BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Objective Truth = Subjective Truth and Vice-Versa

I will try to sum up my final arguments here in this round. [1] My opponent states that objective truth and subjective truth can exist independent of each other. .. But this is not the case in actuality. Thinking of an existence where there are no subjects is not true to actuality. There are subjects and the subjects are part of the objective truth, just as objective truth is part of the subjective truth. In order for my opponent to prove his theory correct. .. He would have to show that at some point subjects never existed. This may or may not be his belief, but unless it is proven it falls into the same category as any other unproven theories. This theory would seem to have weight against it however, because in actuality as we know it. .. subjects are plentiful and as far as we know they probably always have been. What we are really talking about here is "spiritual energy" (subjective truth or Yin) in direct relation with it's opposite "mass energy" (objective truth or Yang). For objective truth to exist independent of subjective truth, you would have to believe that one can exist without the other or that one has existed without the other at some time. This is not my belief however, and I will not transform this argument into one over beliefs. I will let the readers decide what seems right to them based on their own beliefs. [2] My opponent was having trouble understanding the concept of equal value in Yin and Yang so I will try to clarify as I'm sure the readers would like further clarification. A positive (+1) or just 1. You cannot create this number without also being able to take it away, as in minus 1 or (-1). If a value becomes positive it must also have an equal negative value in order for the positive value to exist as a positive value. A value is positive? Positive in relation to what? What makes it positive? The answer is it's opposite the equal negative value. My opponent says that the difference between (-1) and (+1) is 2. This is wrong however, because it must work both ways not just one way. I will show this. (-) sign equals Yin (+) sign equals Yang (+1) - (+2) = (-1) (+1) + (-2) = (-1) So as you see the true difference in value between the opposites are (+2) to Yin and (-2) to Yang. These values are equal towards one another, the equal value being 2 on both sides (-2) (+2). This same truth works for all values. or. .. (+1) + (-1) = 0 or perfect harmony between opposites (Yin Yang). (-1) - (+1) = 0 or the perfect harmony between opposites (Yin Yang). Lastly, my opponent says that a negative has no value, but this is completely false. It has a negative value. A negative value which also must have an equal positive value in order for it to exist, and vice-versa. - Conclusion - I hope that this cleared up any confusion about my argument and I suggest to reflect on the information given by both me and my opponent to see where your true stance is. I hope that all readers will judge this debate fairly. I wish to thank my opponent one last time for accepting this debate and putting forth intelligent arguments. - Justin Chains -
Objective Truth = Subjective Truth and Vice-Versa

You have earned my complete respect as your opponent by not using semantics. You seem very intelligent. .. May the best man win. [1] My opponent states that. .. "objective truth can exist independent of human apprehension and is thus in no way contingent upon subjective truth or verisimilitude. " This is false in my opinion. Objective truth is only "objective" as a category or by definition because of it's opposite "subjective" truth. If either would cease to exist then so would the categories. What you would be left with is neither "objective truth" or "subjective truth", but just "truth". Opposites cannot exist without one another. This is the yin and the yang. [2] My opponent states that. .. "it is not true that yin = yang". This is false in my opinion. Yin does equal Yang. They equal each other in value. You cannot have one without the other, so their value is equal. You cannot not have light without darkness. You cannot have up without down. You cannot have big without small. All of these value are equal in relation towards each other, because one cannot exist without the other. So in value. .. Yin = Yang My opponent states that. .. . "yin + yang = yinyang". I agree and this works with my topic when used in this way. Subjective Truth (Yin) + Objective Truth (Yang) = Actuality (Yin Yang) [3] My opponent states. .. "If anything, given that the yin represents the polar opposite of yang, the values of yin and yang represent harmony whereby when their values are added they equal 0. " This true and it shows that both values are equal in value to one another in correlation with the end result. 10 + (-10) = zero A positive ten has just as much value in Yang as the negative ten does in Yin. This makes their value equal in relation to one another. A positive ten cannot exist unless their is a negative ten. This goes for any value. [4] My opponent states. .. "This means that there value is far from the same, in fact the yin must have the same amount of negative value that the yang has in positive value (or vice versa). This statement by my opponent proves that their value must equal or the same in relation to one another other. I blended my rebuttals with my arguments for this topic. I look forward to my opponent's response.
Objective Truth = Subjective Truth and Vice-Versa

Objective truth and subjective truth are one. I have been told that this will turn into a semantics battle over the equal sign and this will make the intentions of my debate completely worthless. I feel that my wording communicated the intended topic pretty accurately, but I will try to reword it in an acceptable form for my opponent. Objective Truth and Subjective Truth are "one", as in the yin and the yang, as in 2 parts connecting to make "one". In this way they are equal to one another in value because they are one in the same. One cannot exist without the other. Separate, but the same. One, but two. Objective, but subjective. Subjective, but objective. I hope this clears up my intentions for this debate. My intentions for this debate are to try and prove that everything is neither just subjective or objective, but that they coexist together and are both equally true. I will use this round to reinstate my topic, so that it may be understood correctly. This debate is not to be argued strictly with semantics. I will not participate in that. If I want to argue the semantics of the words or symbols I used in the topic, then I would create a debate specifically for that. I will not start my argument until this is cleared up. Hopefully in the next round I will post my argument. If my opponent's intentions were to have a semantics debate... then I recommend that we call this debate a draw and both forfeit all rounds, so that I may start a new debate and strictly word the intentions and rules of this debate.
Physiognomy/anthroposcopy

Physiognomy or anthroposcopy is the science of correlation between person's traits/character/social niche and his/her outer appearance, with primary focus on the person's physiognomy (the face). Physiognomy, in its yet fledgling stage, remains still a relatively controversial, and perhaps accordingly, largely unexplored area of scientific expertise, if one can call it that. Few agree, some are quick to pass it off as pseudoscience, and the majority others, though seeing its merits and its rationale, thinks such an objective scientific approach to such a perceptional topic as on a precarious footing of opinions and biases. Though I start off introducing the branch of science that is physiognomy, the purpose of this debate is to discuss the validity of the theory of physiognomy which hypothesizes the relevancy of face with a person's personality and social niche. I, as the pro, will argue for, and the opponent, as con, will argue against. Thus is the structure for this debate: R1: Introduction/acceptance R2: Evidence/Arguments R3: Evidence/Arguments/Rebuttal R4: Conclusion
The Detroit Tigers will win the 2012 World Series

According to the pikimal.com Detroit is ranked 6 on the top ten teams to win the World Series. Over all lets look at this there are 30 teams in all of MLB now lets see who wins each set. According to the www.sporcle.com The only category a Tiger Leeds in is Batting Average and Doubles. While the rest of the teams aren't the Tigers. According to Pikimal.com the Tigers are 4th overall in team batting average. According to ESPN.com Tigers are 7th in the AL in pitching. So when the Tigers aren't the best this proves the Tigers can't win the World Series.
The Detroit Tigers will win the 2012 World Series

"The last 10 years the Yankees are 53-38, and 4-2 against Prince Fielder." The last ten years what? What does this refer to?"Sports Illistarted is a viable source and you're just some guy."This is an ad hominem attack, with no grounds to it. My statements are based from stats gathered from the previous season (www.detroittigers.com), stats from Spring Training so far (www.detroittigers.com) and from the rankings of players released by Bleacher Report.If you look at the season so far, the only major signing the Yankees made for 2012 was Michael Pineda. The Tigers acquired Prince Fielder, the biggest signing aside from Pujols in Anaheim. (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Also, lets not forget the best closer from last year, Jose Valverde. He led the AL in saves, and brings in a streak of 51 consecutive saves into the 2012 season (http://en.wikipedia.org...). When you boil it all down, the Tigers have a better all around ace this season in Verlander (vs. Sabathia), better all around hitting (Cabrera-Fielder), and a better closer (not all time obviously, but this past season, Valverde vs. Rivera). These are all based on stats from ESPN, not just me babbling like you think I am. The numbers speak for themselves: Verlander: 24 wins, Sabathia 19; Valverde 49 saves, Rivera 44 saves. Also, you keep forgetting that the Tigers defeated the Yankees decisively in the 2011 ALDS. That proved who the better team was last year, without Prince Fielder in the lineup.http://espn.go.com...
The Detroit Tigers will win the 2012 World Series

The last 10 years the Yankees are 53-38, and 4-2 against Prince Fielder. http://www.debate.org...The Yankees will not defeat the Tigers in the divisional round. Just because Sports Illustrated says that will happen, does not mean it will. Last year, it was clearly established the Tigers were the better team, with Verlander, Scherzer, and Fister all recording wins over New York. Also, Detroit's batting has improved substantially since last year, and I doubt New York could beat Detroit in a 5 game series. A 7 game series, however, would give this matchup more justice. I do think the Yankees could possibly win in a 7 game series, but I still have to give Detroit the benefit of the doubt due to their pitching rotation and their improved hitting.Sports Illistarted is a viable source and you're just some guy.
The Detroit Tigers will win the 2012 World Series

The Yankees will not defeat the Tigers in the divisional round. Just because Sports Illustrated says that will happen, does not mean it will. Last year, it was clearly established the Tigers were the better team, with Verlander, Scherzer, and Fister all recording wins over New York. Also, Detroit's batting has improved substantially since last year, and I doubt New York could beat Detroit in a 5 game series. A 7 game series, however, would give this matchup more justice. I do think the Yankees could possibly win in a 7 game series, but I still have to give Detroit the benefit of the doubt due to their pitching rotation and their improved hitting. The other teams in the American League Central really do not have the pitching or the hitting firepower to hang with Detroit. The only team in the American League that I could see beating Detroit in the ALCS or ALDS would be Los Angeles. The Angels are solid and had another splash signing with Pujols, but in all reality Pujols is past his prime and Fielder has a lot more years left. As ranked by Bleacher Report, the Tigers have 3 of the top 12 best players in the entire MLB, most notably number 3 Justin Verlander, the highest ranking pitcher on the list. http://bleacherreport.com...
The Detroit Tigers will win the 2012 World Series

The 2012 Detroit Tigers will win the World Series this year. The following reasons are why they wil: 1. Justin Verlander. The returning 2011 AL Cy Young and MVP is the best pitcher, and arguably player in the league right now. His record last year was stellar, and the next closest contender, Sabathia, did not pitch nearly as many innings and pitched in less games than Verlander. Verlander won the AL Pitching Triple Crown, and will likely have another explosive season. 2. The Tigers' hitting. The signing of Prince Fielder was colossal. With the addition of fielder to an already stellar lineup, the 3-4 punch of Cabrera and Fielder will reign hell down upon any pitcher that has to go against those two successively. The Tigers in spring training have averaged 5.7 runs per game in just 27 Spring Training games so far, with high run totals of 18, 13, 11, and 10 all scored in games. They have been doing quite well in Spring Training so far, compiling a record of 15-5, second only to Toronto with a record of 19-4, three more games played than Detroit. 3. Coaching. Jim Leyland is one of the best coaches in the entire MLB, and has turned Detroit around from a laughing stock franchise, now to a perennial World Series contender. I know it's early, but the Tigers are looking good and playing good. Only the season will tell.
There is no evidence to believe that Jesus Christ ever existed - Debate 2

Here is what I said that is still unrefuted from round two. "We are not debating whether or not Jesus worked miracles or rose from the dead. We are debating whether or not there is any historical evidence for Jesus. The defining trait of Christ is not the resurection. Christ is synonymous with Jesus of Nazereth, as according to these reliable sources." See round two for the sources. In round three, I said- I don't need to prove that Jesus preformed miracles, only provide historical evidence that he existed, which I already have. And you responded- Actually you do - the historical evidence you produced is either disputed nor does it show the existence of a person performing miracles. You have the evidence backwards: the Bible supports the historical man, but you cannot say the history supports the human-deity described in the Bible. I do not have to prove that the Jesus Christ of the bible existed. I do not have to use completly undisputed sources. I do not have to show Jesus was the son of God. I do not have to prove Jesus rose from the dead. This is what we are debating- There is no evidence to believe that Jesus Christ ever existed I have sucessfully shown this to be false. Thank you for the interesting and engaging debate.
There is no evidence to believe that Jesus Christ ever existed - Debate 2

My apologies for missing round 4 but it appears that you continue to provide evidence for a wholly human preacher and none for a preacher with miracles. The larger quote is most definitely disputed and therefore rejected.> I don't need to prove that Jesus preformed miracles, only provide historical evidence that he existed, which I already have.Actually you do - the historical evidence you produced is either disputed nor does it show the existence of a person performing miracles. You have the evidence backwards: the Bible supports the historical man, but you cannot say the history supports the human-deity described in the Bible.> This is another false claim. As I have previously shown, almost every competent scholar of antiquity believes that Jesus existed (This includes scholars of all relgions). As for Jesus acts, Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet and and preformed miracles. [2]Whilst historians believe in the existence of a man, they most certainly do not universally believe the existence of the human-deity. Not even Muslims believe that he is a deity. Therefore, your rejection holds no merit. Your entire case rests upon conflating a historical figure with the human-deity character in the Bible. Without corroborative proof of the miracles, you cannot say that human-deity ever existed. Since you have provided no proof that isn't already challenged elsewhere, my case that you have no evidence for Jesus Christ, miracle-maker, human-deity. Without evidence, you cannot say he ever existed.Thank you for the discussion. Again, I apologize for skipping round 4.
There is no evidence to believe that Jesus Christ ever existed - Debate 2

TacitusYour quote appears to only reference believers in Christ, not Christ himself. No one is disputing that Christians exist!Try reading it again. It is obviously referring to Christ. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius PilatusThe following are the writings of Josephus, while under dispute, is still evidence.About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. [1]My points remain - you haven't shown any reference to Jesus Christ and his miracles. Without historical evidence of his miracles, you don't have a performer of miraclesI don't need to prove that Jesus preformed miracles, only provide historical evidence that he existed, which I already have.Well, anyone that believes in Christ and all his acts in the Bible are by definition 'Christians'. Everyone else, of other religions or atheists, disbelieve.This is another false claim. As I have previously shown, almost every competent scholar of antiquity believes that Jesus existed (This includes scholars of all relgions). As for Jesus acts, Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet and and preformed miracles. [2][1]Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, 3[2]Glassé, Cyril (2008). Concise Encyclopedia of Islam. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 270–271. ISBN 978-0-7425-6296-7.
There is no evidence to believe that Jesus Christ ever existed - Debate 2

TacitusYour quote appears to only reference believers in Christ, not Christ himself. No one is disputing that Christians exist!Evidence 1: No Historical Record My points remain - you haven't shown any reference to Jesus Christ and his miracles. Without historical evidence of his miracles, you don't have a performer of miracles. Evidence 2: Jesus Christ is a religious invention> This is not evidence, just your flawed ideas.This is not an argument - my points stand. Evidence 3: Jesus Christ only exists for Christians >Another claim of evidence where it is obviously not evidence.Well, anyone that believes in Christ and all his acts in the Bible are by definition 'Christians'. Everyone else, of other religions or atheists, disbelieve.
There is no evidence to believe that Jesus Christ ever existed - Debate 2

Tacitus merely mentions the existence of Christians which is not under dispute.False. The following are Tacitus writitngs on Jesus Christ. Tacitus, it is also important to note, refers to Jesus as Christ."Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind" [1] [2]We are not debating whether or not Jesus worked miracles or rose from the dead. We are debating whether or not there is any historical evidence for Jesus. The defining trait of Christ is not the resurection. Christ is synonymous with Jesus of Nazereth, as according to these reliable sources. [3] [4]I will now respond to your first round.Evidence 1: No Historical RecordI have already proven this to be false.Evidence 2: Jesus Christ is a religious inventionThis is not evidence, just your flawed ideas.Evidence 3: Jesus Christ only exists for Christians Another claim of evidence where it is obviously not evidence.Back to you Pro.[1] translation from Latin by A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb, 1876[2] http://upload.wikimedia.org...[3] Espin, Orlando (2007). n Introductory Dictionary of Theology and Religious Studies. p. 231. ISBN 0-8146-5856-3.[4] Prager, Edward (2005). A Dictionary of Jewish-Christian Relations. p. 85. ISBN 0-521-82692-6.
There is no evidence to believe that Jesus Christ ever existed - Debate 2

I believe Erhman, being an atheist, is only interested in the existence of the man that could have been the originator of the religion of Christianity. This man is not the Jesus Christ of the Bible, virgin-born, miracle-worker and resurrected. Josephus is under dispute and Tactius merely mentions the existence of Christians which is not under dispute. As for Dunn, anyone could be crucified - in fact any man called Jesus could have been. The defining action of Jesus Christ is his resurrection, of which there is no record.
There is no evidence to believe that Jesus Christ ever existed - Debate 2

During the course of this debate, I will attempt to show that Jesus Christ existed. Arguments In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman wrote, "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees". [1]And, if you follow the link of where that quote is from, it is a book devoted to criticizing the bible and its authors. Even he agrees that, without a doubt, Jesus Christ did exist. There are three mentions of Jesus in non-Christian sources which have been used in historical analyses of the existence of Jesus, two mentions in the works of 1st-century Roman historian Josephus and one mention in the works of the 2nd-century Roman historian Tactius. [2] [3] According to New Testament scholar James Dunn, nearly all modern scholars consider the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion to be historically certain. [4]Back to you Pro. [1] . http://books.google.com...[2] Van Voorst (2000) pp. 39–53[3] Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey by Craig L. Blomberg 2009 ISBN 0-8054-4482-3 pages 431–436[4] Jesus Remembered by James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 page 339 states of baptism and crucifixion that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent".