BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: There is sufficent evidence to believe in Jesus' resurrection

Summary While I didn't make the syllogism explicit in my opening statement, I presented one in the second round to capture my overall argument. My main argument was Either the evidence is best explained by a natural account or it is best explained by a supernatural account The evidence is not best explained by a natural account C:Therefore, it's best explained by a super natural account If there are facts that are best explained by an actual resurrection, then there is in fact sufficient evidence to believe in Jesus' resurrection. Furthermore, I argued that Jesus' burial empty tomb, origin of the disciple's beliefs, post resurrection appearances and the early church are all sufficient evidence to believe in Jesus' resurrection. My opponent did one of the following: 1) either he did not address the issue head on or he did not provide an adequate explanation and defense of the naturalistic theories. My opponent responded to my argument by showing that there were contradictions with burial accounts with regards to who buried Jesus. Claimed my arguments failed because Paul contradicts the Gospels and Joseph was a follower of Jesus. I addressed this numerous times and showed this to be a non sequitur. First I clarified that my argument was that Joseph was a well known public figure and how the location of the tomb was well known since Joseph was the one who provided it. Second, I showed him that at most his argument would tell us is we cannot trust the text with regards to who buried Jesus. His point never undermined my contention. Secondly, my opponent tried to combat the empty tomb by positing a conspiracy theory where Joseph of A. stole the body while there were no guards. He further tries to invalidate there being any guards at the tomb after the burial. I responded to this argument by arguing: if Joseph stole the body with the guards in place, then the resurrection appearances would have to necessarily be explained by natural means (hallucinations, dreams, etc. ) The resurrection appearances cannot be sufficiently explained by natural means Therefore, the idea that Joseph stole the body is false. I then sifted through each of the hallucination theories (that my opponent did not provide, explain, or adequately defend) and rebutted each one showing them to be extremely weak or implausible My opponent tried to use examples of The Watch Tower and Joseph Smith to refute the arguments from the origin of the early church and the origin of the Disciple's beliefs. I showed that these fail because 1) there is a difference between dying for a belief one strongly believes to be true (even if false) and dying for a belief that one knows to be false and 2) the Joseph Smith analogy was weak and therefore uncogent. My opponent's arguments did not carry much weight, if any at all. I have successfully countered the arguments and presented a positive case and argument for the resurrection of Jesus that was left unrefuted by my opponent. I urge voters to examine and scrutinize the arguments on their own merits based on the interactions my opponent had in rounds 1-3.
Resolved: There is sufficent evidence to believe in Jesus' resurrection

This has been a tough debate. I wish to thank him for his fantastic arguments.Jesus' BurialWhile I do contend that Joseph provided the tomb, he has conceded the contradictions. Joseph was a secret follower of Jesus, and yes my entire point is that the reason why he gave his tomb to Jesus was to show respect to him.In addition, we have 1 person stating that 500 people saw Jesus post-resurrection. Sounds very compelling doesn't it?Why didn't the Jewish leaders produce Jesus' corpse?According to the New Testament, it fixes the public announcement of the resurrection 50 days after the events! By that day, Jesus' corpse would have been sufficently decomposed.A mishnah states: "They must not give evidence [of identity in respect of a dead man] except on [proof afforded by] the full face with the nose..." [1]Empty TombWere there guards at Jesus' tomb? According to Matthew, yes. However, according to the other gospels, there were not. In fact, there was a 12 hour period between the burial and the guard placed.As for the hallucinations:"There will always be some who will not see the hallucination. It is uncommon for them to speak out and deny it. It is uncommon for them to speak out and deny it. They usually keep quiet, doubtful perhaps of their worthiness to see the vision for which so many of their fellows around them are fervently giving thanks. Later on, influenced by the accounts of others, they may even begin to believe that they saw the vision too.â€ï¿½ Page 117, Zusne, L. and Jones, W. (1989) Anomalistic Psychology: A Study in Magical Thinking. Hillsboro, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.'People can be easily persuaded to change their opinions, even concerning something they have seen very recently, if other people in the surrounding group are pushing for a conflicting opinion.[2]| Conclusion | We only have 1 person stating that 500 people saw Jesus post-resurrection. Is that compelling? I have shown that it is uncommon for people to speak out for not seeing a hallucination. My opponent needs to show that a resurrection is the only possible claim. He is yet to convince me that Jesus really rose from the dead. | Questions for voters | Has my opponent given good reason for the belief in the resurrection? I urge voters to vote con if he did not. However, if you feel that my opponent has, then please vote pro. Would any of his evidence stand up in a court of law? Sources1 http://www.jewsforjudaism.org...;2. http://www.columbia.edu...
Resolved: There is sufficent evidence to believe in Jesus' resurrection

My opponent has the entire Burden of Proof in this debate to prove that Jesus' resurrection is supported by enough evidence to be believed. Fact: The resurrection is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Therefore, my opponent needs to provide to me, and the voters, the extraordinary evidence. Round 1: My opponent will make his first claims Round 2: I will refute pro's claims and pro can challenge my rebuttals Round 3: Same as round 2 Round 4: I will give my final rebuttals and pro will provide his closing statements. No rebuttals allowed from pro.
Combine 'womens' and 'mens' departments from clothing stores - they're sexist and discriminatory

My argument is short, simple and to the point. First, I will be dismissing the opponent's rhetoric. While I understand the point, my argument will cut through that. I'll begin. Argument 1: Separation for easy shopping. This first point leads to my next two points. Basically, it is necessary for a store to make the shopping experience of its customers as easy and quick as possible. Regardless of whether it is or is not morally/ethically/etc. right or wrong for men/women to wear clothes of the opposite sex, it cannot be denied that men typically wear clothes from the "men's section" and that women often wear clothes from the "ladies section". As such, it is beneficial for the business to separate the two. See my next points for clarification.Argument 2: Men and women do not have commonly known universal sizes.While there no doubt exist clothes size schemas that are gender neutral, the majority of schemas to not take gender neutrality into consideration. As such, a woman's medium is a very different size and cut than a man's medium. Understanding this, it is clear why a store would separate men's and women's clothing. It is not an act of sexism, rather is a an act that realizes that men's sizes and women's sizes are fundementally different and that there is no way to combine the two without adding a new, complex system of sizes that would turn the customers off. Argument 3: A business should behave how it needs to to gain the most profit, legally. The entire point of a business it to generate revenue. Providing the public with a service or good is a side effect of this desire to generate revenue. As such, a store should act in such a way that it maximizes income, without comitting illegal acts. Because of the size differences in clothes, the different cuts of clothes, the different styles of clothes, and the different gender interpretation of clothes, it would not be beneficial for a company t combine the men's and women's sections. This would cause confusion, it would cause the store to either lose customers or have customers that spend too much time shopping. Both things negatively impact business. As such, it is necessary and economically beneficial to separate the men's and women's sections. It is not a company's job to be overly hospitable to a minority, but rather it is their job to be as hospitable to the majority as possible, so as to maximize profits. --------------------------------------------------I look forward to the opponent's response.
This healthcare proposal is better than any healthcare proposal my opponent can come up with.

My advocacy in round one is restricted to a healthcare proposal. I will explain why my opponent's proposal can not decrease the costs of healthcare in the next round. I could have taken a semantics route, arguing that one such healthcare proposal that I could come up with would be identical to yours, meaning that yours cannot be said to be better; however, I actually have an interest in this topic. The wjmElements Proposal 1) Remove regulations that grant monopoly benefits on local insurance companies. One such regulation is the one that my opponent advocates, though there are others. One other such regulation is the requirement of the ownership of this kind of insurance, which artificially increases demand and the price of health insurance. Many regulations exist that are considered to be less significant, but together have a monopolistic effect, reducing competition, and harming the consumer. 2) End Occupational Licensure Allowing any individual to perform any medical procedure as long as (if practical) there is informed consent and no fraud will directly bring down the costs of medical care by decreasing the costs of medical labor by allowing the supply of physicians to increase. Given a system of liability, there is really no reason to have any occupational licensure. 3) Weaken authority of the FDA Restricting the supply of medicine by hampering its availability is another cause for artificially high market prices, this time directly in the product. The FDA's oversight into the medical field has caused a long approval process that drastically increases the costs of research and development, increasing the price of newer, cheaper, and more effective medicines. As long as there is a liability system, there is really no reason to have an approval system. Insurance costs must necessarily be higher than medical costs. While my opponent's proposal cuts insurance costs slightly, it does not reduce medical costs. In this regard, my proposal is better. My opponent's proposal of further government interference in healthcare shall be refuted thoroughly next round. Thank you.
This healthcare proposal is better than any healthcare proposal my opponent can come up with.

=== Definitions === Are they really needed? === Proposal/Arguments === 1) Allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. To me, this seems pretty common sense. Currently, if you operate a health insurance business in New York, you can't offer you insurance to those who live in Florida, or California, or any other state. This is crazy! If their is a good health insurance company that just so happens to operate in New York, why should the people of Florida suffer for being Floridians? b) Give uninsured Americans a tax credit. This is pretty common sense too. Currently, what the U.S. Congress is trying to do with health care reform, is barricade 46 million uninsured Americans into a Government Run Healthcare Plan (a.k.a. Obamacare). That 46 million people now more dependent on the government. Taxpayers already pay for 1-out-of-4 Americans health insurance through Medicaid, Medicare, or some other government programs; now you want them to pick up the tab for the uninsured too? Instead why don't we help the uninsured by giving them options in regards to their healthcare? I propose we give uninsured Americans a federal income tax deduction, it would be a lot, only enough to help them pay for private health insurance. This would save working Americans money and becoming dependent on the government. But don't give it out to EVERY uninsured American, just the one's who request it. That way the government doesn't have to give people money who don't want health insurance. c) Mandate that health insures disclose ACTUAL prices and performance. Do you think those monthly premiums you see on the TV commercials are the actual price they charge you? If you do, you need to get out of La-la-world. They MIGHT charge you those prices if you are perfectly healthy, have won 6 triathlons, and won 6 gold medals at the 2008 Olympics, but how many of us are like that? Form an government committee to investigate all claims by insurance companies and either back 'em up or let the consumers know! Not only would this apply to private insurers, but government agencies too. Before you get Medicaid, Medicare, or something else you should know exactly is covered and what is not. That is all for know. In the first round, I just urge my opponent to make his or her own healthcare proposal, then we'll actually start debating in Round 2. Thanks!
Is Socialism the answer to Americas problems

I have accepted your argument. Now, I want to clarify my position on this debate: I am NOT advocating a complete Socialist revisioning of America: You won't see concepts such as advertising and private ownership of land disappear off the face of the Earth. I am of the opinion that Socialism still has a place beside Capitalism in this country, and I firmly believe that there is no freedom to be 'made a complete mockery of' in using this system.
Is Socialism the answer to Americas problems

"We can't support people laying around and do nothing"I make an argument for Universal Health Care and you resort to making judgements of people you've never met in your life. I see how it is, though I'm not really surprised."we have to think of practicality, not taking millions of jobs and forcibly taking over multiple businesses (which by the way is completely illegal) and could to easily lead to government tyranny."So your definition of 'government tyranny' amounts to: 'They have a system I don't like, therefore government tyranny'?"Tyranny comes from the government, there is no time where America's corporations could turn tyrannical, because the government would smack it down into the abyss like it does with all modern first world countries because they're all socalist's who put huge taxes and restrictions on buisneses."America's corporations have already turned tyrannical. The Head of the FCC is a former Verizon CEO. The president is closely linked with Trump Towers. Most of his cabinet appointments are Wall Street cronies. If you don't think America is a corporate tyranny, then you're not paying attention.
Is Socialism the answer to Americas problems

The words " it turns out when you call people racist, sexist, bigoted when they are in your own political party they feel rejected like they don't belong because they feel shitty, people will vote in direct opposition to what they once called their own party" was not directed at you it was directed at the socialist movement, not you, that was an argument against socialism as in the term social justice, and socialism in politics. I would rather have Health Care be a good rather than a right because health care cannot be given to all in America. We can't support people laying around and do nothing, we have to think of practicality, not taking millions of jobs and forcibly taking over multiple businesses (which by the way is completely illegal) and could to easily lead to government tyranny. The economy has a tight connection to the wellbeing of the people, they are very very much so linked. I am fine with charity funding healthcare for all but I am not fine with the government stepping in and forcing it down everyone's throat and destroying many businesses that don't need to be destroyed for something that isn't and shouldn't be a right, because of less quality care, longer care (if you can provide evidence to the contrary I will say otherwise) Tyranny comes from the government, there is no time where America's corporations could turn tyrannical, because the government would smack it down into the abyss like it does with all modern first world countries because they're all socalist's who put huge taxes and restrictions on buisneses.
Is Socialism the answer to Americas problems

I don't understand where you got the idea that I support a political party, and no one in this particular debate is accusing people of being racist/sexist/bigoted so you're basically talking to thin air on that homefront. No political system is perfect, and as a side note, the wellbeing of the people should always come before the economy, otherwise, why should the people contribute to the economy? Also if you're talking about wait times, wait times are just as long if not longer in non-socialized countries. Would you rather have a rich person get all the quality healthcare, or everyone get the same healthcare? Our system wastes healthcare on those who offer more money, which is downright stupid. And as for government tyranny, it seems as if you think tyranny can only come from one source, that corporations are infallible and can do no wrong while only the government can be this big, corrupt entity. Corruption is everywhere, from the chocolate that you eat (http://www.corpwatch.org...), to Italian soccer (https://en.wikipedia.org..., https://en.wikipedia.org..., more Italian soccer scandals can be found on Wikipedia, but apparently I can't link to them because of anti-spam measures)
Is Socialism the answer to Americas problems

The question is is socialism the answer to Americas problems, economy is going to be apart of it and that's why it wouldn't work in america with actual quality healthcare. in nations with socialized health care the health care has less quality, takes longer, and if government tyranny occurs they will control who gets it and who doesn't. Every political party does have it's crazies, but the whole idea of the political party is crazy, and those who are apart of it are normally even more crazy. The socialist movement in the us is why trump got elected, it turns out when you call people racist, sexist, bigoted when they are in your own political party they feel rejected, like they don't belong because they feel shitty, people will vote in direct opposition to what they once called there own party. The reason i became as against socialism as i am is by social justice and being rejected by my own party.
Is Socialism the answer to Americas problems

Not nearly as much as the 50's though. Also you are expecting the impossible out of a nation's economy when it comes to Europe. Economies always have their booms and busts, Capitalist and Socialist, So I always find that arguing against a nation's economy for busting is like chastising the Micronesian national soccer team for not having a perfect all-time record. the universal healthcare idea isn't that absurd, as India (a nation of over 1 billion people) have tried it and it works. As for the disciplinary records, wasn't there Trump supporters who peed on a floor in a bar to make a political statement against 'libtards'? Every political faction has its crazies. I personally don't agree with BLM/race baiters/offended idiots but I certainly don't agree with people with a God Emperor.
Is Socialism the answer to Americas problems

America pays countries devastated by ww2 loads of money since the 50s, that is how they can afford it. america could never afford it since we have 300 million people and the Scandinavian countries are declining like most of Europe, and is bad as most of Europe for socialist ideas in a myriad of different things. healthcare can take an enormous amount of time and effort and makes a huge deficit, free college would be a disaster and violation of the constitution and could lead to possible tyranny from the government taking over institutions that should not be government funded or run . It creates social justice and blm which is being used by many to lower the ability to respond to being called racist, insensitive and giving people who are black cultural power and lowering people who are white making it socially acceptable to insult and send death threats to people in office just because they have bad pr and unusual policy's (mostly bad in my opinion) that they couldn't comprehend anyone disagreeing with them. Socialism should be cut back not increased. A huge portion off independents and democrats consider themselves socialist, and 40% of people in america prefer socialism over capitalism even though social systems have been proven to work less well, because it turns out when you force things on people they aren't to happy or work to well with it as if they chose to.
Is Socialism the answer to Americas problems

[IMG]http://i66.tinypic.com...[/IMG]Take a look at this World Happiness Report on Wikipedia. Motice how most of the countries here have some form of strong socialist polices like universal healthcare and free college education. Of those countries, Norway just happens to have around a 7% budget surplus and a $74,930 Nominal GDP per capita income. Finland is also preparing to test a new universal income system. Maybe Socialism isn't the nightmare people make it out to be?
Science proves that god does not exist.

I can't begin to express my apologies for what I'm about to say. I am overwhelmed right now. I really should not have accepted this debate. If you'd like to reschedule this with me or challenge someone else, that's fine. However, I have a tendency to not plan ahead and it's screwing me over right now. I do not have the schedule capacity to debate this.I was going to argue through Chaos Theory, so if you plan on arguing this with me some other time, perhaps researching that and predicting how I'd argue with Chaos Theory and figuring out how you'd rebut it would make the future argument proceed for smoothly.Again, I apologize, I would hate it if someone did this to me. When I make a debate and someone accepts, I expect a fulfillin debate, so I know how terrible this must be for you. But again, I don't really have a choice. I may have to forfeit a couple of my other debates as well. So sorry.
Science proves that god does not exist.

Ave.Topic: Science proves that god does not exist.Position: Pro/ForCategory: ScienceRounds: 4Voting Period: 2 WeeksTime to Argue: 48 hoursArgument Max: 8,000 CharactersVote Comments: YesI am taking the Pro position. It is my burden to prove that science demonstrates the non-existence of god. It is the burden of Con to prove that my argument is incorrect. The winner of the argument will be the side that demonstrates their case beyond a preponderance of the evidence. In other words, if 51% of the evidence favors one side, that side should win arguments.There are four rounds in this debate. The first round is for acceptance of the rules and framework. I will present my opening statement in the subsequent round, and the next rounds will be devoted to rebuttals.The voting period will be two weeks.Each side will have fourty-eight hours to post each round. The maximum number of characters is eight thousand.Using pictures in order to demonstrate concepts is allowed. General expectations of conduct should be followed. I will be taking my argument from a debate I instigated with a different account. Please do not accuse me of plagiarism. It is my own work.The most relevant definition of a word should be used when definitions are in dispute.God is defined as the personal being which causes the initial state of the universe.Note: I have modified this debate to satisfy RT. If anyone else accepts, it results in them forfeiting.Vale.