BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jesus Christ was a real person + He was the son of god

It's just there are a lot of internet Atheists who can be very bitter and cruel. Of course I am not making a generalisation or anything. Now you have refuted my arguments. I guess I shall think up new ones instead of trying to recover the previous ones I lost. Here's one. In the time period of BC Jesus is not the only person who claimed to be the Messiah. MANY Israelites did. Many people tried to use the Torah to say that they were the Messiah in order to gain power over others. In fact it is known historically one of the Herods claimed to be the chosen prophet this of course is not a very well known fact. My argument is this. Considering all the Jews who claimed to be the Messiah only ONE is remembered to this day 2000 years later. Jesus Christ. So why is it that the claim of Christ is remembered but all the other people who claimed to be the son of god aren't? For this reason I believe Christ's claim was most certainly special. This cannot be denied by even an Atheist. Christ's claim has been the most sucessful. Plus why did the churches choose Christs claim? Why not choose one of the other people who had claimed to be the son of god and manipulate people with their claims? Of course you can say that they just chose Christ above all the others because if for example the Herod had been chosen by them you would see me saying how come Herod was chosen. But. . Christs claim is remembered 2000 years after he made it. I reckon all the people who had claimed to be the son of god convinced many. There were probably many sort of equilalents to worship places for them. How come only Christ's is remembered 2000 years after? What cannot be denied at the very least is that Jesus's claim is most certainly the most successful. It was certainly special considering all the other claims which have been forgotten within a decade after they were made. So. If Jesus is not the son of god. .. Why is his claim to be remembered 2000 years after? I reckon if this was a false claim just like all the other people who weren't the Messiah it would have been forgotten very very quickly. There were many claims to be the Messiah in those days. Not just Jesus. All the false claims to be the son of god have one thing in common: They were forgotten not too long after they were made. If Jesus's claim was false why wasn't his forgotten like all the other false claims were?
Jesus Christ was a real person + He was the son of god

Thank you for the opportunity to have this debate. I look forward to it being fun and entertaining. I will start by refuting my opponents case, before I present my own. Burden of Proof is naturally on Pro, being the instigator of the resolution. Please look to my debate on BoP for reasoning on this: . http://goo.gl... R1) My opponent argues that because the years before 1 AD are named "before Christ", a jesus christ must have existed. I am not going to debate the existence of a person named Jesus living around that time. I am rather refuting the second part of the resolution, as I believe Jesus was not the son of any god. As a note though, the system of BC/AD was made up by a monk in 525 AD, centuries after the death of Christ, and was not widely used untill 700 AD [1]. There is far better proof of his existence however, such as roman written records of public executions conducted around that time. I repeat, Jesus did exist. R2) My opponent argues that because books written after and before the life of Jesus describe the same events, Jesus must be the son of god. Firstly, there is a large gap in this reasoning. My opponent fails to argue why such events, should they have occurred, in any way proves that Jesus is the son of god. Secondly, the credibility of these writings is far from assured. And no, I do not accept the four gospels as historical documents. The fact that the texts from before and after the life of Jesus agree on the events is easy to explain. The supporters of Jesus would, after his death, naturally pretend that he fulfilled all of the prophesies of the earlier texts. After a while all who had ever met Jesus were dead, and anyone who denied the (false) written records were persecuted by the church. Conclusion I have refuted my opponents arguments. As there is so far no reason to believe that there is a god, that Jesus was his son, or that Jesus performed any miracles, my case stands true. Sources[1] . http://goo.gl...;(see
Jesus Christ was a real person + He was the son of god

Historians have made a time period of history "BC". As I'm sure you know this means "Before Christ". The fact this has been done has been stated by historians that this time period was a time before Jesus was in the world correct? So what the historians are saying here is that Jesus Christ was a real historical figure + this is a time period which took place before he was born. That is what HISTORY states. History states using the timeline of "BC" that a man named Christ existed and there was a time period caleld "BC" which was before he was born. If Christ was not a real historical figure explain why the time period is titled "BC"? If Christ was not real then how could he have been born? History states Jesus was born and that the time period of "BC" is before he was born. So people who deny Christ's existence tell me how the time period of BC can exist? Now proof he is the Son of God. Christ's life and ministry was recorded in the four gospels which I believe we can treat as historical documents. In the Torah there are many prophecies foretelling what the Messiah, Son Of God will do and what will happen to him. The Torah and New Testament were written years apart. So how come the New Testament stories fufill all the prophecices given in the old testament? All the prophecies made about the Messiah are fuffilled in the New Testaments story of Jesus perfectly. Even if you are an Atheist you have a burden when you see that in Jesus's life in the New Testament fuffills all the prophecies given in the old testament. Even if there is no God like Atheism states its rather coincidental that everything the Old Testament said would happen is said to have happened in the New Testament? A series of books which were written many many years apart. Sorry if i sounded rather cocky..... I do understand some of what I said sounded rather butty XD. I do apologise. I didn't intend to be a bit of a show off.
human enhancement

Plastic surgery is not always used for good looks. According to WebMD, plastic surgery can be used for wounds such as burns and tissue expansion. If the burn is severe enough the doctor will recommend plastic surgery to get a skin graft procedure. If the procedure is done right, there won't be any excessive bleeding. And like you stated in your argument, infection after surgery is very RARE and when it does occur, doctors know how to stop it from spreading before it gets bad.
human enhancement

I don't understand how "two families could mix up their kids". But what I do understand is that according to Huffington Post, the government is trying to ban Human Enhancement. This is not fair because the government has no right to control any means of reproduction. Hughes, on wired.com, states that "it's in the same category as abortion. If you think women should have the right to control their own bodies,then they should be able to make this choice." This is 100% true. Women, and parents as a whole, should be able to have right to choose what they want to do with their bodies, and money on that note.
human enhancement

Human enhancement will soon be affecting babys that are not even born. The advancement in science will soon be availiable for parents to design there babys to look the way they want there child to look.If people are able to change the appearance of there babys that could lead to a problem that everyone would want a perfect baby anxd two familys could mix up their kids. The technology for baby designing as it is right now can be very dangerous for the embryos. When this technology advances doctos will start to make the costumer cost more for specific traits.
human enhancement

another substance that is a human enhancement is protien drinks. Protein drinks are very bad for young people usaully under the age of 18 but they can also be harmful to older people with health conditions. Most people use protein drinks to replace regular every day meals which does not give you the nutrients your bodys need. some of the problems protien drinks can cause to your body is risks of heart diseases or kidney problems. that is another reason why human enhancement is bad.
human enhancement

My first reason for genetic enhancement is because it may be able to increase success and literacy rates. This is because when creating "designer babies", the gene options are endless. You could choose really smart genes that will make your child smarter and help him or her get further in life. You could choose an athletic gene to boost your child's success in sports and athletics. And last but not least, you could choose good looking genes which, needless to say, can also help a person be successful in life. As I said before, the options are endless, and these endless options could eventually increase the success and literacy rates.
human enhancement

Human enhancement can be a solid or a liquid some examples are steroids or plastic surgery it is a procedure to improve your body and make it better or stronger. The reason human enhancement should not be allowed is steroids. Steroids can make person who is normally calm and relaxed to be aggressive and jumpy stated by kidshealth.org. Steroids also cause serious health problems like dizziness, extreme feelings of mistrust, and problems sleeping also stated by kidshealth.org. steriods are extremely illegal especially if athletes use them.
human enhancement

My final (and best) argument is that human enhancement can prevent, or create, genetic disorders and/or conditions. If the parents have a family history of a certain disease, they can stop the inheritance by creating a designer baby. They can also reduce risk of inherited medical conditions such as obesity, cancer, and diabetes. If we look further into the future we could possibly eliminate all genetic disorders if every parent decides to create a healthy designer baby. This is because there if we stop the inheritance from one baby, it will no longer be passed on. Human enhancement can also create genetic disorders. Why would anyone want to create genetic disorder, you ask? Well according to Wired.com, a couple (both deaf) wanted to have a baby who was also deaf. This is because they wanted to be able to communicate with their child easily. In conclusion, human enhancement can change a persons life more positively than negatively.
Liberty And Justice For All

the most important law ever made by the us government was the separation of church and state, second the british independence because those people's government system haven't move on from 17th-century which gave birth to countless british atheist(at least they have more atheist than america), and third the national governments should be more focus on sociology than theology afcourse this will enrage religious organizations like giving you the bull**** arguments like; "hey pegans, where do you get your morality?" and the government failure to separate themselves from this issues causes inequality which leads to civil wars and a perfect example of that is the bangsamoro war in the Philippines, the so proud secular government is shoving their christian believes on the muslim people afcourse you will not hear this national embarrassment on the media and afcourse its people right to know what caused the war nor being done in their name, but they didn't know until foreign medias and broadcasting news teams of other countries started interfering ... so where's the liberty and equality there? so basically you can call it an obvious secret if you like
Liberty And Justice For All

Yes, I fully acknowledge there is heavy discrimination everywhere in the united states. It is terrible, but not many are being killed over it. Or raped over it. Or having their genitals mutilated over it. Or being forced to do terrible things. Sexual slavery, violence all around the world. And that in comparison is better? No, we should focus on the bigger issues first. Then go down the list from hardest to easiest. Most complicated to least complicated. Most important to least.
Liberty And Justice For All

After reading my opponents argument I am overall left confused at what was said to me except for the last sentence. Since that is the only point that seems to make any sense and is relevant in my eyes, I am going to merely confront that one point head on. "So whether you like 'it' or not homosexuality, religious freedom or any other related issues are a big deal because if people would stay silent about "this" issues, Lunatics from the government would do something to violate people's civil rights and discrimination will only get worse." You see, how do you know that? How do you know the government would care? What evidence do you have that backs you up on that claim? And I am not saying go quiet on those issues, those issues cannot be denied their importance but what I am saying is that there are far greater problems out there then what people do in the privacy of their own homes. And people should focus less on that, and more on the problems that effect everyone more harshly. Again I will ask, why care so fondly for debates such as that when there is so much more that we need to deal with?
Liberty And Justice For All

first of all secularism is absolutely necessary to establish a democratic civil society, because government should be the role model in displaying good morality and respect for people of different believes which only possible if politics distances itself from religion a perfect example of that is obama( marriage equality), john f. kennedy(religion should not interfere with politics and also he's also a religious christian) and david cameron( "im not directly align.........with religion") from uk and afcourse people REALLY CARE ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY BECAUSE IT THEY FIND IT OFFENSIVE TO THEIR BELIEVES LIKE TED HAGARD AND SOME OTHER CRAZY AMERICAN CHRISTIANS AND SOME OTHER LUNATICS who care clearly don't understand the separation of church and state, so in the end it is still a big issue.. we all want liberty and justice but lunatics just happens to misinterpret it , so anything that the government tries to induce that conflicts with people's personal believes becomes unconstitutional but from how i remembered correctly on the passage of "land of the free" or whatever was that about america---"you have your standards, i have mine and i don't my standards to be enforce to others nor others enforce it to me" and people just don't respect that. So whether you like or not homosexuality, religious freedom or any other related issues are a big deal because if people would stay silent about this issues, Lunatics from the government would do something to violate to people's civil rights and discrimination will only get worst
Liberty And Justice For All

You know, in the time that I have been on this website and on the Internet I have seen a large amount of arguments for and against things like homosexuality for instance. While studying history I have heard debates as to why it is wrong to inter-racially marry, those kind of social policy arguments. And frankly, I just don't get it. Get what you ask? Well let me tell you. I don't get why people care about issues like interracial or homosexual rights. Why must it be the care of the world, that has so much more issues then it can probably handle alone, as to what everyday people like you and me like or dislike? What we find loving and not loving? Why do people care about things like that? Why do people care about issues like homosexuality and inter-racialism when we are dealing with problems like how bad the American Economy is for example. Or how bad the education system is in America. Or take a look at the eastern world where unspeakable things still terribly happen over there. Before I continue by the way, I am elaborating that I am pointing fingers at the people who denounce homosexuality or inter-racialism or both. Because in my eyes, homosexuality is a common sense thing, as is inter-racial couples. And all I am asking is why? Why do people care about denying other people liberty and justice for all when there is already SO much more problems in the world? And people are just gonna sit here and inactively add on more? By both their inaction and their irrational pointless arguing? And I may be mainly pointing my fingers at the people who disagree with the two things I am focusing on, but bear in mind, I'm basically criticizing everybody here, including me. Because 'I' have made entire arguments for homosexuality as well oblivious to what is actually going on that are REAL threats. So basically I am asking this debate to someone: Why should we care about meaningless things like how people choose to love other people when there is so much wrong in the world? And I am willing to take anyone on in the matter. For or against homosexuality. It doesn't matter.
Performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports.

Unfortunately, I have to say that your arguments apply to a few related resolutions, but not the resolution at hand. Your "Part one arguments," to the extent they raise true symptoms (which is not clear, because data on the symptoms of the usage of steroids at recommended dosages in healthy people is in a shortage and rather conflicting, which is perhaps why you have cited no scientific data), apply to the resolution "Should you use steroids?" Or "Is hiring a steroid-using baseball player a good investment?" Your part two arguments apply to "Should children be encouraged to look into athletes as role models?" (and I note they also have a flaw, how would the child feel about his uber-clean athlete role model if he found out the athlete was only being uber-clean because he was forced to? Kind of disillusioning no?) Your part three argument applies to "Should sports leagues concerned with an image of 'hard work' or 'fairness' allow steroid users to play?" The resolution at hand, however, is whether it should be ILLEGAL for professional athletes to use these drugs. That is, whether Johnny McSuperStrong's use of steroids is a justification to send a man with a gun to his door and stick him in a cage, shooting him if he doesn't cooperate. This raises questions of "What are proper social limits (rights)?" Since human beings require the application of their own mind to their own actions to live, and need to produce goods with those actions, and this is a universal need, it holds that each human who wishes to live should find it proper that others not interfere with this (the rights of liberty and property). In order to pursue this, it is of course necessary that they themselves not interfere first, for interfering with one who does not interfere removes the incentive for that other to not interfere. Thus the question in whether to violate someone's liberty or property is "Have they violated yours?" I await your proof that the injection of steroids into one's own body, or between consenting parties, somehow violates anyone's liberty or property.
Performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports.

Said drugs should stay illegal for use in sports, for a few reasons. 1) Negative effect on the steroid user Steroids, as we all know, speed up protein synthesis to enhance performance. However, there are some harmful side effects to using them. They include: - higher blood pressure - higher cholesterol levels - higher risk of heart disease - liver damage - premature growth - testicular cancer - abnormally large amounts of acne - breast development in men This, obviously, is not good for the steroid user. Furthermore, exercising normally can avoid these problems, and regular exercise is better for physical and mental health. 2) Negative impact on children When children start to get into sports, they normally treat their favorite player as an idol, an image of what they want to be when they grow up. How would they feel if their idol essentially cheated by using drugs so they didn't have to work as hard? Furthermore, what if they decided to use steroids too, because their hero did? 3) Unfair advantage Most professional athletes work hard every day to stay in shape and sharp at their sport. Why should some players get to skip this hard work that everyone else is doing? That's all for now.
Performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports.

" They do apply to the resolution, "Performance-enhancing drugs should [not] be allowed in professional sports". They show that using these drugs is unsafe." Doing unsafe things is allowable. People have the right to do unsafe things with their own bodies. " No, I'm saying that performance-enhancing drugs should not be allowed because they set a bad example for children. " Athletes are not slaves, existing for the sake of their examples to children. They exist for their own sake and are to be treated as such, as human beings, so long as they treat others as such. This means they are not to be forced to a course of action just because it will benefit someone else, only them initiating force can justify such force. " No, I'm saying that performance-enhancing drugs cheat users out of hard work and practice that other players have to go through. " "Have to?" No one "has to" do such a thing. They are perfectly able to take the drugs themselves, or work hard, or not condition themselves, as they please. And the use of drugs by one party does not delete the hard work by another, they are separate bodies, separate phenomena. " Uh, no, it's whether "Performance-enhancing drugs should be ALLOWED in professional sports." "Allowed" and "legal" are very different. "Allowed" means allowed within the sport's rules; "legal" means allowed within the law." This would be a permissible arguments if your round 1 argument did not already concede you were talking about what THE LAW should allow. As it stands it is not, it is merely a tool of deception, and I quote (emphasis mine:) " Said drugs should stay ILLEGAL for use in sports, for a few reasons." That was at the beginning of your first round argument. That leaves no room for weaseling out of it, the resolution was explicitly clarified by you as meaning allowable by the law, not allowable by the sports league. You made your bed now argue in it. "and not actually presented an argument, you vote CON at this point." Read second paragraph from the bottom of my Round 1. I did in fact present an argument, as relates to the resolution as you clarified it's meaning at the beginning of the debate. If you are going to state the resolution is anything other than what I have stated it is, you will be forced to admit the statement at the beginning of your Round One argument was deliberately dishonest.