BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Gospels portray a consistent picture of Jesus peace be upon him.

’"Con's resolution, which is what he must argue against, is that "The Gospels portray a consistent picture of Jesus peace be upon him. " Also, in the second paragraph of his 1R he states, "What I will attempt to demonstrate in this debate is that the canonical gospels we read today in the New Testament - Matthew, Mark, Luke & John - are inconsistent accounts of Jesus' life. "It is not until the second sentence of his thirteenth paragraph that he says "On an evidential basis the differences are there and clear and render Jesus" [sic] image in the Gospels inconsistent and therefore unreliable in my humble understanding. " Until my opponent cited this in his last speech it was not apparent to me (nor would it have been to anyone) that he defining his resolution with it. It is clear from Pro's resolution and his opening statement that it is the consistency of the gospels that we are arguing, not their reliability. I urge the voters to hold my opponent to his resolution. "Pro has already admitted the inconsistencies I’ve listed in round 1 are in fact errors and mistakes 'I also believe, as Con does, that the New Testament contains errors. ' Pro says 'If anything, they are simply weak arguments for New Testament errancy, which I have already conceded. ' By this admission Pro has confirmed my case that the gospels are inconsistent regarding Jesus. After all, when two individuals mistakenly report an event in two differing ways, that is what is called ‘inconsistency’. " Granted, there are inconsistencies within the New Testament. But does that mean that the picture the gospels present of Jesus is inconsistent? Not necessarily. What my opponent claimed early in the debate was that "If we look at the gospels in this order (Mark being the earliest and John being the Last) we see how the image of Jesus differs and changes throughout the gospels and evolves into a divine character nearer to the latest gospel John. " This serves as a definition of the sort of inconsistencies we are looking for. Clearly, what we are debating is not whether there are errors of a general nature within the gospels, but whether they are inconsistent to the degree that the gospel of Mark portrays Christ as human while later gospel portray him as divine. "That may be so, but let me explain my position on Mark’s gospel further. Mark may have had the intent to prove Jesus’ divinity by using the Malachi/Isaiah prophesy. However, I hope it is clear I am not arguing Mark’s personal interpretation of who Jesus was. Rather, I'm arguing that Mark’s portrayal of Jesus (i. e. what Jesus said, did and how people saw him etc. ) isn’t divine at all. "And here we reach the ultimate weakness in Con's arguments. Having admitted that Mark affirms Jesus' divinity, he has technically already admitted defeat. Because I am sure that my arguments for this round will be heatedly contested and because the outcome of this debate now rests on them, I shall not rebut my opponent's now irrelevant statements from R3. If anyone, including Con, is interested in hearing my response to them, please send me a private message.
Rap Battle - Come Hard With Your Bars Part IV

Eggetalsm0ke, A.K.A a bad jokeI come packing more rhymes in my brain at one time than you could ever hopethe only necklace you own is a ropeyou won't get an invite when me and your sister elopespit for real so you're not down such a slippery slopeI'm the lion and you're just the Antelopeyou're walking on a tightropewith me aiming for you with a snipe scoperadioactive bars like an isotopeaccept this battle and you'll wake up the next morning with your obituary as your horoscope
Rap Battle - Come Hard With Your Bars Part IV

Rap Battle, Come hard with the bars Proudly Presenting Part IV in The Ever-Expanding Series! Rules: 1. ABSOLUTELY NO STEALING ACCEPTABLE, BREAKING THIS RULE MEANS INSTANT DISQUALIFICATION 2. Should be judged on wordplay and rhyme schemes/word choice 3. Be as savage as you can/want, no holds barred 4. Use as much of the word limit as you want Good luck! Anyone willing to step up to the challenge can Message me privately or comment on this debate and we can get a part V going immediately. Start your bars in your round 1 argument
Rap Battle - Come Hard With Your Bars Part IV

You didn't rap for real no now I must steal your soulyou're not worth my good lines so I'll use the old onesI knock the wind out of your lungs and bang on your head like a drumyou think your raps are hard but you're speaking in tonguesmy breed is rare like a group of slutty nunsso get your guns and 4 tons of ammoI outrun your bullets and outshoot you with a blowdartthe right hook stuns and the other picks you apartI give you a headstartand you weren't even smartenough to take partin what we were doing, you can't restartyour first 2 lines made themselves come apartI rap 100 word dashes with an athelete's heartyou're an 80's computer and I'm state of the art
Goverenment has made the human race physicaly weak

ok darwins theory of natural selection shows that organisms that are best equiped to survive will. with government they destroy threats aganst the weakest. such as we have vacciens for the flu. say two ppl get the flu and one dies well ththe stronger one lived but with a vaccine the weaker one can live.you may say wel thats science but the government has a huge influence on them things. and on the subject of humans being fat and lazy that element wld be destroyed because if they didnt fight for food or work hard for things they needed they would die. and back on natural selection over time humans would get stronger because the stronger males wld be the only ones able to reproduce because the weaker cloudnt compete
Goverenment has made the human race physicaly weak

You have put yourself in quite a hole. First, you must prove that humans have become weaker physically. Second, you must prove that the weaker humans have passed down the weakness through the generations and that the offspring couldn't have down anything to make themselves physically stronger. Third, you must prove that it was in fact the government policies that would have caused the "weak" to survive. So far, I see no evidence.It is not because of the government policies that people are weak physically. It's because we are fat, lazy people that eat trash and spend too much time doing nothing. I will prove this later on in the debate.
Goverenment has made the human race physicaly weak

With a government there are rules and consequences and since these rules protect everyone this takes out the survival of the fittest saying which mean that the stron will prevail. But with laws and consequences the weak make it through societ reroducing more weak people. by weak i mean meantally ill. physical disorders and also lower muscle mass. in my opinion moderen society has human evolution at a hult in a way of survival
We cannot prove our existence

"To know we exist we must prove we do not exist". To know X to be true, We must prove X to be false? I'm probably not reading this correctly (or perhaps this is a typo), But this seems like a clear contradiction. "To know something we need to know everything". I actually almost agree with this. There is an insane amount of knowledge in the universe such that we as individuals (or collectively as mankind) know an infinitesimally small percentage of the universe's knowledge. And the little bit that we claim to know, The 99. 999% that we don't know could fundamentally prove everything we know to be wrong. We have to know everything to know anything. . . OR We have to have access to something, Or Someone, Who knows everything, Someone Who is willing to inerrantly give us knowledge. God alone has infallibly revealed knowledge to us, Including our self-existence. This is reliable because God is omniscient, And He cannot lie. He has written it on the heart of every person that they exist. Again, Your belief in your existence is confirmed by your use of personal pronouns. My point is further confirmed that you know real things by your twin statements "From what I know" and "to know something we need to know everything". You cannot escape the knowledge of your existence. I agree with your chess analogy. -- I'm not entirely 100% aware of the rules on DDO, But I don't think links are allowed. Spammers ruin every good thing. I'm also not aware of rules regarding rebuttals. I'm only going to respond to Round 2's argument, Since you do not have a chance to respond to my rebuttal. I think this is fair, Even though I really want to respond to your comments about Christianity. Maybe a debate for a different day? This has been an enjoyable debate. Thank you.
We cannot prove our existence

Irrational about being unsure of our existence is better than finding purpose in religion. Religion is based on belief not rationality. If we find the answer to our existence we might find objective purpose, Religion for as long has its been around has not provided one. You also say it is impossible to suppress the truth. I say every religion suppresses the truth by not proving God exists but still believe as though it is the case. Is that in itself irrational? Let’s say Christianity is the right religion why is there 5. 03 billion humans, Who follow a different religion, Not following it? Surely if I was this God I would want what I created to follow me. The will that 5. 03 religious people (excluding Christianity) have is used to go against the true God? Was Ted Bundy, Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler created in God’s image? Extreme examples but it proves God is evil. By giving us life he would allow us to use it to make other people suffer. I am not assuming we are made in God’s image or God endowed us with self-knowledge without proof. Rebuttals: “I think therefore I am”. Thinking assumes that we exist. As far as I know thinking can be correlated to existence but does it prove our existence. “The one thing you cannot doubt is that you are doubting”. Doubt in itself does not provide a point of contention. Cogito set out that doubt is the ground of knowledge. As you know doubt is a feeling of uncertainty. Feeling as by itself varies between person to person. This means for someone they have no doubt God exists whereas another person has doubts on whether God exists or not. It is subjective not objective. Existence by the definition is objective reality. Not our own subjective interpretations by itself can lead to an objective conclusion. As far as I can tell you have not provided any proof to existence instead you have given me a telling of someone’s subjective experience. Doubt=Thinking therefore we exist does not prove our reality to be objective. Can we assume we exist before we prove our existence? This is not akin to “logic is irrational” because rational is using the best methods in order to find out the truth. Logic is the best method we have so far. By definition Logic is rational until we can find a better method. “words are meaningless” is also not akin to my argument because to understand me we must first agree on definitions. Without accepting definitions how do we communicate with one another without knowing what we are actually saying? It's been a pleasure debating you. Sources:April 5 2017: Christians remain world's largest religious group, But they are declining in Europe. (Exact link is blocked by debate. Org for some reason which is why added the title and date. )
We cannot prove our existence

We have sufficient reason to believe we exist. It is also irrational to be unsure of our existence. The knowledge of our self-existence is deeply ingrained within us, Such that it is impossible to fully suppress this truth. Being made in the image of God, We are endowed with attributes that reflect our Creator, Including our self-knowledge. Arguments: Cogito Ergo Sum = "I think, Therefore I am". Descartes set out to believe only that which he is certain about. For him, Certainty meant that something is impossible to doubt the validity of. So he set out to doubt as much as he possible could, Then proceed only on the basis of logic. When you doubt as much as you can, The one thing you cannot doubt is that you are doubting. Therefore, You are certain that you are doubting (this is knowledge). If you are doubting, Then you are a thinking being. There is a "you" behind the thinking being. So thus we conclude that since you doubt, You exist. Impossibility of Contrary = This very argument presupposes both of our existences. You included the word "we" in the title. This is akin to saying "logic is irrational" or "words are meaningless". You are assuming the very thing which you are attempting to have no proof of. The implications of not knowing this are immense.
The Pardoning of Sheriff Joe Arpaio

I accept your challenge - and thank you very much for posting this challenge and the clear structure for this debate. ***Off the Record - Not involved in ANY way as pertaining to this debate. ***This is a personal opinion I would like to share as I feel, after I explain, is relevant to my motivation for acceptance. I also agree with you, and as a person I am very opposed to it as well (including the timing of it) Please review my recent debates for a clearer understanding in what I have been seeking on this site. This, to me, seems like an INCREDIBLE challenge and an exercise in seeking a personal equilibrium on this specific topic. I accept on the grounds that I want to overcome the toughest obstacles in debate. This challenge is being driven by passion - not for this situation, but passion for pushing myself in being the most versatile debater I can mold myself into. Egotistically (which may be my downfall) I only trust myself to provide the best argument in defense of President Trump issuing an executive pardon on Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Let us have a great debate - I am eagerly looking forward to this and you already have my high respect. I agree to comply with your format and will opt to not provide definitions for this debate as the topic is self explanatory with the verb having no controversial interpretation of meaning.
The Pardoning of Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Just to be clear: I am against this pardoningRules1. ) No swearing, personal attacks, etc. this is common sense2. ) No mentioning of Hillary Clinton, Obama, etc. (unless it DIRECTLY relates to your argument) stay on topic3. ) For your "facts" use reliable links to back them up, if you do not have a source, your claim is immediately assumed to be false by me and the readers. I will call you out.4. ) No calling opponents' links "Fake News" WITHOUT showing HOW they're fake (i. e. show opposing evidence). I am tired of this brainless calling of whatever you disagree with "Fake News". It's sickening5. ) Follow the structure of the debate, manipulating the structure of the debate to your advantage will result in an immediate disqualification. 6. ) No trolling, tlking lke dis, etc. Take this debate seriouslyBreaking ANY of these rules will result in an immediate disqualifaction of me or my opponent (unless it is a minor/innocent mistake, obviously). StructureRound 1 - Acceptance ONLY. If you wish to put defintions, you may. Round 2 - Each side presents his/her claims. Since my opponent replies after me, I warn him/her to NOT post anything responding to my claims.
Danes are better that German people

The opponent has based his arguments on several BASELESSand IRRATIONALarguments revolving around the fact that "Danes smell nicer" and "Germans are ugly"Firstly, can we MEASURE ugly, or nice of a whole group of people? We can definitely not do so; the cultural preferences are different, and the measures of such terms, "ugly, nice, kind...etc" are SUBJECTIVE. The German people did start World War One and World War Two; I cannot deny that, although an Austrian leading Germany started World War II.Secondly, the opponent makes this assumption: "EVERYBODY HATES THE GERMAN PEOPLE!"I don't. I hold no grudge against the German people, or the Danish people; people who I have considered kinsman and brothersof one anotherfor such a long time. Even during World War II, when Germany launched it's invasion of Denmark, the Danes were treated with considerable ease.Now onto my arguments:The German and the Danes come from the SAME RACE Take this map for example: we can see that a huge lot of the Germanic areas come under the Nordic circle of race distribution. Where and when did these people come from? During the Nordic Bronze Age, the Nordic tribes of Scandinavia settled down in several settlements in Germanic areas; around Schleswug-Holstein to Hamburg. With the notable exception of Bavaria, Germany and Scandinavia consists of largely the same ethnic groups; to state that Germans are smelly and ignorant is equivalent to stating that Danes are smelly and ignorant; after all, all that seperate these long lost brothers are non-existant border and a piece of paper. Since ethnic groups contain many of the same characteristic, calling Germans "aggressive" is equivalent to calling Danes "aggressive".To also say that Danes are better looking than the Germans is incorrect; they all both share the characteristic of being both blue eyed. The opponent should then state that Scotts are better looking than their British counterpart, because the opponent has stated the equivalent. My arguments during this debate will be based around that fact; Danes and Germans come from the same race, the Aryan race.
Arizona Cardinals are a not a team to doubt

"the Arizona cardinals don't make it to the NFC champion ship they probably will make another stand out next year. Carson Palmer will be in and Andre Ellington but Stephan Taylor is a good running back too. He is like the next Marshawn Lynch in breaking tackles. "This may be true, but we can't predict the future. . the Eagles were 4-12 one year and went 10-6 the next. [1] Also, that is you're opinion, but Carson Palmer is very overrated. He had 22 interceptions one year with only 24 TDs, and his average QB rating is an 86.3 which is only 19th on the all time list. [2] Again, Stephan Taylor only has 217 in his two years of playing. .. he is a young RB and needs development. [3]Also, the Cardinals have on and off years, so we can't predict anything. One year they'll go 5-11, the next 12-4, and the next will be 8-8. [4]Cites:[1]- . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]- . http://www.pro-football-reference.com...[3]- . http://espn.go.com...[4]- . http://www.pro-football-reference.com...;
Arizona Cardinals are a not a team to doubt

"The Arizona Cardinals are having tough times but Marion Grice is one of the top players in the draft for their running back and with Carson Palmer out and Drew Stanton in for him, Drew is a guy who you can count on to be a good back up. Larry Fitzgerald will come back in before the playoffs start."Yes, the Cardinals are having tough times. They have struggled their past 4 games, going 2-2. [1] They have not been doing well offensively, not to mention the Seahawks are creeping up on their 9-4 record. [2] They have to play the Seahawks once again, already losing to them 19-3. They need to step it up or they will fall out of their division title spot. Marion Grice is not doing well for the Cardinals at all, he's played 7 games, and only has 35 yards. [3] They barely give him the ball whatsoever. Drew Stanton has been struggling along with the Cardinals for the past 4 games, having 4 TDs, and 5 INTs. Not to mention he has had only one game with over 300 yards the whole season passing. [4] Larry Fitzgerald is a good reciever, but he might struggle with his injury a bit.Cites:[1]- http://www.azcardinals.com...[2]- http://espn.go.com...[3]- http://espn.go.com...[4]- http://www.pro-football-reference.com...
Suicide is Not a Sin

Con’s rebuttal is indeed simple, but it is incorrect for four reasons:1. When Con accepted this debate, he accepted my R1 definition of suicide, which is: "intentionally killing oneself either directly or indirectly (by proxy)". It does not matter for what cause someone kills oneself, the act of killing oneself places one neatly within my definition. There is no doubt that Jesus was killed. So who killed him? John 10:17-18 - [Jesus said] “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”[1] According to Jesus, no one took his life. He laid it down himself. Therefore, if Jesus was killed (and he was), he killed himself. By my definition, which Con accepted, Jesus committed suicide indirectly, by proxy.2. Con is mistaken about the difference between suicide and self-sacrifice. A suicide may be for a noble or sacrificial purpose, but it is still a suicide by definition. Not only my definition, but Webster’s as well:suicide: the act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally especially by a person of years of discretion and of sound mind.[2]Again, Jesus said that he intended his death and gave his life intentionally, and that no one took it from him. This fits the definition of suicide.3. Con compares Jesus' death to a soldier jumping on a grenade. This is a poor comparison. The soldier did not plan for the grenade to be there. He did not throw the grenade himself. We would all probably agree that whoever threw the grenade was at least partially responsible for taking the soldier's life. This differs from Jesus’ death in that Jesus admits that no one else took his life, and the Bible makes it clear that the whole thing was planned.Besides this glaring problem with Con’s analogy, he is still wrong about the definition of suicide. If the soldier has any other option that will result in his survival, but chooses to dive on top of the grenade, then he has indeed committed suicide, by definition. It is a kind, honorable, sacrificial suicide, but is a suicide just the same. A useful example would be the term, “suicide mission”.[3] The people taking part in the mission may be doing so for virtuous reasons, but if they are aware that they will die, it is still a suicide mission.4. Con states that Jesus’ prayer in the garden shows that he did not want to die. While that is debatable, it is irrelevant. Whether or not Jesus wanted to die, he still arranged his death and killed himself by proxy. Pre-suicide jitters does not make the death any less a suicide. Jesus still went through with the plan, no matter what he was feeling in the garden.Con’s rebuttal is simply insufficient.Back to you, Con.-------------------[1]https://www.biblegateway.com...[2]http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Suicide is Not a Sin

You have made my rebuttal quite simple Since your argument lies on one piece of information. For your argument to be valid, Jesus would have to have committed suicide. (Suicide by proxy) The act of giving up (or laying down) one's life is not suicide. Is it suicide when a solider jumps on a grenade to save his fellow troops? No, it is self sacrifice. No matter how much time you have to prepare for your death, in Jesus life, or the soldiers, both parties knew they would be dying by their own will. Lastly, Jesus did not want to die. In the Garden of Gethsemane, he prayed to God for some other way to save us. It was God the Father's plan for Jesus to come down, live a perfect life, and die for our sins. In no way did Jesus commit suicide.