BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is no credible historical proof of the Biblical Jesus.

Now I shall delve right into the debate. You claimed you could not prove, and were not going to attempt to prove anything involving Jesus that dealt with Faith, or belief. Then you immediately refer to people mentioned in the Gospels and the Talmud. Stories of the Bible and Jewish books. The bible being a holy Scripture of Catholicism, the Talmud being that of Judaism. A belief system. Can you prove any of the bible or the Talmud to be true? Can you prove those people lived? If so, can you prove that the really did speak of Jesus? I haven't read them, I am sure there are somethings in there that are possible. It's a matter of belief, it can't be proven or disproved, therefore you used information you claimed you cannot prove, proving yourself wrong. Nothing is proven. Scientific method, claims that a theory is either accepted or rejected, never proven. Your theory being that Jesus was a living person. There is a lot of evidence supporting the acceptance of the aforementioned theory, but that still proves nothing. Religion and history, are both continuums based on personal belief, If truly do not think Jesus Christ existed, No amount of proof in the world will make me think otherwise. If don't think World War II happened, You will never change my mind. Of course, I do believe Jesus lived, and that World War II happened. I may not think Jesus lived the Life that is Religiously and Historically accepted, but this is a hypothetical Debate. Dan Brown was writing a fictional based on possibly factual historic events, and in my opinion, he did a good job. Who is to say the Bible didn't use half truths? or truths at all? I feel I must clear something up here. As an Atheistic Agnostic, I do not simply claim that Jesus never existed. I know he did. I was taught about his historic, not biblical life, in my World History class, and I like to think that what I am being taught in school, has some sort of fact behind it. I know he changed the course of history, But I still do not believe he could walk on water, raise people from the dead, nor that he died for my personal "sins. "
The U.S should make Mexico a U.S territory

=Rebutall=My Opponent speaks of illegal immigration being a problem, I agree it is. But let's look at his case and see the holes in it.Initially he speaks of all the crime brought by illegals, but he doesn't realize that it isn't the fact that they're hispanic/illegal which causes crime, it's the poverty.--> Turn: Poverty is linked with crime[1][2]. more impoverished people in Mexico. Crime would increase.--> Crime would also increase because of the drug lords in Mexico, U.S. would be overstretched to deal with them.--> He claims that illegals work menial jobs because they are not citizens. Not true, it is because they are uneducated, and cannot perform any more skilled jobs, so this supports my side because we will have a surplus of uneducated citizens. He also talks of the economic benefits, creating Mexico as a U.S. territory would be economically crippling.--> These people would have to be U.S. citizens, more people in poverty would strain our already over-stretched social programs.--> Fighting the drug lords who have a grip on Mexico would be economically, and militarily straining on the U.S.--> Tax revenue from Mexicans would not cover the expenses of education, infrastructure, ect. Per capita GDP in Mexico is around 15,000 USD[3], not very much to tax. He also states that Mexicans would want this, this is false because if they did there would be a large movement to join the U.S. There is not. =Case=C1. Illegal act of war.The Mexican government is extremely unlikely to become a part of the U.S. willingly, for the U.S. to gain Mexico it would have to be an imperialistic action. Look at history and you will see that imperialism is bad, and while many Mexicans do come to the U.S., most don't so we cannot assume that they want to.C2. Economically straining.Many people in Mexico would meet the qualifications for welfare or food stamps. The U.S. is already having trouble financing these programs, and more people on it would be a bad thing. Also, fighting the drug lords in Mexico would cost us much money and many lives. I reserve the right to bring in more evidence and arguments for my points. Sources:1. http://capaassociation.org...2. http://www.pubdef.ocgov.com...3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The U.S should make Mexico a U.S territory

Alright, you as well and sorry for the wait. The illegal immigration from Mexico that has been happening since before president Eisenhower's 1st term has been growing into a big problem these past 3 decades. Although it has decreased significantly there is still the problem of the illegals being in our country. (no offense intended to anyone) There is an estimated 7 to 20 million illegals in the U.S and over 80% is comprised of Hispanics. Now not only does that cause a problem for border patrol and the INS but also for law enforcement agencies. In jail over half of the incarcerated are Hispanic. The number of illegals is approximately 72%. That came from a dramatic increase of 24.5 percent since the last ten years. Yet more still are unidentified and work under the hood jobs. These jobs extend from lawn care and painting to drugs and prostitution, mostly because they do not have citizenship and cannot make good money otherwise. The solution to eliminating a big source of our nations illegal immigration and jail population I would think is declaring Mexico a U.S territory. It would spurge other opportunities as well such as, if America so decides doing, a crippling blow to the WOD, and an economic boost to the housing market (if we do some reconstruction) This can be done without force because as we know, the reason many Mexicans come here (legally and otherwise) is because they want to be in America. If this were to happen we could send the once illegal Hispanics to Mexican prisons and the immigration problem would be downsized dramatically. Crime would fall a little because illegals would be able to get better jobs and if the U.S helped some jobs could be created there as well. We would be able to do better on the WOD because there is a great number of drug cartels and drug lords over there. If reconstruction was set, we could rid Mexico of its slums and make better communities and cities as well as, since there is the entire ocean surrounding Mexico, more luxurious homes and better pricing. Not to mention the natural resources we'd receive there. Once again sorry for the wait and sorry it's so short
Marijuana is the best plant to grow

Plant: any member of the kingdom Plantae, comprising multicellular organismsthat typically produce their own food from inorganic matter by the processof photosynthesis and that have more or less rigid cell walls containingcellulose, including vascular plants, mosses, liverworts, and hornworts:some classification schemes may include fungi, algae, bacteria, blue-greenalgae, and certain single-celled eukaryotes that have plantlike qualities, asrigid cell walls or photosynthesis. (http://dictionary.reference.com...)Plants we use for food: leaves and stems – celery, lettuce, silver beet. roots – potatoes, carrots, beetroot, cassava, radish, parsnip. seeds – wheat, rice, legumes, ground nuts (peanuts), tree nuts (walnuts, almonds). I argue that all plants under these categories, that do not grow naturally on their own, or that do not grow enough in abundance, are vitally more important to grow than marijuana because they have the capacity to sustain life, which marijuana does not. I'm also on the record of taking the position that our government does not have down syndrome; however, they are beyond corrupt.
Marijuana is the best plant to grow

Ya know I wonder. How high were our founding fathers when they wrote the Constitution? How stoned was Thomas Jefferson while writing the Declaration of Independence. When George Washington was required to show some ID..did he whip out a quarter? Why for the love of laughing is marijuana not legal? Why do Republicans hate Obama? Oh yes, he's black. The laziest people on Earth represent our government right now. Our government I believe has down syndrome. They can't even develop a website correctly. The IRS just got their GED. Nobody knows anything about anyone. Our government can rob, steel, cheat, lie, launder money, print money, screw everyone, play pretend, promise nothing, and argue who has more skid marks in their underwear. It's amazing how so many of our government representatives went to IVY league schools just to go to work everyday and accomplish nothing. Legalizing marijuana would help everyone forget that it just doesn't matter. Legalizing pot would be the smartest thing the government could do right now. At least it would generate tons of money. Isn't that what they want? I mean it would be silly not too. Why not just make all drugs legal..all drugs!! Portugal did. Crime is down, they're using the revenue to actually help people with their drug problems. And it's working. You know why? Because they don't have a John Boehner, they don't have an Eric Canter. We have a government full of cry babies, and pathetic leadership. We spend billions a year examining why some peoples feet smell like soup. We spend billions a year hiding billions of dollars. We spend billions a year trying to figure out where the last trillion went. We spend billions investigating investigations. It's obvious that Americas leaders are coming to work everyday and thinking about what they're going to do tomorrow. Then tomorrow comes and they just sit there wondering what they should of done yesterday. To me, that sounds like something a pot head would do. But I bet if our entire government was stoned everyday, due to legal pot, they would eventually forget we have a black president and Americas work would get done. Oh, and billions and billions of dollars would be generated. Marijuana has so many purposes. It can make anybody feel better and basically eliminates sickness. The country would be a better place. The drunks can still puke on each other, while the others explore ideas and unite with peace and love. But first we must shoot John Boehner. A relaxed America....who has the munchies. Last but not least...we must warn the marijuana not to persuade individuals to overdose on drugs everybody knows can kill them. If you have a problem with marijuana being legal for everyone...just remember, you don't matter. It's obvious you are completely uneducated and have an opinion based on ignorance and stupidity. Pot....it kills no one.
Death penalty: 100% Guilty

I was having a heated discussion tonight with classmates of mine over our opinions on capital punishment. I believe, that if a criminal is without a doubt 100% guilty, (the example we used is a someone caught raping or murdering a child - one of the most disgusting examples we could come up with) they should be put to death. Basically my point was, it should depend on the situation. In a case like this, where there's no doubt whether or not he committed this awful crime, he should be sentenced to death. The most popular arguments from my classmates were arguments such as "Two wrongs don't make a right" and "They obviously need mental help, it's not their fault." Both of which I find absolutely ridiculous. So I asked, "Well, what if it was your child. Or sibling. Or niece or nephew?" To which they all said, "That's different. I'd kill him myself." I guess they're forgetting, that little boy down the street who was raped and murdered IS someone's child. Why don't those parents have a right to see their baby boy's murderer put to death? I'd like to hear what others have to say about this. Again, I'm saying I believe the death penalty should be an option depending on the circumstances. If a criminal of this nature is undeniably guilty, he should be put to death.
Death penalty: 100% Guilty

In this round I will lay down my major arguments.The Death Penalty is not reasonable punishment because: If he/she is not guilty, there is no way of reversing that. 144 men and women have been released from death row nationally. It costs too much to execute someone, then it is to keep hem in prison. 139 nations worldwide have abandoned capital punishment in law or in practice. The US is one of the last nations to advocate this punishment. If the person in trial cannot afford good legal representation, he may be ruled guilty and executed, due to being too poor to afford representation. In 1990 a report from the General Accounting Office concluded that "in 82 percent of the studies [reviewed], race of the victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e. those who murdered whites were more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks." There are alternatives to the Death Penalty, such as life in prison without parole. The death penalty cannot be limited to the worst cases. It has been used in other occasions where it wasn't justified. Even the guilty have a right to life. Everyone has to have a second chance. There are numerous occasions where terrible people who committed horrific crimes bettered themselves in prisons and came out as new people. Is not a deterrent; crime rates have not gone down. In fact, the murder rate in the US is 6 times that of Britain and 5 times that of Australia. Neither country has the Death Penalty. Texas has twice the murder rate of Wisconsin, a state that doesn't have the Death Penalty. Religious and moral values tell us Killing is wrong. Many religions including Catholicism are against the Death Penalty. http://www.antideathpenalty.org... http://www.americamagazine.org... http://www.deathpenalty.org...
Is rape culture promoted by feminism to be taken seriously

I don't think it's possible to debate the fact that rape is a very serious crime. That being said, I want to request we shift this argument more towards all of these rape allegations. I do not believe the feminist movement promotes or discourages rape culture, or has any impact on legitimate rapes. However, I am skeptical about a lot of these recent allegations that have come out against influential members of our society, as you know famous people will always have a group of people that hate them, and considering the amount of recent cases that have come up, I do think we should have the right to ask to see evidence of these very serious crimes. Even murders need clear and convincing evidence to convict the defendant.
Is rape culture promoted by feminism to be taken seriously

I believe the thought of a rape culture in first world countries such as Canada, the U.S.A, the U.K and New Zealand malarkey. Why is it that some people say rape is promoted in these countries that I just mentioned exists in mass. Rape is major crime punishable by life in prison. Surely you can't believe there are people who gives awards for most people raped in 1 month. Nearly everyone discourages rape in these countries and say they would never think of committing such an act. Proved rapists are put in prison and there is no denying that.
The instigator always should open the debate

"My argument is simple. As in this case, it is impossible for the instigator NOT to always open the debate, as simple logic demands that the person who begins an argument is, by definition, an instigator." I believe that in the debate.org format, the instigator would be the person who proposed the debate in the first place, so therefore it is possible for the instigator not to open the debate. Now for my reasons R1: It can be inconvenient If you start a debate you may not always know how to. I know for me I am never good at making a "speech" without hearing my opponents arguments. And if you accept the debate, you should be prepared to start R2: Argument quality If you have no idea what your opponent will say then your argument will suffer as a result. R3: Upon accepting you should be perpared to start I think that if the instigator didn't start, then the contender would have to accept on the terms that they understand the topic enough to post an argument. I await my opponents response
The instigator always should open the debate

The subject matter of this debate is "The instigator always should open the debate". To my understanding, my opponent "ournamestoolong" has taken the "against" view to this statement, meaning they disagree and think "The instigator should NOT always open the debate". Conversely, since I have accepted this challenge, my view is "The instigator SHOULD always open the debate." My argument is simple. As in this case, it is impossible for the instigator NOT to always open the debate, as simple logic demands that the person who begins an argument is, by definition, an instigator. Even in the case of my opponent, this holds true. My opponent, whose view is that the instigator should NOT always open the debate, has opened the debate and is the instigator. My case rests. Thank you.
The USA's type of education is much better than Kazakhstan's

People are different. You can not find 2 completely same people, education of USA understand it. They understand that each children is individual and have area where he or she is good. Some of people good in math, some in biology or chemistry and so on.. So education have to adjust to each pupil. Children's mind not so strong like adult's so problems in education can hurt them in future. the next reason why USA's edition is the best is development of the USA. Development of country depends on education. So the USA one of the most powerful country. And what about Post-Soviet countries? They are one of the most backward countries. How do you think how people with such "strong" education built so weak countries like Post Soviet?
The USA's type of education is much better than Kazakhstan's

speaking about eduction systems, there is the best example I can think off exams which students pass when they graduate school. for instance, SAT and ENT( national test in Kz for pupils), their complexities are utterly different. as I know(because I have passed this test) SAT assumes math, critical reading writing+ subject test. to compare with ENT its math complexity is higher, and it requires plenty of time and effort to achieve a good score. Kazakhstan follow ed. system that was in Communism, therefore here is established a strong basement of primary school education. I can agree about education in universities, but as concerns at school, our pupils would outscore USA's by far. the best examples that springs to mind is the most eminent schools in our republic, such as Zerde, KTL(Kazakhs Turkish lyceum), school of the first president and etc. those students participated in various international challenges and prove that our students are the bests.
The USA's type of education is much better than Kazakhstan's

Firstly i want to say that the USA only pupils in first several classes have a rest at home. Pupils in middle and high school do their homework at home. Your statistics can be true, but i saw TV-show about life in the USA,so in this program child did their home work in living-room, interesting fact that those children had their own rooms. So this statistic can not be indicator of parent's care in the USA. People from the USA are not aliens. In USA, parents support their children and you can not say that they have cold relationships. Our debates not about relationships, It is about differences between Kazakhstan and USA's education. I claim that the USA's model of education is the best.
The USA's type of education is much better than Kazakhstan's

Kazakhstan is a quite young country and it is unreasonable to compare it with USA. Studying is not only academic achievements, it also assumes decline. In US it is uncontrolled, if you will refer to crime statistics, especially amid pupils, in America it is much higher than in Kz. We teach to appreciate family values, not to argue with elders, in all, we teach to respect each other, in USA it is not developed and teachers have trouble with nurturing students.
The USA's type of education is much better than Kazakhstan's

In other words Kazakhstan's education we can call USSR's existed, people said that USSR's education is the best. But it is a controversial topic. I claim that education of the USA is the best. Because in the USA, people learn only that subjects which will help them in their future occupation. I studiedin Kazakhstani school with USSR's type of education. For example in my school, teachers of physics or chemistry teached us, like we are future workers of nuclear stations. So, I will never use this knowledge in my life and after 10 years I will forget it. It was useless time. It is better to learn subjects which you will use in your future job deeply, than learn subjects which you will never use in your life.
Junk food

Junk food I believe that the term junk food means not good for our health.It is less in nutrional and more harmful to our body.People of all age groups like to eat junk food.They can easily available in the market such like waffers, Noodles, Burger,pizza etc. Most of junk food contains high level of sugar,salt,fats, saturated fats and bad chlorestrol which are toxic to the health they lack in dietary fibers So, easily cause constipation and our digestive disorder .It may also cause heat diseases ,cancer, obisity , high blood pressure, bone problems,metal disorder and may health disorder parents should make there children aware about the difference between healthy and junk food . Good health necessity of living a healthy life which needes to maintain a healthy diet and healthy habits through out the life. Thank you!
A Kamikaze is a Superior Alcoholic Beverage to a Midori Sour

I think this has been a debate in the challenge period for too long. The author will obviously not let it expire, so I would like to encourage the audience to vote in favor of me winning this debate, for the sake of cleaning the website layout. I will not post points after this, I will simply add numbers, thus preventing a drawn-out process, and cleaning up debate.org in a faster, more precise manner.