Massachusetts. [6] All but one of the first 123 American colleges were Christian institutions. The principles in the American Declaration of Independence and the U. S. Constitution came from the Bible. The idea that all men are created equal is a biblical doctrine. [8] The notion of God's authority is part of the Declaration of Independence and all 50 state constitutions. The preamble of the declaration states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable rights...". Christianity helped to make advancements in science. Many of the founders of modern science were Christians, such as Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, and Louis Pasteur. [9] This should be enough evidence. [1] http://news.discovery.com... [2] http://www.faithfacts.org... [3] http://tvcog.com... [4] http://www.ccel.us... [5] http://www.biography.com... [6] http://www.academia.edu... [7] https://www.reddit.com... [8] http://www.slideshare.net... [9] http://www.famousscientists.org...
Christianity has had more positive than negative effects on society and the world.

The burden of proof is on me. If I can prove that Christianity has helped the world more than it has hurt it, I win the debate. If I cannot, I lose. The rounds will go as follows: 1. Con accepts the challenge. 2. I will list and explain the positive effects of Christianity, and Con will list and explain the negative effects. 3. Rebuttals. 4. More rebuttals, defend previous arguments. 5. Conclusion.
Christianity has had more positive than negative effects on society and the world.

Wars: The wars were an effect of christianity, as people killed for their religion. Since christianity was their motive, that means Christianity is the reason they committed the killing, therefore making it an effect. Witches: People were hung by the judges of the court (who were christians) because witchcraft was seen as an act of the devil. Therefore, Christianity caused the hanging of all those who died in the Salem witch trials. Misunderstandings: Just because you personally know more good christians than atheists, does not mean that's a solid case. You are playing to stereotypes. If someone killed someone you love, would you not hope for them to be punished for it? Sure prison for life and the death penalty would be punishment, but I know a lot of people would want them to burn in hell. But you're saying if they got repent, they'll get a clean slate? That's an injustice in my eyes. The fact they will get to go to heaven after the horrible deed they committed just because they repented, seems very wrong to me. Also, the bible does have God teachings and Gods words in it, written by people who have dealt with God. However, saying God didn't teach all of its content is completely ignorant. False Hope: It is creating False Hope. Their is things we can do, such as donate money, provide help(resources,protection, ect.) to Paris, ect. You never argued against the offering once in any of your arguments. If you did, then I have overlooked it and I apologize, but I have yet to see where you have argued it. It is now up to the voters to decide who made the better case. Good job Pro, and thanks for the intriguing debate.
Christianity has had more positive than negative effects on society and the world.

Wars Killing people is not a positive and I never said it was. It was not an effect of Christianity. Witches The Salem Witch Trials were not caused by Christianity. In fact, many people were suffering from ergotism. [1] View this for more information: http://usminc.org... Judgment No one has to praise something they don't believe in. When you say "One nation, under God" you are not expressing your faith; you are recognizing the Christian origins of the United States. If God does not exist, then the nation was still created under the idea of God. Abraham Lincoln was an atheist. [2] False Hope Using the hashtag #PrayforParis does not create false hope. It makes the people feel better by showing that you care for them. In a situation like that there isn't anything else you can do. Misunderstandings I see even more midunderstandings. Even though you were Catholic, you apparently were ignorant of your religion. 1. The Bible is not what God says. It was not written by God, nor did God teach all of its content. [3] 2. Christianity teaches that if you sin and don't repent, you go to hell, not just if you sin. 3. Thinking that someone is in hell is not false hope, or any hope for that matter. 4. The Old Testament is not considered to be infallible by Christianity. You have contradicted that statement but you have not disproved it. 5. I am not prejudiced against those who are not Christians. I know some atheists who are good people, but I know even more atheists who are not, and the Christians I know are almost all good people. The arguments you claim that I did not respond to All the effects are either one of the arguments I already responded to or something like abortion where the argument only works if you can prove that abortion is not bad. I dismiss all of those arguments unless you can find evidence. I also never agreed that the offerings caused hardship to families, hurt scientific growth, and took away from others. I clearly stated the opposite multiple times. Since you aren't being honest, I doubt everything you said and voters should take that into consideration. [1] http://usminc.org... [2] http://www.positiveatheism.org... [3] http://religiondispatches.org... https://answersingenesis.org... http://lifehopeandtruth.com...
Christianity has had more positive than negative effects on society and the world.

Thank you for a good argument. Literacy/Science I already negated your argument about the dark ages. Declaration/Constitution I also negated that argument. Human Rights I can see a lot of misunderstandings on your part. I will list corrections to them below: 1. The Bible does not have to state that something is wrong in order for Christianity to teach that it is wrong. The Bible is not the "book of rules" for Christianity. Christians use the teaching of Jesus to determine what is right or wrong. [1] 2. People are not condemned to hell for sinning. People are condemned to hell for knowing and hating God. Many Christians even believe in Empty Hell Theory. [2] 3. The Old Testament is not considered to be infallible by Christianity. It contains Jewish teachings; Christians only use it as a source for the history of the Israelites, prophecies, Psalms, and some stories with good morals. The books of Exodus and Hosea are not Christian doctrine and are not entirely relevant to Christian beliefs. [3] 4. Two thirds is a lot. Most Americans in 1835 were not Christian ministers, so if most of an organization consists of Christian ministers, Christianity very likely has something to do with it. 5. I never said nor implied that Christianity automatically makes someone a good person, or that a non-Christian can't be good; I actually said that Christianity makes someone more likely to be a good person. 6. Saying that atheists can be good is not relevant to the debate. Christianity and atheism both have positive effects; however, this particular debate is about Christianity. More Evidence Do some research on the following people and you will see how their Christianity influenced them to help society and the world: Mother Teresa, Gregor Mendel, George Mueller, William Wilberforce, William Penn, Boethius, Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Harriet Beecher Stowe, J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis. Those people in addition to the people mentioned in previous arguments (MLK, Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, and Louis Pasteur) make up 16 positive effects. [1] http://www.redletterchristians.org... [2] http://www.patheos.com... [3] http://infidels.org...
You can't prove the Earth is flat.

I'm not sure just what you mean, sir. You'll have to do better than that if you want to ace this debate. Let's talk in real sentences, please, not gibberish. I'll hear what you have to say about the flat earth, to begin with, then we rebut each other, and so on. If this isn't a productive debate, then I'll have to continue making rematches until I get a good debate. Let's go. Tell me why you think the Earth is flat.
You can't prove the Earth is flat.

Attention all flat Earthers! You are hereby invited to try and prove your stupid theory about the Earth being flat! Normal people can't accept! I await to see how you try to prove something that's clearly impossible. I'm going to mash you to a pulp. I wonder if you can pull this off with good evidence and no flaws in logic. Oh, also, there's a neat website, where you confident weirdos can try and prove the flat Earth and if you can prove it to this guy, you win a million dollars. I'm not sure if it's a joke or not, but I think it might be a joke, but you might want to try and prove it to him, if you're so confident about your junk. Just a fun little online activity. tinyurl.com/flatmillion Anyway, where was I? Oh, yes, let's have a knock down, drag-out, fight to the end and try to prove, once and for all, what shape the Earth is! Only flat Earthers can accept! I await hearing your insane garbage!
Music Competition Debate

This debate should be impossible to accept. If anyone finds a way to accept this debate without my permission they will therefore forfeit the debate and all 7 points will go to me. This debate is.... DADADA! A Musical competition! Here are the rules: 1. First round is for acceptance. 2. Each round we will post a video of us playing a song. 3. The song can either be an actual song, or be one you created. 4. Playing an instrument in the video is required; singing in addition to playing is optional. Any instrument may be used, and any song may be played. 5. All videos will be uploaded to Youtube Voting Rules These rules will set the standards for all voting. Any votes that do not adhere to these standards will be removed. 1. Source points will go to whoever sounded better. Do not take the music itself into question, rather how well they played the song. For example, if you hate heavy metal and someone plays heavy metal, do not take away arguments points from them just because the type of music they played is music you don't like. Judge them off how well they performed the song 2. Arguments points go to song difficulty. Whoever all-together played more difficult songs will win this point. Singing should be taken into context when awarding this point. 3. No other points will be rewarded for any reason. Any vote that adds points outside of the listed voting points will be removed. If there are any questions or concerns about these rules please post them in the comments section. Post in the comments section if you would like to accept this debate. Let's do this thang!
Teachers should have guns in school

I don't think that every teacher in schools should have guns, but some should. Also none of them should be forced to carry a gun. If indded they want to have a gun in their class they should have to have a mental eval than have training. They gun should be kept in a safe place where none of the kids know where its is and can't get to it. So yes I do think some of the teachers should have a gun it could save someone's life if not many.