BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The image of Jesus Christ has been influenced by pagan religions (classical and middle east)

Note:This debate has been conducted not to discredit the image of the Son of Man nor to call for the acceptance of heathen religions in modern society.Definitions:(New Testament): the collection of the books of the Bible that were produced by the early Christian church, comprising the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles, and the Revelation of St. John the Divine.[The discussion is exclusive to the image of Jesus Christ, who appears in the New Testament.](Pagan): pertaining to the worship or worshipers of any religion that is neither Christian, Jewish, nor Muslim. [Note: please use Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Middle East (Babylonian, Sumerian, Assyrian) mythology to define paganism. Other religions will not be accepted in this debate.)Requirements:the First Round: Acceptance and start of argument against resolution the Second Round: my defense and then introduction of pagan parallels(you may refute my own arguments as well as introducing counter examples as how paganism has been influenced by Christianity)[This continues until the end of round four]Round five: closing arguments(No new arguments will be introduced by either PRO or CON. This is a time to summarize, not continue our debate, our arguments.)Note:Historically speaken, the time period covered should be before the establishment of Hammurabi's Babylonian empire to the end of the Roman empire (due to nomadic invasions).I will also introduce new terms during the course of my argument, and define them.________________________________________________________________________________Additional requirements (I forgot to mention this):All voters should be unbiased. Christian, Protestant, Calivinist, or Lutheran voters--please read the arguments carefully. Do not simply assume that, because you are a believer of the school of Jesus Christ, that you may simply vote for CON all the way. It is an unfair mark of prejudice.I am neither acknowledging that pagan religion should be accepted with Christianity or that the school of Christ is false. I am only arguing, from a historic and mythological basis, this. ________________________________________________________________________________
The image of Jesus Christ has been influenced by pagan religions (classical and middle east)

I respect my opponent for his thoughtful answer. However, I would like to point out the following points:The Argument against CONPagan parallels however do indicate a certain type of dependence between the two religions. (There is cultural diffusion, the " the process by which a cultural trait, material object, idea, or behavior pattern is spread from one society to another", between the two religions. The worship of Mithras, for example, might have been influenced by Christian notions (who was born of a rock and was worshipped in Roman mystery religions) but that does not necessarily indicate that Christianity (and the image of Jesus Christ, which I will pose later), did not borrow from pagan religions. Symbols such as the cross, the fish symbol, as well as the tradition of miracles,healing the sick, and so on were possibly adopted by Christians, therefore showing that Christianity was not entirely immune to pagan influences. Moreover is the fact that it is completely possibly (and even hypothetical) that pagan influences on Christianity included: Because of the persecution of Christians, and their Church, (and with the hostile relationship with paganism, which worshipped several deities that personified nature and the gods), the similiarites that I accounted for might not be dismissed after all because: Theory One: I pointed out the similarity between Jesus turning water into wine, and Bacchus' control over wine, as an example of the writers of the gospel, and even the writers of the New Testament, sought to discredit much of the older gods of pagan mythology. In fact, speaking from a historical perspective, there are passages in the New Testament that bespeak a prejudice against paganism: the Lord speaks that giving worship to Moloch is to "profane in his name", the incidence of the golden calf, and the mention of several other pagan deities clearly show a prejudice against pagan gods and religion. Therefore, with Christianity as a forbidden religion that was rivalled by paganism, and the need of conversion (through baptism and other means as well) for the Second Coming, the writers and disciples of the Gospel might have actually based Jesus' own life on the deities to promote his own superiority. I may support this argument with:1. The instance of Bacchus turning water into water and Jesus Christ's turning of water into wine is possibly a way to demonstrate the coming of the Son of Man as superior to the older deities, especially with the not-so superficial similiarities ofI will elaborate in my next round....
The Death Penalty

My Rebuttal to Pro’s Rebuttal/Reasoning Statements: Someone that did a heinous crime will obviously not get a 3 month time in Torrance Jail. Once I prove the Death Sentence being immoral, the most threatening outcome in jail will be Life Sentence without parole. We are basing this again off of someone in death row. If there wasn’t “Death Row,” the next part would be a Life Sentence without Parole. I do not understand Pro’s reasoning in “Obama says that he promised change—hasn’t paid back yet after a year. ” Please clarify on this PART 2 I dislike the part where Pro blatantly assumed that I highly doubted airplanes crashing into the WTC. I knew something bad was going to happen one day—but I didn’t know it would be that one day. I should have said earlier that there hasn’t been any bombing in jail heard of so far. Of course it might happen one day—but it hasn’t happened yet. And the clincher for Part 2 did not make sense to me, so I would like you to clarify that statement. Rebuttal to Evidence 1 of what Pro Said “If that person got out again, another person could die,” You are basing all of this off the person not receiving a life sentence. . We are basing all of this of off Death Row inmates, not some person in jail for Grand Theft Auto. If one kills someone in a heinous fashion than he would obviously receive at lightest a life sentence. “Take a look at diseases now. Would you just want to allow the disease to be stuck in one place or would you want to end the disease right where it is? ” This claim makes no sense because you can’t “end” a disease. What you can do is prevent yourself having getting those diseases. I thank Pro for committing to this debate even though he strongly opposes the Death Penalty. . One note to Pro—please clarify on what you say. I shall not provide any more arguments because of the fact that Pro has not even provided any evidence pertaining to the fact that the Death Penalty is moral.
The Death Penalty

My Rebuttal to your Rebuttal/Reasoning Paragraph: ". .. If they were put in a life sentence with no parole they can not get out. " There are no guarantees in life. Obama says that he promised change. Many people still feel like he hasnt made any change yet. My friend promised me that he would pay me back for all the cough drops that I gave him. He still hasnt paid back yet after a year. Part 2: You highly doubt gangsters would go blow up the jail the person was in? Did you highly doubt airplanes crashing into the World Trade Center? I bet you did. What happened after this? The depression happened. I ask the audience- Do you think that the things you thought were impossible were possible? I thought not. Rebuttal to Evidence 1: The family of the victim of murder may never forgive the person who killed their beloved family member. And again, safety in this country is very important. If that person got out again, another person could die. Take a look at diseases now. Would you just want to allow the disease to be stuck in one place or would you want to end the disease right where it is? Think about it.
The Death Penalty

Round 2: BEGIN! REFUTATION 1: Rebuttals to Pro's Statement to my Argument. First of all I am assuming that his rebuttal and reasoning is the same thing so I'll consider it as a Rebuttal/Reasoning Paragraph. "Rebuttal 1: The Death Penalty is a waste of money. How much does safety cost? Its invaluable. : Safety is key. If some gangsters blew up the jail the person was in, then the world would be in danger again. If you killed the person, we would be safe. " Pro says asks the audience how much does safety cost? Again based off his undescriptive rebuttal/reasoning I would have to assume by safety he means the perpetrator being able to go outside and cause more rampage. As I said earlier-- if they were put in a life sentence with no parole they can not get out. There is also something called "Solitary Confinement" Part 2: "If some gangsters blew up the jail the person was in, then the world would be in danger again. If you killed the person, we would be safe. If some gangsters blew up the jail the person was in, then the world would be in danger again. If you killed the person, we would be safe. " I highly doubt gangsters would go blow up the jail the person was in. Pro did not describe what kind of explosion so I am going to assume something as large as the Oklahoma explosion-- the one Timothy McVeigh did. I ask the audience-- what it means the world would be in danger again. What does it mean? The jail would be blown up so therefore the perpetrator would be in microscopic pieces. Part 2 made no sense, and contradicts itself. ARGUMENTS Evidence 1: Killing one person does not bring the other person back What is the point in killing someone on death row? It will not bring another person back, unless they were injected with a zombie virus. . This statement is speculation-- but I believe justice is better served if he's suffering on a life sentence with no chance of parole. Hate, revenge, etc will not bring back your loved one. .
The Death Penalty

Hello again Vincent. I think I'm on a difficult side to be on for this topic, but bring it on! I'll follow the structure that Pastafarian made, so I'll start with rebuttals. Rebuttal 1: The Death Penalty is a waste of money. How much does safety cost? Its invaluable. My reasons: Reason 1: Safety is key. If some gangsters blew up the jail the person was in, then the world would be in danger again. If you killed the person, we would be safe.
Moral Relativism (Pro) vs. Divine Command Theory (Con)

Definitions:Moral Relativism - "[that] the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to some group of persons" [1]Divine Command Theory - "human beings require a special divine assistance in their ordinary cognitive activities [of discerning moral behavior]" [2][1] . http://plato.stanford.edu...; [2] . http://plato.stanford.edu...;First
The Internet does more harm than good

well since my opponent did not respond i will repeat my previous argument: I will begin by saying that what you said in your first debate is looking at only the negative effects of the internet. Every great thing has something bad about it, but I think in this case the good out-weighs the bad. For example, just imagine where we would be without the internet: It would be much more difficult to find information and learn more, sites like these that help people show their opinion and develop their skills, would merely be none existent. Applying for a college outside of your area would be nearly impossible. I think that abolishing the internet would take HUGE steps back in the development of the human race and like you said in your argument, "Our world revolves around technology..." Exactly, our world would not be even close to the same without technology and the internet to connect all of the tech. Another direct quote: " The internet controls nuclear facilities, natural resources, and our privacy." Exactly, without the internet where would all those other technologies like nuclear facilities and natural resources be? How would we be able to control everything without the internet? Yes we could live without internet, but without it we can never move on to the next step in developing our society and race in general.
The Internet does more harm than good

.. I will begin by saying that what you said in your first debate is looking at only the negative effects of the internet. Every great thing has something bad about it, but I think in this case the good out-weighs the bad. For example, just imagine where we would be without the internet: It would be much more difficult to find information and learn more, sites like these that help people show their opinion and develop their skills, would merely be none existent. Applying for a college outside of your area would be nearly impossible. I think that abolishing the internet would take HUGE steps back in the development of the human race and like you said in your argument, "Our world revolves around technology. .. " Exactly, our world would not be even close to the same without technology and the internet to connect all of the tech. Another direct quote: " The internet controls nuclear facilities, natural resources, and our privacy. " Exactly, without the internet where would all those other technologies like nuclear facilities and natural resources be? How would we be able to control everything without the internet? Yes we could live without internet, but without it we can never move on to the next step in developing our society and race in general.
The Internet does more harm than good

The internet ultimately is detrimental to the international community. ALthough it was intended for peaceful purposes, in the modern day and age, it has become far too dangerous and harmful to many nations worldwide. Take the example of hundreds of thousands of cyber attacks that are attempted every year. Our world revolves around technology, and its a known fact that if someone can control the internet, it could change the lives of many people. The internet controls nuclear facilities, natural resources, and our privacy. It has been very harmful in the past and in the future, and ultimately does more harm than good.
Donald Trump should be in ddo big issues list

I will rebut my opponent's arguments right now. Rebuttal 1: "I said Donald trump should be in the list, not will be. There's a difference. "Even though you say should, Juggle will not do this. My argument was that Juggle will not or should not do this because they are lazy people. This argument is rebuttedRebuttal 2: "Barrack Obama's turn is at an end, will Juggle update it now? "That, I don't know. That is not part of the resolution. The resolution is about Donald Trump, not Barack Obama. Therefore, this argument is rebutted. Rebuttal 3: "Barrack Obama is a president, but then why are the other nations' presidents not here? That is certainly discrimination. "This is clearly not in the resolution, but I will just say it. Debate. org is a U. S. site, so there are only US things. But other country people can go in too, but the site is mostly based on the U. S. Conclusion My opponent fails to fulfill his burden, and fails to rebut my arguments. Most of my opponent's arguments were off-topic, and they were bare assertions.
Donald Trump should be in ddo big issues list

Argument 1- Juggle- I said Donald trump should be in the list, not will be. There's a difference. Argument 2- Barrack Obama's turn is at an end, will Juggle update it now? Argument 3- Barrack Obama is a president, but then why are the other nations' presidents not here? That is certainly discrimination. Even if Donald Trump doesn't become president, will he fulfill his claims or not? What if he becomes a private weapons contractor and starts blasting ISIS? Donald Trump is one serious and big issue.
Donald Trump should be in ddo big issues list

I will make my case right now. The Burden of ProofThe Burden of Proof is shared. Pro needs to show that Donald Trump should be in the list because Barack Obama is not there. I will say the opposite. Argument 1: JuggleJuggle is the "company" of the site. They bought it. There are somethings even Airmax cannot do. But Juggle can do it. You see, Juggle abandoned this site. We can't change the forum topics the big issues or anything. The last time they changed it was 4 years ago. Juggle even hasn't updated their own site for few years. Do you think they will update ours? No. Juggle gets money from the ads, so for them, they don't need to update our site. It's free. The only thing they get money from is the ads. They still get money. So, they don't update our site, which means that the big issues won't be updatedArgument 2: FairnessBarack Obama is a president. Donald Trump is running. That is different. Was Obama and his compeitior there? No. Therefore, of fairness, Donald Trump is not there.
Compulsory Inclusion of Non-Felons' DNA by any Government Database is Just

Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Opening arguments + rebuttals by Con (optional)Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Rebuttals and conclusionDefinitionsCompulsory:Required by law or a rule [1]*Felon: a criminal who has committed a serious crime [2]Database: a comprehensive collection of related data organised for convenient access [3]Just: Based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair [4](*This debate is about non-felons)Rules-All arguments must be posted in the debate (source links can be posted in comments if needed)-No trolling-No source spams-No forfeiting-Failure to observe or acknowledge these rules/definitions will result in an automatic forfeit. Citations [1] . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[2] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3] . http://www.dictionary.com...;[4] . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
A raised biscuit frowns.

A subtle defiance this obdurate confession. Charisma or banality a questioning resonance now implores. Though the frown hovers on this brow in abject uncertainty. Nonetheless such joy transpires to force assertion of knowledge not lost in despondency. But held in glory. A raised dilemma, does take the biscuit. But raised in reverence in a tide of overwhelming passion. This ocean of words will continue to knock ceaselessly against the shores of opposition.
should kids under 18 have a gun

I wonder if my opponent has ever heard of the WHAT IF theory. lets explain what if a kid was taken over seas were there parents cant help an the FBI has no jurisdiction over seas. so if a kid had a small gun they could protect them self's long enuf to get real help. an if we train the kids to use the guns they wont get hurt. but the what if theory goes both ways I know. so get provincials to teach them. it is a long term thing it will work.
should kids under 18 have a gun

My opponent is equating getting a boo boo from fall off a bike with getting shot in the head because you pointing the gun slightly too far up. We don't want children dying. That would most likely be considered a moral evil in everyone's book. Here are ways for a kid to protect himself/herself: not go walking around alone until old enough, not getting into gangs, not hanging out with people who do dangerous things. These are all standards that can be created in the home before a gun is placed in the hands of the incompetent. We can't assume every kid in the US is going to be taken by a pedophile and arm them with guns. More harm than good would come out of it. Something to be realized at this point is that my opponent is making a claim. That means the burden of proof is on him. If he does not provide evidence or impeccable reasoning as to why his position is true, then he does not win this debate. As of yet, my opponent has yet to provide anyone with anything except for baseless assertions. Until my opponent can provide that, there is no choice but for me to win this debate.
should kids under 18 have a gun

My opponent has failed to acknowledge that he is not the model by which we can judge everyone in society will be able to behave. Just because one person was taught to *handle* a gun at an early age does not mean that every kid or most kids will be able to have a gun without hurting themselves. Most parents wouldn't even be able to properly teach their kids how to use one. Kids don't need guns. They need an education. Guns are great, but not when you're eight.
should kids under 18 have a gun

Sure, let's arm the people with severely underdeveloped frontal lobes. A frontal lobe, by the way, is the reasoning center of the brain. That doesn't fully develop until you're about 25. I would also like to point out that this resolution and my opponent's stance would allow a four year old to conceal and carry as long as the gun wasn't too heavy. A four year old would kill himself. Not on purpose, but kids stick things in their mouths, and I'm going to leave the example there so I don't make anyone cringe. It wouldn't be much better if an 8 year old had a gun. He would just be more able to aim at other people. This is a ridiculous idea.
"trolls" aren't that bad

I did spell mean wrong. I noticed it the moment I clicked "submit argument". Oh, well. Anyway, I like your comment that says that trolls 'like to make jokes and annoy people, but they do it intelligibly, that is what makes them trolls'. I have never in my experience seen an intelligent troll on the internet. Most of them either have a comment about their testicles to share or want to express their belief in the fact that the video they are watching somehow has a sexual preference. "Trolls tend to 'pick' on people because they're idiots..." You made my point in that statement. Also, their is a difference between having a debate and just writing something on a random chat forum to start an argument. I am starting to think that the only reason this debate was created was to troll whoever took the side of Con.
"trolls" aren't that bad

I apologize for the fact that I missed the last argument, but I don't need to explain why to you, as this is an internet debate. Not a journal or something. Yes, I was talking about the internet trolls. Not the hairy things that live under bridges. There is a difference between trolls and the idiots who like to start fights/arguments for no reason. A subtle difference, but a difference. Trolls like to make jokes and annoy people, but they do it intelligibly, that is what makes them trolls. When they do something simple, it's a reflection on the person, not the troll. And another thing, seriously. Why are we called trolls? I mean to compare us to sweaty, smelly, ugly, disturbing figures in mythology that tend to live in caves or under bridges is an insult... Not everyone sits on their couch. Lots of people sit on recliners or the floor or a hard wooden chair at a table. There are also different types of trolls, (see "know your meme- trolls) Trolls tend to "pick" on people because they're idiots, act young, are young or they simply don't like them. And your being a troll yourself by insulting us trolls. "trolls are for the most part obnoxious, attention-seeking losers who probably have nothing better to do than sit on their couches bugging strangers on the internet" You have nothing better to do than debate with me right now. on the internet. Most likely on some sort of chair or couch. You also spelled mean wrong. Good luck in the next argument.
"trolls" aren't that bad

When you say trolls, I am assuming you men internet trolls, and not the little hairy guys who live under a bridge. While they can be somewhat entertaining at times with their complete inability to form an intelligent thought, trolls are for the most part obnoxious, attention-seeking losers who probably have nothing better to do than sit on their couches bugging strangers on the internet. I can see no way how they could be useful to society, so I look forward to reading your argument.