BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jesus of Nazareth never existed.

Using one part of the Bible to back up another might seem counterintuitive, but it"s not as insane as it might first appear. For one thing, Paul"s letters are the earliest writings on Christianity, predating the Gospels by some fifty years. Also, we know he existed. Textual analysis of the epistles proves at least seven of them were written by one guy; and Paul"s historic efforts to open the new church to gentiles are the main reason you"re not reading this in, say, Hebrew. But the biggest thing Paul has going in his favor is his ego. Rather than detail the life story of Jesus, Paul prefers talking about himself"including descriptions of his conversion and travels. Travels which, by the way, include two brief meetings with Jesus" brother James. Since James" existence would have been objectively verifiable to Paul"s readers, the likelihood he made him up is somewhere around "zero""especially since both meetings seem to go quite badly. This is a reason on how Jesus definitely existed.
The "Supreme Being" MUST exist

I will be arguing that the Supreme Being must exist and that He is the likely the creator of the universe and thus is omnipotent (capable of doing all that He wills to do that is not self-contradicting), transcendent (not a part of the universe), immanent (involved in the affairs of the world), omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient (having all knowledge). I will be relying primarily on logic and science. The first round is acceptance only. 4th round is for summary only.
Atheism is not and cannot be a religon!

I follow your reasoning and thought. and I recieved my def. from dictionary.com accatually I lied, sorry I miss the point: 'Atheists don't need to PROVE that God does NOT exist. It's irrational and impossible.' what? for anything to be there must be a creator, every religion believes that in some point, that is the general FAITH of all religions. you claim that only theists need prove that a God or Gods exist that atheist are some how void of responsablity in feeble atempts of jusifing their 'Ideas'. I have also been an Atheist and only when I looked at what I thought was my Faith I relized, to belive in nothing is the same as being alredy dead. many claim that they shall be reborn as trees, impossibul, if there is no God then all refrences toward a God are false thus, humans have no souls, and then cannot come back nor reencarnate as dust, let-a-lone a tree. others believe in a mockry of foolish and empty ideals of death. I also cannot fathom how we beings came forth without a God. and don't try the BIG BANG or EVOLUTIONARY theories, they cannot be proven. I conclude: Atheist must prove there is no God, witch you say they don't. Athesim is built on Ideals not Faith, like all other religons. Atheism is not a Religon, but a group of those who cannot fathom a God thus choose to look away from Him/Her/It
Atheism is not and cannot be a religon!

"Faith: belief that is not based on proof." I request the source of this definition. If you cannot provide a reasonable source, your argument is void. It seems as if though you are only using this definition because it matches yours. The definition I provided was the entry in Merriam-Webster. "key word Belief, atheist do not believe in any thing, and thus have no faith." No, Atheists believe that deities do not exist. A belief is the stance you take in accordance with an event or thing. "Anna slept with her husband's best friend, can you believe that?" If you say yes, your stance is that it is true. If you say no, your stance is that it is false. Taking a stance means you have a belief. Theism is a belief because the stance on God is "true". Atheism is a belief because the stance on God is "false". I think you are confusing Atheism with Agnosticism. Agnostics do not have beliefs because they don't take a stance. They stand outside the God debate. ************* Let me explain to you why there is such confusion. I used to be an atheist myself and debated a lot with theists. I know all about the burden of proof, but DO NOT confuse it with other things. I know exactly what you mean when you say it is an oxymoron, but that's not the right way to look at it. The burden of proof falls on the theists. The theists are the ones that must PROVE that God exists. Atheists don't need to PROVE that God does NOT exist. It's irrational and impossible. HOWEVER This does not mean that Atheists can sit back and say "Until you can prove God exists, God doesn't exist". That's logically incorrect. That's like saying "Jack, until you find your homework, your homework doesn't exist". If Jack finds his homework under his bed three hours later, does it mean that it only came into existence then? Of course not. It was always there. People have free range to say "Since you cannot prove God, WE DON'T HAVE TO BELIEVE YOU" They do not have the logical right to say "Since you cannot prove God, GOD DOES NOT EXIST". Thus, an atheist that declares that god does not exist is not backed by logic. He is making an assertion of belief. Thus, Atheism is religious in nature.
Atheism is not and cannot be a religon!

Faith: belief that is not based on proof. key word Belief, atheist do not believe in any thing, and thus have no faith. also to believe not to believe is an oxymoron that is an IDEA not a BELIEF. religion is based upon A belief system more so than an idea. example Christianity belief in Christ, Jesus as the chosen son of God. Pagan belief that spirits are among us. Atheist Idea that we spawned from ooze.
Resolved: The repeal of DADT was the favorable decision for the United States.

This is the final round of our debate, so I'm just going to go over my opponent's rebuttals and explain to the judges why I should be the winner of this debate. Rebuttal 1: In my original argument, I explained that DADT was not implemented correctly as well as opened forroom for violations and that DADT is a violation of free speech. My opponent makes no mention of that. The only thing that he mentions at all is about military cohesiveness, and even then, he doesn't refute anything against my evidence nor the general structure ofmy case. At that point, the judges can pretty much extend my case across the flow for the entirety of the debate. Rebuttal 2: At the point, then, where my opponent does not refute my evidence in the slightest, then there really is no warrant to anything that he's saying. I explained how people in the military don'treally care much about homosexuals being active norhas it affectedthe cohesiveness of the military in any way through my evidence. My opponent doesn't explain how cohesiveness has been destroyed in the military after the passage of this legislation. Has there been a reduction in the amount of people in the military? Has themilitary been less functional? Nowhere in his rebuttals nor in his originalargument does he explain anything about how this affected the military, so his argument is baseless at best. Rebuttal 3: Americans conflict in their idealisms on many occassions, but under the surface, there is a single, solid belief in the Constitution and in the rights iterated therein, and one of them is the freedom of expression and speech. This is what I mean. This is what I am saying when I talk about how the military is still America and should uphold justice as such. Unless, of course, my opponent is saying that the freedom of speech is not necessary whatsoever. Reasons for voting PRO: So the reasons why the judges should vote for me are pretty obvious at the very least. My entire case goes entirely unchallenged and unresponded to. My opponent's arguments are baseless at best and don't really respond to anything that I have said so far.
Resolved: The repeal of DADT was the favorable decision for the United States.

the reason I only gave one reason is because there only is one reason I will not try to argue that being a homosexual makes you a bad soldier. The only reason there is is the issue of moral but moral is one of the biggest factors in warfare what happens when your soldiers don't want to fight you die so if we repeal dadt then we are paying for it in moral people wont die for a cause they oppose so we should just have gays keep their mouths shut then it keeps America safer. Also American idealism there is no such thing Americans conflict ideas everywhere there is no real American ideal so what are the soldiers supposed to fight for?
Resolved: The repeal of DADT was the favorable decision for the United States.

The only argument that my opponent seems to bring up on this debate is the conflict that the homosexuality of a soldier in the American military is going to liquidate the efficiency of the military, although I have clearly posted information directly from the American military regarding the opinions of the military when it comes to homosexuals being open. What it shows is that most of the military is fine with having homosexuals being open in the military. Even if, by the way, this would cause some sort of conflict within the military, we have to understand that military is America, and as long as this military is subject to America, they are subject to American idealisms, justice, and the Constitution. The judicial branch agrees with me: DADT destroys free speech and expression.
Resolved: The repeal of DADT was the favorable decision for the United States.

I would like to say that the only sure homosexuals can be soldiers but the only reason for dadt is because of the moral affect on the troops homosexualism is a massive debate topic that is fought over passionately on both sides and the idea that someone is gay in their squad can disrupt the soldiers and cause problem it would just make it easier for everyone if they would just keep quiet.
Hitler was secretly a Jew.

Though the idea may seem preposterous to some, the question seems to stem from the remote possibility that Hitler's grandfather was Jewish. Hitler's father, Alois, was registered as an illegitimate child with no father when born in 1837 and to this day Hitler's paternal grandfather is unknown. Alois' mother, Maria Schicklgruber, is known to have worked in the home of a wealthy Jew, so there is some chance, however small, that a son in that household got Hitler's grandmother pregnant. In 1933, the London Daily Mirror published a picture of a gravestone in a Jewish cemetery in Bucharest inscribed with some Hebrew characters and the name Adolf Hitler but it is now known tha this Bucharest Hitler could not have been the Nazi leaders grandfather. At the time, though, this picture sufficiently worried Hitler that he had the Nazi law defining Jewishness written to exclude Jesus Christ and himself. In 2010, the British paper The Daily Telegraph reported that a study had been conducted in which saliva samples were collected from 39 of Hitler's known relatives to test their DNA origins and found, though inconclusively, that Hitler may have Jewish origins. The paper reported: "A chromosome called Haplogroup E1b1b1 which showed up in [the Hitler] samples is rare in Western Europe and is most commonly found in the Berbers of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, as well as among Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews ... Haplogroup E1b1b1, which accounts for approximately 18 to 20 per cent of Ashkenazi and 8.6 per cent to 30 per cent of Sephardic Y-chromosomes, appears to be one of the major founding lineages of the Jewish population." Again, this study, though scientific by nature, is inconclusive. Similar "allegations" of Jewish ancestry have been levied against Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who regularly claims that the Holocaust never happened.
Taxpayers should not pay for the poor.

Taxpayers should not be paying for the poor. The people who pay these taxes, work for their money and it should not be that from the money of hardworking people, we should pay for poor people who refuse to find a job. I am not saying we shouldn't help the poor. However, the government's job is to govern, not to be a charity. Speaking of charities, that is a good way to help the poor. The charity concentrates on the people who really need that money. The poor who really need the help should be helped by their community; their friends, family, and church.
The Christian God exists (8)

Dear opponent, Are you sure it's me who is refusing to debate? In round 1, I said .".....God, who created all things" . Technically, it's called the Cosmological Argument. Creation, the whole universe is God's evidence. I cannot provide the universe, it is there. God provides it, and you reject it as evidence of God.In Round 2, I elaborated on this evidence from God. In Round 3, I repeated and again elaborated on this evidence. All the way through this non-debate, you have refused to say anything to rebut or counter the evidence God provides for Himself in His creation. You are pretending that I am the one refusing to debate. You completely ignored the cosmological argument which I presented from the beginning of this debate. I think you were either afraid to debate or you were not reading my arguments, or both. You have no excuse for ignoring God's evidence in His creation, and whatever your excuse is for not arguing against the cosmological argument, it's a very poor one. Who provided better arguments? ProWho had better conduct? Pro......my opponent refused to argue while accusing me of not arguing.Who had better spelling and grammar.......well, my opponent said next to nothing in each round but still failed to spell God right.Who used better sources? Pro......The Bible and the universe are pretty good sources, my opponent sat on his hands and used no source other then his own bad attitude to accuse me of not debating while he refused to debate.Who did you agree with before the debate? well, most people agree with my opponent, but this category is 0 points.Who did you agree with after the debate? probably my opponent still, but if you are honest, you will give me the points for better arguments, better conduct, and better sources.
The Christian God exists (8)

There is only one God, the Creator of everything. He came down from heaven in the form of a man, the Son of God, and died in your place. He was conceived in Mary by His Holy Spirit. After He gave Himself as the payment for your sins in order for God to be just in executing Judgement in eternal torment against sinners, He rose from the grave willing to forgive and be the justifier of all who admit that they deserve to die for their sins, believe He did not deserve to die but He died to pay for your sins, and call on God to save them. It's as easy as A, B, C. You can be saved from the fire of Hell wihich is the penalty attached to your sin. You have no hope apart from what God did for you. Without Him, all you have is death. Death is separation from God from sin. All sinners will be cast away in the Lake of Fire where they cannot ever again disrupt the beauty and perfection of God's heaven and His creation. If you reject what God did for you in Jesus Christ, He will be your Judge after you refused Him as your Saviour, and you will be rejected by Him like stinking garbage. Sin stinks. It belongs in the fire of Hell. God took your sin on Himself because He loved you so much He died in your place so you can be saved from Hell. See? There is no other God, there is no other Saviour, the hope of the world is Jesus.You have no excuse for rejecting God. The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead (The Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit); so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.You can say you don't have enough evidence to believe in God, but God won't buy that excuse and it won't get you out of death and Hell. You need to be saved; it's as easy as A, B, C.No further arguments.
The Christian God exists (8)

This is a debate about whether or not the Christian god exists. I will be refuting arguments from my opponent, who will have the burden of proving that the Christian god is real. The Christian god is the god as described by Jesus and the Bible. Rounds 1-4 are all for claims, rebuttals, and counter-rebuttals. Since I would not be able to refute my opponent's fourth-round claims, I request that they write "no round" in the fourth round of the debate. You can use any type of evidence, or you could simply use logic and reasoning to make your arguments. This debate is not about providing definitive proof either way, but more providing valid evidence that the Christian god exists. I await my opponent's arguments.
Game stations limited time.

1. They stay up till 3 in the morning 2. When I was in school, 5 out of 6 where tired to do work from playing all night 3. Being tired would prevent you from getting good grades,then you don't get any degrees and then no jobs more than at a little restraunt. 4. If kids get addicted to games then they loose interest in work. Then later the kids still want to play games even though they are not graduating 2 years after they where suppose to. They go to college and maybe get some kind a=of gaming degree and go to the game buildings and play for a living.
Game stations limited time.

1) How do kids get tired just from playing games? 2) How many people who play games get tired to the point of major interference with their day to day lives? 3) Why would being tired flat out prevent education? 4) You are suggesting that from the very act of playing games, kids get tired and lose the capacity to learn. Then you go to predict a future where jobs cannot be controlled and our people devolve and allegedly everyone becomes uneducated. You have made several unsupported claims/assertions and cannot support the topic of placing time limits on game hardware.
Game stations limited time.

"That mabye true" The pro side has conceded to my points and did not refute them. So far the pro side is struggling. "kids are getting adicted" This is an claim where the burden of proof is upon you. i.e [Citation Needed] "parents take it away and as soon as they get it back they stay on it for hours." Parents taking the console away is essentially a method of limiting the time is it not? You have conceded that it is not effective. "It is not good for kids eyes." Dry eye and eye strain is understandable, but it can ultimately be cured by blinking, not focusing on one aspect of the screen, and altering the brightness. The parents can teach the kid how to evade eye strain. Additionally, there are no long term effects made by the use of computers.
Game stations limited time.

For my opening statements, I will present the reasons for not placing time limits on consoles. 1) The video game industry is a multi-billion dollar industry which has thousands of employees and large amounts of talent within it. Placing time limits on consoles will place a cap on this industry which is destructive to a large amount of careers and can ruin the lives of talented individuals.... 2)....not to mention that games are a form of art. Art is something to be had. The developers would be emotionally devastated if their games could not be enjoyed to the fullest extent. 3) Children should have the freedom to pick the optimal amount of game time and work with their parents to produce a method for enjoying their games while still keeping up with school, family, friends, etc. 4) If consoles are capped, then there will be a large influx of players that transfer to the PC platform or the mobile platform. These are much harder to control because they are also required for practical purposes such and shopping, homework, and other tasks. 5) Games should have some mechanics that encourage the user to take a break after a while, but it should not be forced. A game should be able to allow the casual player to play one level and then leave but still allow a hardcore player to binge on the game for hours on end if they have the time and willingness to do so.
Game stations limited time.

1) Who is "They" 2) How do you know this statistic is accurate? 3) Being tired is not guaranteed to mean bad grades, nor does it not guarantee not getting a degree or a job. 4) This is applicable to all addictions. Additionally, what is game addiction defined as? In conclusion, the pro side has put forth weak and poorly stated arguments. The winner of this debate should be obvious. There are far to many errors in pro's case to have the result be any other way.
Males are strongest and smartest sex

Males are stronger and smarter than females.PHYSICAL STRENGTHMen have more upper body strength compared to women. Men are born emotionally, physically, and mentally stronger than women. Going back to the stone age, males were the ones who went out and fought wild animals to bring back food for the females and children. Males were designed to be this way as females were given the role of raising children and other safe jobs. This still goes on today. Women tend to work in office jobs while men work in dangerous and life threatening workplaces. This is probably why men are have more workplace fatalities than females.Men have greater cardiovascular reserve, with larger hearts, greater lung volume per body mass, a higher red blood cell count, and higher haemoglobin. They also have higher circulating clotting factors, which leads to faster healing of wounds.MENTALLYIt's a scientific fact that men are more smarter(and more dumb) than females, says Professor Richard Lynn[SOURCES]http://www.dailymail.co.uk...http://graphics8.nytimes.com...https://www.psychologytoday.com...
Animals should be kept in Zoos

Circus Acts and Animal treatment"what of all the acts shown to us? elephants running on balls etc."Yeah there are circus acts where no harm are done to the animals. No tazing or anything. http://www.youtube.com...Animals being well fed in captivity"i meant the scraps of some animals are given to others, these often being meagre amounts,not ample"I already showed pictures of lions being fed steaks and seals being fed fish.....Violence of the animals in captivity when approached by humans"i mean the keeper or the trainer when taking care of them have been known to face injuries to lash out at them in a fit of rage"Trainers and keepers dont lash out at zoo animals in fits of rage...... If they ever do though then the animal has the right to defend itself and attack the human lashing out on them....Reintroduction programs of endangered animals"say u haven't played a sport for several years. im sure that u won't be as good or able to do it properly. it applies for hunting too, as well as survival. "I already gave a link though showing multiple species that were bred in captivity, released into the wild, and they all were able to learn to survive and adapt.... Heres the link againhttp://www.aza.org...Animals that are already kept in captivity in zoos should be kept in captivity in zoo's, they are treated well, fed well, get great healthcare, and can save entire species from extinction when reintroduction programs are successful.