BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jesus Christ, the person, Did Exist

Many of the 'secular' sources frequently named by Christian Apologists are questionable at best and debunked at worst. Josephus is a writer who is constantly dug up and thrown out by apologists who then say "Look! There is your proof, how can you ever disbelieve now?" without realizing that the writings of Josephus in regard to Jesus have already been discredited. These supposed words from him did not show up until centuries after his death, and have been shown without a doubt to be a forgery. In fact just reading the things he supposedly wrote don't even sound like him, for example why would a Jewish historian refer to Jesus as the Christ? On top of that, Josephus' alleged writings don't even add anything to the story of Jesus, were such an important historical figure around you'd expect to hear more about his deeds and accomplishments. However all we get is stuff that sounds like it was regurgitated from the Bible itself, centuries after the time! So it is clear that Josephus is not a reliable source on the existence of Jesus, though believers haven't seem to grasped that yet. Tacitus, another second century Roman writer cited by apologists, is an example of what we call "second hand" history. There is no true mention of Jesus in his writings, only the "sect known as Christians" being persecuted in Rome and their founder (never confirmed or said to be Jesus). The worst thing for Tacitus' writings is likely that they almost seem to be plagiarized from those of Sulpicius Severus, written in the 4th century, and mixed with other mythology. Unfortunately for believers it seems, as with Josephus, that these writings add nothing to the historicity of Jesus. Now moving onto Pliny the Younger, his writings don't much suffice either for a couple reasons. One reason that has been present within a few of these authors is the lack of the name Jesus, making it entirely possible that they were referring to some other figure claiming to be the 'Christ'. Another thing, his writings dealt with events people at the time believed happened, it's not as if he wrote of seeing Jesus directly, so it'd be like if I wrote of the Mormons believing in Moroni as a historical figure and future Mormons used my writings as proof. Now I can go on and on explaining why these writings don't constitute historical evidence, but id end up sounding like a broken record. So I will leave it to the audience to research further (try to stay away from the Christian blogosphere if you do) and you'll find the same problems over and over. I trust the voters know enough to realize that the "Jesus has more evidence than Caesar" argument is little more than overused Christian rhetoric, it's been debunked so many times that it's be ridiculous for me to even recognize this assertion as any fraction of legitimate. I end this argument asserting that, while not an impossibility, there is not enough historical evidence to conclude that Jesus existed as a man. We must not allow religion to cloud the objective view of history, we must remember that unfalsifiable claims invalidate themselves.
Jesus Christ, the person, Did Exist

My opponent disreguards secular sources for proof of Jesus' existence which seems fair and reasonable to me seeing the context of this type of specific debate. There are multiple secular sources that give us proof of Jesus' existance as a real and historical figure: Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger , Phlegon, Luci, Celsus, Mara Bar Serapion, Suetonius, and Thallus. Here is historical evidence for Tiberius Caesar"s existence for comparison. This will be used because no one refutes the existance of Tiberius Caesar. Tiberius Caesar, the Roman head who ruled during Jesus" life, has 10 authors who mention his existence within reasonably close proximatey of his life: Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Seneca, Paterculus, Plutarch, Pliny the Elder, Strabo, and Valerius Maximum. There are 9 secular, or nonchristian sources for Jesus. This means that there are a comparable number of secular sources for Jesus" existence as compared to Tiberius Caesar"s. And, for comparison, the TOTAL number of sources between Jesus and Tiberius Caesar is a ratio of 42 to 10. Therefore, there are more than four times as many sources for Jesus" life and deeds than there are for Tiberius Caesar"s life and deeds. Are we to disbelieve Tiberius ever existed? Surely not. The same prosecution of the proof of Jesus' existance must be applied to Tiberius as well.
The Big Bang theory is a scientifically sound theory.

Rebuttals My opponent all but forifieted here "Yes the big bang is probably the reason that our universe exists in its present state"However. My opponent has just disregarded nearly my entire argument. Let's review the topic at hand. The Big Bang theory is a scientifically sound theory. Let's review the definition i provided. From the Oxford Dictionary. Big Bang · “tthe rapid expansion of matter from a state of extremely high density and temperature that according to current cosmological theories marked the origin of the universe. A fireball of radiation at extremely high temperature and density, but occupying a tiny volume, is believed to have formed around 13.7 billion years ago. This expanded and cooled, extremely fast at first, but more slowly as subatomic particles condensed into matter that later accumulated to form galaxies and stars. The galaxies are currently still retreating from one another. What was left of the original radiation continued to cool and has been detected as a uniform background of weak microwave radiation”As i mentioned in round one I do not have to explain what happend or what started the Big bang as that is not part of the Big Bang theroy. I must however demonstrate that the Big Bang is scientifically sound that is backed up by evidence and observation which I have demonstrated in round one it clearly is. Con has yet to make a single rebuttal on any peice of evidence or my argument.
The Big Bang theory is a scientifically sound theory.

You say that you do not have to explain what caused the big bang and that you must only prove that it is scientifically sound. However if you cannot explain what caused it in what way is it sound? Yes the big bang is probably the reason that our universe exists in its present state, but since it is not know what caused the big bang the theory is not sound. Gravity was not thought to be science for thousands of years it was just a fact of life, it was not considered science until Newton and later Einstein were able to explain how it worked. To just say something is the way it is simply because it is, is not science, at best it is incomplete and unsound science.
The Big Bang theory is a scientifically sound theory.

Based on my understanding of things I would personally argue against the big bang theory being a scientifically sound theory in terms of explaining the origin of the universe. I feel there is a fundamental problem to be addressed. The big bang theory does not explain the origin of the universe it explains only why the universe exists in its present state. The big bang theory is not the theory of which physical existence came from the theory states that all physical existence existed in a tiny point of singularity then rapidly expanded. For me two questions come to mind here. Firstly what caused the expansion? Also did something exist before the physical universe or is the universe simply eternal? In terms of causing the expansion the view of empirical science that only physical substances exist does not make sense to me. If all physical existence was in that point of singularity what reason would there be for the expansion? The reason could certainly not be of a physical origin since all physicality was in that single point and physicality itself is incapable of thought which would cause a change. In my humble opinion the universe could be eternal or it could be created, but in either case an outside force must have caused the expansion. Since all physicality was in the point of singularity the cause must have been non physical the cause must have been the immaterial mind of god. In my humble opinion I do not see the big bang theory as valid or complete.
The Big Bang theory is a scientifically sound theory.

I have certainly not conceded. You have just disproved your own point in your short answer "The big bang occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there". Time and space did not even exist until the big bang occurred and the laws of physics simply do not apply outside of time and space. THE LAWS OF PHYSICS DO NOT APPLY TO SINGULARITY. To even suggest that the big bang was caused by the laws of physics is absolutely ridiculous from the point of view of modern physics. http://www.google.com... I have not conceded whatsoever you have totally conceded by not being able to explain the cause of the big bang. To say that you do not have to explain the cause of the big bang to make it valid its totally ridiculous and a pathetic cop out. The spirit of science to explain the physical world through the use of observed evidence if there is no observed evidence for the cause of the big bang then WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE BIG BANG. If we do not understand the big bang then to say it is valid is absolutely ridiculous. According to the laws of modern physics the big bang could not have been caused by any physical observable phenomenon.Your argument that science can explain the big bang is based on a LIE. The only rational explanation for the big bang is that its cause was not of the physical world it was the immaterial mind of god.
The Big Bang theory is a scientifically sound theory.

"I do not deny that the big bang theory occurred you are correct that scientific evidence backs it up."Con has just conceded.Let's look at the proposition. The Big Bang theory is a scientifically sound theory. I do not have to explain what caused the big bang as that is not part of the big bang theory.But I will.The short answer.The Big Bang occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there.The long answer.First I must explain to you the Highs Boson. About 40 years ago, physicists tried to put together a theory that would explain why stuff behaves the way it does. They called it the Standard Model. One of the things they imagined would need to be part of that Standard Model was a boson, a type of particle that would allow other particles to do the kinds of things that particles do. In July 4, 2012, they finally found it and on March 4, 2013 they confirmed it exists. That was the history, now for what it exactly is. It is a particle that gives everything in the universe it's mass. It is often named the "God Particle" because it gives everything it's mass. It is said that there is always a Higgs field. Just like there is a magnetic field around a magnet, there is a Higgs field around ANYTHING that has mass. The Higgs Boson is looking to be confirmed the last piece of the Standard Model of Particle Physics. The model consists of Strong Nuclear Force, Weak Nuclear Force, Gravitation, and Electromagnetism. The Higgs Boson is believed to be the last missing piece of the model. The model defies particle physics and explains how particle physics work. Now let's move on to how the big bang got started connecting it with the Higgs Boson. I hope you know what a singularity is, because I'm not explaining that. The singularity was the only point before the big bang. It was a point of absolute nothing but infinite potential. Because of this potential, it rapidly expanded and cooled. Why did that happen? It is theoretically observed that Quantum Mechanics absolutely allow this to happen. And physics show that there can never be nothing because infinity cannot exist. Thus, there is always a quantum field existing in any defying point whether it be absolute nothing theoretically or in a penny. In Quantum Mechanics, a point with the infinitely least probability of potential will act because there is indefinite order in how things work. So if a random singularity has a chance of 0.00000000000000000000000000000001% chance to separate, it will separate no matter the chance. This is what proves the Big Bang can be true. Things can act according to their potential no matter the consequences or before-act. The Higgs Boson shows that because Quantum Mechanics allows spontaneous acts, that the Higgs Boson gave the singularity the mass to expand and cool. Since there was always Quantum field, anything could happen and a Higgs Boson happened to appear to give the singularity 3 dimensions + time. The Higgs Boson with the combination of Quantum Mechanics is the most widely accepted part-theory scientifically. But remember all of the above is not needed as con has already conceeded.
The Big Bang theory is a scientifically sound theory.

I do not deny that the big bang theory occurred you are correct that scientific evidence backs it up. However the theory is simply not complete. To say that not knowing what caused the big bang is not relevant to the big bang theory is a cop out. The fact that scientists do not know what caused the big bang makes the theory incomplete and therefore unsound. Furthermore not knowing what caused the big bang is not the only problem. If all of physical existence was restricted to the point of singularity then what did the universe expand into? Modern science cannot explain what caused the big bang and it cannot explain what the universe expanded into this a scientific cop out and an incomplete theory.
Marijuana Is Less Harmful than Alcohol

Thank you for the argument. First of all, I'd like to concede a point that marijuana obviously is less harmful than alcohol in. It is less toxic than alcohol. The amount of marijuana you would have to smoke to overdose and die is ridiculous. However, does this mean, just because one will die from drinking too much alcohol faster than taking in too much marijuana, that marijuana is not harmful or less harmful than alcohol? No. Marijuana is worse for a United States citizen than alcohol. Firstly, it is brain-damaging, can cause growth disorders, apathy in school or work environments, and cancers in places alcohol usually does not, such as the lungs [1,2]. But the major reason why marijuana is so much more damaging in the country is because of the law: Marijuana is in a special position in our country (and most others). It is an illegal drug. Many of the so-called alcohol harming others more than marijuana statistics are exacerbated by this illegality, as marijuana is illegal. Alcohol is a legal drug. Its problems come from overconsumption. In fact, a light glass of red wine every now and again has been proven effectively good for the human body in a few ways, including but not limited to: heart healthy antioxidants, lowering of cholesterol, etc. [3]. Alcohols (you were going with ethanol I believe) have numerous beneficial uses as sanitizers, fuels, antifreeze, and multiple other solvents [4]. Marijuana has much fewer beneficial uses. Alcohol's problems are only apparent, as I said before, with overconsumption. Marijuana's problems can start before you even smoke it (not that problems don't exist when it is smoked). Marijuana, plain and simply, gets you arrested, and "Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug and that the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime." [5]. In essence, you are put in jail for the possession or sale of marijuana. (This is true of multiple other countries as well) Now, let's disregard even the fact that alcohol problems start with overconsumption (for now). You can die more quickly if alcohol is used. But is death worse, or prison? Well, many death row inmates state that they would rather be dead than serve life in prison [6,7,8], where people are raped and beaten [9]. And prisons are flooded with marijuana arrests [10]. As of now, in the United States and most other countries , marijuana is worse than alcohol in terms of harm inflicted. As the terms of the debate dictate, I'll be rebutting your arguments next round. Thanks, and back to you. [1] http://www.drugfreeworld.org... [2] http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com... [3] http://www.prevention.com... [4] http://www.britannica.com... [5] http://www.whitehouse.gov... [6] http://www.nbcnews.com... [7]http://www.theweek.co.uk... [8] http://abcnews.go.com... [9] http://abcnews.go.com... [10] http://www.ibtimes.com...
Marijuana Is Less Harmful than Alcohol

You have asked to debate this, so I am challenging you. Full Resolution Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol. Definitions Marijuana: "The cannabis plant."[1] Less: "To a smaller extent, amount, or degree."[2] Harmful: "Causing or capable of causing harm."[3] Alcohol: "A colorless volatile flammable liquid, C2H5OH, synthesized or obtained by fermentation of sugars and starches and widely used, either pure or denatured, as a solvent and in drugs, cleaning solutions, explosives, and intoxicating beverages."[4] Rules 1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed. 3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering. 4. All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person. Debate Structure Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con) Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments) Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments) Sources [1]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [3]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [4]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
creation of stocks should be banned

1the whole reason we have laws and regulations in a society is to prevent "the few" from harming the rest. also, even if everyone involved in stocks was responsible and honest (HAHA!), stocks would still pose a major threat to our economy. in fact, i think it is inevitable that it will cause major harm to our economy sooner or later. our economy is delicate enough, without letting an unstable gambling institution have so much influence over the well being of everyone.2they can invest their money in other ways. better ways, actually.3 -banning the creation of stocks wouldnt take away stocks people already have, or prevent them from trading old stocks (there are 8,696 of them). and like i said, they can invest their money elsewhere. -plenty of people lose tons of money in the stock market. and any stock trade will end up with someone getting the better end of the deal.-as for people who make a living off of stocks, so what? banning smoking would put people out of work. i say good riddance! if they are forced to get a real job, maybe they can actually contribute to society, rather than just their own pockets, at the expense of others.-if you were really concerned about unemployment and the stability of our economy, then you should be against stocks, because they are unstable. it's better for a few people involved in gambling to find new work, than for our whole country to go into another great depression.4that's just another way that the rich have rigged the system so that they get richer, while the little guys and small businesses need to swim upstream. if you ban stocks, the worst that happens is that small business growth makes up for the growth of big corporations, which would really be better for everyone anyway.
creation of stocks should be banned

3000 character limit. 1 - Rampant stock speculation was just one of many factors that lead to the Great depression... In fact almost two years passed between the stock market crash and widespread bank failures, which is really where the Great Depression began to ravage everything.... Stocks and investing in them can be done in a safe manner, and just because they can be abused by a few people it doesnt mean it should necessarily be banned. 2 - On the other hand, investing in stocks is often a tactic that is used by middle class Americans to prepare for retirement by growing their money over time, and has been successful for millions of people millions of times. 3 - On a more minor note, banning the creation of stocks and the stock market would immediately put thousands and thousands of stock brokers, price estimators, etc. out of work and force people who were in retirement because of successful stock investments to go back into the workforce. This would cause an utterly massive rise in unemployment, and this would lead to a domino effect of other economic woes that could put us in an economic recession far worse then any stock market crash ever could. 4 - Initial Public Offerings (IPO's, which is the technical term for creating a stock) is one of the fastest ways a company can acquire a large amount of money to expand itself by having investors pour money into them. The amount of money a company can make by going public often exceeds how much it normally could get out of a bank loan (banks not exactly the safest entities either). As the money initially borrowed is paid back with interest, this helps the average investor grow richer while the company is now in much better shape then it was when it went public in the first place. Stocks literally allow everyone to win, even if its not initially. Ill end here for now, 4 is good enough