BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The historical Jesus Christ was a doomsday cult leader

ResolutionThe historical Jesus Christ was a doomsday cult leader who told his disciples that the doomsday would happen within the short time period of his own generation (within the 1st century CE).ClarificationThis resolution is NOT about faithfully interpreting the New Testament. The writings of the New Testament will be used for evidence, but the writings of the New Testament are not assumed to be any more or less trustworthy than other ancient texts. Similar debates have been completed here:http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...DefinitionsYou may disagree with these definitions and adopt your own, but the following definitions are offered to clarify the resolution as I have expressed it. "Jesus Christ" or "Jesus" is a proposed historical human being whose character began the myth of the character of Jesus in the Christian gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The historical "Jesus" has a biographical profile roughly corresponding to the profile of the character of Jesus in the gospels (i.e. home town of Nazareth, baptism by John the Baptist, traveling preacher, twelve disciples and crucifixion in Jerusalem). “Doomsday” is a set of events that entail death and destruction all over the world and strongly affecting everyone living, through many such events as wars, political upheavals and natural disasters. A “generation” is a group of people of roughly the same age and living at the same time, and it is used to signify a length of time bounded by the births and deaths of the group of people, as opposed to a longer length of time potentially covering centuries. A “doomsday cult” is a small group of people who are strongly devoted to the perceived will of a human leader and believes that the world will soon face a destructive global calamity. The term is primarily intended to be descriptive, not pejorative. A “doomsday cult leader” is a leader of a doomsday cult, and such a model of Jesus is otherwise known among critical New Testament scholars as, “apocalyptic prophet.” Positions of Opposing ContenderA contender may be anyone who does not believe that the historical Jesus predicted the first-century doomsday, including but not limited to someone who believes or suspects that Jesus was merely a myth, that Jesus was the divine Son of God or messiah, or that Jesus was a mere human but commendable moral teacher, rabbi, social activist or philosopher.Rules First round is for acceptance. Do not introduce new arguments in the last round. If you wish to forfeit, then post it. Don't let the time run out in any of the rounds.
The death penalty should exist.

I didn't expect to have to do this, but something in my life has come up. I am going to have to forfeit this round, so I ask the voters to assign my opponent the conduct point. This is not a concession so it should not be voted on as one, I simply must forfeit this round.Thank you, Kryptic, for a thought provoking debate. We should have another when I am able to complete!
The death penalty should exist.

Thank you, my friend. In this round, I will provide rebuttals to your R1 case. Let's get into this!Criteria for Death PenaltyThat is an interesting list that you have compiled, and I like your thinking. However, this isn't what is currently in place as the death penalty and is essentially unrelated to this debate. What I mean by this is that you are holding up your side of the status quo, not changing it.The most popular punishment for states without the death penalty that want an intense penalty would be life in prison without any possibility of parole. Under this method, nobody can possibly find loop-holes to eventually get back into normal society because under law they cannot ever enter it. This would mean that the death penalty isn't necessary because it can be addressed by life in prison.Also, the idea of executing people that refuse psychological help is immoral at its core and is currently illegal. The insane (or mentally ill) cannot be executed, for it is unconstitutional [1].The criteria that you mentioned are not really objective enough for law, nor are they even constitutional, so we cannot weigh these.Compliance with LawI agree that we all, whether we know it or not, sign up for laws to be applied to us and that we must comply with the law or face punishment. And I wholeheartedly agree that murder, rape, abuse are all terrible terrible crimes that should never be allowed in any type of society. However, the crux of your argument is that criminals get to live a good life if they are able to live, and they are able to re-commit crimes. I would think that anyone reading this argument would agree that prison is not a good place in the US. There is a lot of rape [2], there is almost slavery for prisoners [3], and that it is entirely undesirable [no citation needed]. By saying that these prisoners are able to live a happy life with luxury is a very big exaggeration.Part of your argument is that prisoners will be able to recommit offenses that they got in for. However, the alternative to the death penalty is life in prison without possibility of parole, which is the legal way of saying "no givesies backsies", in which the prisoner can never enter society. If we don't allow them to go back into society and cause even more harm, we are increasing the value of society as a whole, and that is a great thing. The death penalty is not the only way to keep them from recommitting, and from the harms of the death penalty as I stated above, we simply cannot allow it.[1]. http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]. http://en.wikipedia.org...[3]. http://www.alternet.org...I am sorry for a shorter round, I hand it back to pro.
The death penalty should exist.

I challenge my friend Kryptic to this debate.Resolved: The death penalty should exist in the United States.Kryptic and I both share the onus, which is that I must prove that the death penalty should not exist whereas my opponent must prove it should. Whoever has more convincing/sound arguments wins this debate. We are both advocating for a change in the status quo in at least some areas of the US, so the onus is logically shared.Rules:1. Maintain appropriate conduct2. No trolling/kritiks/semantics/forfeits/etc.3. Start in round one with arguments and waive the final round with something along the lines of "round waived in compliance with rule 3"4. Keep debate structureDefinitions:Death penalty: the punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime. should: ought to; mustexist: continue to be in policy or come into policy Round structure:Round X: What con does | What pro doesR1: Outline debate | Constructive argumentsR2: Constructive arguments | RebuttalsR3: Rebuttals | Defense to rebuttalsR4: Defense to rebuttals | WaiveIf you want me to change anything let me know. Thanks!
To weaken is always to attack, whereas to strengthen is always an act of kindness and love.

My apologies for forfeiting. I concede my conduct points to Pro, however, I still believe I can win this argument.The flaw in Pro's argument is rather obvious. Someone could weaken or strengthen unintentionally. Example- http://www.sbs.com.au...This is an article that shows how Neo-Nazis accidentally raised funds for a left-wing charity. This strengthened that charity, but was obviously not out of kindness and love. Therefore, I have disproved your resolution, as no exceptions may be made to it.
To weaken is always to attack, whereas to strengthen is always an act of kindness and love.

Definitions: Weaken: to (cause to) become less strong, powerful, or determined Attack: An action that produces negative effects. An action or behavior that is in opposition to the goals of another. Strengthen: To increase the ability of, to provide for, to make more effective Kindness: having or showing a tender and considerate and helpful nature; used especially of persons and their behavior Fairly straight forward resolution:"To weaken is always to attack, whereas to strengthen is always an act of kindness and love."I will be taking the pro side. R1 is for acceptance. R2 is for opening arguments. R3 will be for rebuttals and closing statements Good luck to my opponent.Thanks, WilRiley for accepting. "To weaken is always to attack, whereas to strengthen is always an act of kindness and love." No one would weaken something that is necessary for their own well being. they would seek to strengthen it, to ensure their own survival. To weaken it would be to affirm their own destruction, and contradicts ones position in self preservation. On the other hand, in the interest of self preservation, one would always strenghten that which is necessary for their own survival, and is consistent with ones position in self preservation.Back to Con.
To weaken is always to attack, whereas to strengthen is always an act of kindness and love.

Definitions: Weaken: to (cause to) become less strong, powerful, or determined Attack: An action that produces negative effects. An action or behavior that is in opposition to the goals of another. Strengthen: To increase the ability of, to provide for, to make more effective Kindness: having or showing a tender and considerate and helpful nature; used especially of persons and their behavior Fairly straight forward resolution:"To weaken is always to attack, whereas to strengthen is always an act of kindness and love."I will be taking the pro side. R1 is for acceptance. R2 is for opening arguments. R3 will be for rebuttals and closing statements Good luck to my opponent.
Meiji Japan - Gov. Responsible for Economic Development

To my disappointment, Mestari has again forfeited.My arguments stand unrefuted. I urge a pro vote for arguments and conduct. -----NON DEBATE MATTERS:1. For those interested in this topic as a debate, please contact me ASAP. I have only a little time to do a debate before university begins.2. Thise interested in learning about the Meiji Period should contact me for my recommended reading resources.
Meiji Japan - Gov. Responsible for Economic Development

I had an encyclopedia of sources from a week's worth of research, but then I realized how boring of a debate that would result in. I'm going to take Logic_on_rails up on the idea of heavily recreating history in the exploration of alternatives, which means I need to do new research, but I don't want to hold up the debate since I already know the basis of my new arguments. I think this is going to be fun. ;)
Jodi Arias is innocent

Okay, this is just so crazy that I may not continue. You are saying that this woman is innocent because she is pretty? She didn't murder (or shouldn't be charged) because you think she is attractive? I'll be honest. Just like you, I only did about a 5 minute google search, but I think that if someone has murdered somebody else, they should only be punished if the person wasn't trying to kill them first. Travis Alexander did nothing to Jodi. I...just...ugh. I hope you never go to jury duty.
Jodi Arias is innocent

I never watched the Jodi Arias trial but I've always felt like she was innocent because she is pretty. Why would that beautiful girl kill somebody out of Jealousy that's just absurd. Anyway after doing a 5 minute google search I've confirmed my suspicions. Jodi Arias is indeed innocent. I believe in the mantra innocent until proven guilty so Con has the BOP to show Jodi Arias is guilty. All I have to do is show reasonable doubt. If I show reasonable doubt than you should vote me as the winner of this debate. In all fairness to my opponent, I will upfront tell him I'm using a self defense argument.
Jodi Arias is innocent

I did go on jury duty. The guy's case was so weak that He had to plead out at the last second, however had he known that I would have voted innocent he probably would have fought that thing harder. The state didn't even test the shooter for gunpowder residue and they found him the same night, wtf? Anyway just a forewarning to the voters, I'm only putting in enough effort to win. I will keep setting this challenge up until I find a competent opponent and I will progressively restrict the debate settings further until I do. Con has to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Jodi Arias is guilty of murder. My argument is that Travis attacked her and she stabbed him in self defense. This half assed argument is enough to win until my opponent offers some evidence that Jodi Arias killed Travis in cold blood.
TROLL DEBATE: Ray Comfort's banana argument is invalid

1. EVIL USES FOR BANANASBananas can be used for the following evil purposes....AS HANDGUNS AS CLIPS FOR YOUR AK-47 AS THROWING WEAPONS Under "Boomerang," it says "flip a coin. If heads the defending pokemon is now confused." AND THE CLASSIC ONE WE ALL KNOW... MAKING PEOPLE TRIP 3/4 of these uses can result in the loss of a human life, and is thus killing. But the 2nd commandment says not to kill. Why would God do that? 2. THEY SPOIL TOO SOONyou can make a banana last 2-3 months by putting it in the freezer, but you barely have any room in the freezer because everything else you need to put in the freezer. However, they only last 2-7 days on the counter and 2-9 in the fridge. [1] Back in Biblical times, they had no way to freeze their food, so knowing they would try to store it, God made them to rot so soon on purpose so he could laugh at them when they saw their reactions when they saw their food had spoiled.These are all very important facts that Comfort left out. So according to him, God "intelligently designed" a food that rots too fast, can be used for various evil purposes doesn't store much in the fridge, and was made to f*ck with his own people. Or was that Satan that did that? Was it not God, but the devil that made it just to mess with theists just to mess with them? Was he thinking that by doing that, Atheists could use that as an argument and it would make them go "WHAT THE.. NO. GOD WOULDN'T DO THAT"
This debate is pointless

Pointless: without force, meaning, or relevance http://dictionary.reference.com... Monkey. Tis debate is completely pointless. I didn't politely accept the debate, losin my conduct. I had two spellin errors, no make that three, in the previous sentences, losin my S and G and well. My argument isn't supported by merely one source, so I lose in sources. Even if I win in the argument, I still lose everyall. I meant overall. Because of my rushingness and my undedication (are those words?), and terribleness of everything, there is no way I can win. My elo is lowered down. Basd on the definition of pointless, I have done everything possible that fits the definition: I have no force, little meaning (only defined one word), and relevance (monkey has nothing to do with this debate) As you can see this debate is pointless.
The Surface 3 is better than the iPad

Why I think the Surface 3 is better.Affordibililty A reason why many people avoided the Surface Pro 3, was because it was too expensive. The Surface 3 fixes that problem. With a 64 GB SSD, You get a hybrid of a tablet and a PC with an intel Atom processor for $449. For the same price, you get a 16 GB ipad Air.SoftwareThe Surface RT was a failure, due to the fact that the RT OS just wasn't adequate enough with its limited choice of programs. Now with the Surface 3, you have a fullblown version of Windows, which means you have a ton of programs to download and run on your device. This way, you can be more productive on your Surface. With the iPad, most apps aren't geared towards productivity, and its more of an entertainment device. The Surface 3 can serve as both.KeyboardUnlike the iPad, the Surface 3 comes with a intergrated keyboard. This increases your productivity, and bridges the gap between a tablet and a laptop. The iPad comes with bluetooth keyboards, but most aren't as functional as the Surface's keyboard.For the next round, I encourage Con to refute my argumentshttp://www.microsoft.com...https://www.apple.com...
all drug legalization

Thank you for posting your debate. Sorry my post was so late but, I am quite busy. Also, grammar does have something to do with the debate. Since it is a 7 point voting system. Pro has fully explained what he stands for so now I understand. To my argument. You claim crime rates would go down because they would sell them in stores. Don't you think people would rob those stores to get there hands on drugs? For example in the Baltimore riots you saw people raid pharmacies to get there hands on pharmaceutical drugs. Don't you think there would be a lot more of this? If drugs were legalized? You also claim that drug dealers would leave the drug business. But, I am sure not all drugs would go to your nearest store? I am sure some would land in the hands of people who want to sell them! Also on age limit. Do you think everyone would follow the age limit? Teenagers would have more access to drugs. Because it is legal. They would poison themselves. Of course 10 year old won't take drugs. But would it be easier for kids as well as teens to get there hands on drugs? The answer to that is Yes. According to http://ironshrink.com... Drugs can make you hallucinate as well as know right from wrong. So if drugs were legal there would be much more violence. Because we have drugs illegal for a reason they cause violence. Which would cause mass murders as well as out-bursts. Is this what we want in our world? Also to add on in the South Carolina Church shootings Roof was on some sort of drugs. So this may of added to the violence. Do we want a world were more and more crimes are caused by drugs? Do we want a world were a child sees Crack, cocaine in stores? No. They made this law because just to keep people safe. So drugs wouldn't cause crimes and get in the wrong young hands. For example the FDA is telling food companies to get rid of trans-fat in the next 3 years. Because it is very bad for ones body and contributes to the obesity epidemic. The government has to control what we eat inject or drink to keep people healthy and safe. Also imagine what the families of loved ones would have to go though if their family member died of a harmful legal substance? Don't you think the government would get fined? What you seem to not understand is we make these kind of laws to keep EVERYBODY safe. Legalizing drugs wouldn't do that. P.S (I would fix your grammar if I were you) Good luck!
all drug legalization

Crime rates WOULD go down and let me tell you why. There would be access to drugs through stores etc which would mean that yoy wouldn't need to go through a drugdealer to get drugs. Which mean that drugdealers profit would go down therefore they would not be earning money through drugs and they would simply leave the drug buissniess. But this is not the real subject, it's a positive side effetct from the REAL subject: All drugs should be legalized. I am proposing an idea where drugs are legalized all over the world. It is really the point that people would get hurt but it wouldn't matter because if they chose to do drugs they have no other to blame but themselves. It's a matter of free choice, that the goverment are not supposed to control what we eat, inject and drink. In regard of that children would get hand of these drugs is true but i would want to see an age limit on drugs. You should at least be an adult before you start doing them so that your brain is fully developed. You talk about it as 10 year olds would start taking drugs but no it would be adults. This matter is all about free choice not about what's best for health. It would of course be a shame that many people would die but I belive it would be for the best. Beacause those people who become addicts is a liability for society and if they get access to drugs they would most sertinley OD which mean that those who are most submissive to drugs would die and not be able to reproduce. That would mean that we would, although that drugs are legalized, have a population that is less submissive to drugs.
all drug legalization

I would fix up your grammar in the next round and use some better conduct. You claim that crime rates would go down, but most likely they wouldn't many people would probably battle to get full control in the most drugs. That means increased gang activity and gang wars to get the most drugs. If drugs are not banned then Children would have more access to those drugs. And some children could also die from drug poisoning. Do you want a law which could cause young children to die? That's not the nature of U. S law. Pro also surprises me by stating " Crime rates would go down because there would be no profit in being a drug dealer" You sure about that? I am almost positive there would be loads more drug dealers if drugs were legalized. Where else would people get the drugs from? The government? As I stated before these drugs could get in the wrong hands Children, Elders. The nature of US law is to protect everyone if we legalized drugs that would not satisfy those needs. Do you even realize that if the drugs are legal. A lot of more people will use them and failing American health's? Do we want that? I am positive alt of more people will just come to America to get there hands on drugs and bring some back to their home country? Do we want this? I hope Pro offers some more reasonable evidence in the next round. And clarify exactly what he is saying. If I use sources they will be in the comment section. I made the opening argument short.
all drug legalization

Drugs are bad and everybody knows that. But does this mean that they shouldn't get legalized? Because even though it's dangerous should everyone decide for themselfes if they want to do drugs and hurt themselfes. People would die of course but it would have been their own choice and crime rates would go down because there would be almost no profit in being a drug dealer. It should be up to everyone of us to decide what we want to do not some people in ancy clothes in a fancy building.
What if Fred had a transient cat apostrophe in his email inbox, impossibly forwarded.

Allow me to rebut this as best as I can understand it:I really can't stand Wyoming. That bullturd is an empty square of pure nothing. The only person who lives there who's ever amounted to anything was Wilford Brimley, and living in Wyomiong is what gave him diabeetus. This is why I stand negative to the resolution. Because banana peels are a dangerous weapon and should be controlled under background checks, etc. Allow me to elaborate:1. No One Has Ever Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to Do Look More Like.This is the single most important thing to remember. It has been established in a prior debate.2. No One Likes YouYou look like a lizard Bryan, go home.3. False.Everything that has been stated is false. I'm false. You're false. This whole debate is FALSE.4. Mark is a great man.Mark freed the slaves from both Israel and Louisiana. That's more than you'll ever do. Ever.5. PoniesSomepony needs to take into consideration that our world could use a helping hoof, so clop on over here and help us out.At least I think that's what clop means.If so, I clop every day, for exercise.6. Morgan Freeman is riding a Narwhal.Beat that.7. There are Two Contention Sixes.8. You just checked to see if there were.9. There weren't.10. Now you're laughing because you're a moron.