BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The New Testament Is A Fiction Mixed with Truth

Spiderman has gravity and the laws of physics in it too, Does that make any of it true? No. If the events are fictional, Then the story is fictional. Period. Just because the NT makes up a fake Jerusalem and a fake version of real people, Doesn't make a single word of it true. The NT is a fiction story by definition. You don't get to say there's truths in it. That would be like saying the Quran is true just because the sand under Muhammad's feet is real. That's not a standard of truth. But neither of those books are true. They're all fictions that use fictional events. If you want to convince me. You're going to have to find a real historical event that is recorded in the NT that happens EXACTLY how history says. I'm not going to take fictional representations of real things as evidence.
The New Testament Is A Fiction Mixed with Truth

I never said it made the story true. I said that there are truths in the NT. Just as there are truths in Spiderman. For example, New York exists: Truth. New York is located in the USA: Truth. New Yorkers mostly speak English: Truth. Likewise, The NT also has truths in it. Jerusalem exists: Truth. Jerusalem's got Jews 2000 years ago: Truth. Romans can be found in Jerusalem: Truth. In conclusion, There ARE truths in the NT.
The New Testament Is A Fiction Mixed with Truth

Okay, So let's say I live in New York city and I write a story. I used all of the streets and famous people from New York to tell me story and I describe New York in detail, But the whole story is about a wizard that goes through New York performing miracles on the famous people. Would that make anything in the story true? No. The New York that I'm describing is a fictional one that has magic in it. The famous people might be real, But in the story, The famous people are experiencing a fictional timeline and being healed by miracles. This is not truth, It's just fiction with allegorical parodies in it.
The New Testament Is A Fiction Mixed with Truth

There is no evidence that jesus existed, So you can't say that's a truth. Jerusalem does exist, But the Jerusalem in the bible does not, It's a fantasy setting of Jerusalem. It's like Spiderman. In the comics, Spiderman lives in New York, But the new York he lives in is nothing like the real one and has magic and science fiction in it with different presidents and citizen, Etc. So that's not a truth either. The same goes for Rome, It's not the the real rome. The bible is not a history book, It's a fiction story.
The New Testament Is A Fiction Mixed with Truth

INTRODUCTION This is my first time on debate. Org. I truly hope that potential mistakes made by me as a first-timer would not upset anyone on this debate platform. THESIS The New Testament (NT) is a very interesting book, And an important one. Christians believe that it is part of the word of God, Hence making it entirely true. However, There is evidence that the NT doesn't contain only the truth. There is evidence in the NT itself that the NT is a fictional book written by its authors by mixing falsehood with truth. In this debate I will present evidence to prove that the NT is a work of fiction mixed with truth. DEFINITIONS New Testament: The second collection of 27 books in the Christian Bible containing the Gospels, The Acts of the Apostles, The Epistles, And the Book of Revelations. It will be referred to as either a book or a set of books, Depending on the context. Fiction: a work or text that is untrue and has been made up or invented RULES A. Structure Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Opening ArgumentsRound 3: 1st RebuttalsRound 4: 2nd Rebuttals. Round 5: Closing statements. B. Technical 1) Please read the entire debate before voting. 2) No ad-hominem attacks. 3) Sources have to be cited. 4) Optional: Please tag or quote the arguments you're responding to ACCEPTANCE In round 1, Please acknowledge that you have read and agree to follow the rules to the debate, And that you accept the debate. BURDEN OF PROOF The burden of proof is on me. I have to prove that the NT is a work of fiction.
NCAA football players shouldn't be paid.

"They never got paid in the past, why now?" This unsupported argument is an example of status quo bias. That is, that the old system is good BECAUSE it currently exists. Furthermore, the purpose of the debate is to determine if NCAA players SHOULD be paid. For the purpose of determining a future course of action most beneficial to the will of all parties involved, especially the athletes and NCAA board of directors, the question should focus on whether the athletes SHOULD be compensated, regardless of the past or current systems. This focus on what should occur, rather than what does, will instantly disregard any bias for or against, based on the past or present, or any bureaucratic system, flawed or perfect. Once a consensus is reached, the practical options of implementing the complex changes necessary, if any, can be discussed. As previously stated and referenced, the compensation the athletes receive is extremely disproportionate to the economic value they provide to the NCAA as a whole and its sponsors. This does not imply that colleges should not make money from the student athletes, only that they give more to the athletes. "Most play football in college to get drafted in the NFL, so they will make millions there anyway." This is absolutely not true. Most collegiate athletes do not make it to the NFL, and they are fully aware of this fact. In the following article, it is estimated that under 7% of college football players matriculate to the NFL; an approximation that intentionally over-estimates the matriculation rate. This means that over 93% of college football players will NOT have NFL careers. These players are well-aware of this fact, yet choose to risk their well-being and forgo other career options, including semi-pro football. They receive no compensation off of the university grounds. Even the star college athletes cannot earn money for skills and media influence, forfeiting all benefits of their success to their home university and the NCAA. They cannot earn money until they leave the NCAA. The are not only NOT paid for their talents and influence, but are robbed of the opportunity to earn money independently of the NCAA. http://www.shmoop.com...
NCAA football players shouldn't be paid.

These colleges already give them housing, heat, water, and light, much cheaper than it would be for a regular person. They get free equipment. They get a gym with no membership fee. Why should they give them anymore? Some colleges are businesses, so they have to make money. Most play football in college to get drafted in the NFL, so they will make millions there anyway. All that plus fame if you are good and you get on tv all the time. They never got paid in the past, why now?
NCAA football players shouldn't be paid.

Compensation should not be limited to football players, all student athletes risking their physical well being should be compensated. Football players first and foremost, due to the risks involved in playing football professionally. Concussions, chronic injuries and the persistent possibility of a debilitating injury which could end a career. To put these players at risk with no compensation is immoral. "They should have gone to college for an educationand to play football, not to just play football." Though some students view their college sports career as a free ride to a degree, it is by no means the only motivation. A professional sports career is the sole goal of many athletes. Furthermore, some have no other option; sports is the only way some people can make a living. To have 4 additional years of income can help provide for these young athletes starting out, required to spend hours working in the gym and on the practice field. Again, where does the money in NCAA come from and go to? Television airtime, brand sponsorship and ticket sales revenue is poured into the NCAA and on the other side, where does it all go? Tuition cost continues to increase annually; certainly it does not go to the students, much less the athletes. A NCAA student is required to wear the equipment provided by the university under the contract between the college and the sports company (Nike, Reebok, Under Armour"). These companies profit enormously, yet the student athletes do not see a dime. As seen in the following article, Nike pays under $80,000 for a 3 year sponsorship deal at Duke University and receives $1.2 million in return. In this deal, the school receives no money for their students' talents, much less the athletes on the field. In the NFL, companies must pay to sponsor the athletes. If this did not happen, we would not have an NFL. Yet, student athletes are expected to be paid wages (non-monetary) that are extremely disproportionate to the economic value they provide. http://voices.suntimes.com...
NCAA football players shouldn't be paid.

NCAA football should be paid for their work, just as any other profession should be. NCAA football players are already paid for their skills in the form of tuition and housing at their team's school. To add more to that reimbursement is only fair to the students, considering the revenue generated by their talent on national television and local ticket sales. The income from college football games goes directly to the university to be used at the will of the executives, just the same as in the NFL. However, in the NFL, the players of course need to be paid, so why should the young NCAA players be excluded from monetary compensation? The college league as a whole is much smaller in terms of average media exposure and the player salaries should be in proportion, first compensated with tuition and living expenses, then supplemented based on performance. To profit from the talents of others without due compensation is slavery.
The president of Iran did not say he wanted to wipe the Jewish people off the map.

You gave me his exact words, translated. He said the ayotollah wants the current regime that occupies jeruselum (israel) to be wiped off the map. The ayotollah, as a theocratic ruler, represents the ideas of Iran. Your persoanl interpretation is delightful, but the words were there. Im not claiming anything about Mr. Adhamadinejad or that Iran is a bad place. i can only say: he said what he said.
The United States Should Reinstate Prohibition

Rebuttal Contention 1: You seem to have refuted your own point here. Even though it is illegal, it can happen anyway. That statement applies to both alcohol and drunk driving. Also, alcohol itself does not have to be illegal for drunk driving to be illegal. Prohibition of alcohol is overkill when the desired effect is the elimination of drunk driving. Contention 2: How so? Drunk driving is illegal now, and it still causes accidents. Making the alcohol itself illegal is not gong to change this. Contention 3: Alcohol production, sales, and consumption would be moved to the black market, which would actually drive up prices due to the considerable risk involved. The money, instead of going to debts, could still go towards alcohol. Arguments Argument 1: Prohibition did not work to decrease crime in the 1920s and 1930's, there is no reason to believe that it would be an effective means of controlling alcohol consumption now. People stockpiled cases of alcohol before Prohibition went into effect and had alcohol prescribed by their doctors (which was legal). There was also a black market created to smuggle rum from the Caribbean and whiskey from Canada, produce liquor, and operate speakeasies. [1] Instead of decreasing crime, it increased it. Reinstating Prohibition would presumably cause the same effects as it caused in the 1920s. Argument 2: Prohibition of the consumption of alcohol limits personal freedom to as one wishes with one's own body. For those that consume alcohol responsibly (i.e. without committing crimes while drunk or becoming alcoholics), there is no reason not to allow them to drink. Argument 3: The is evidence to suggest that light to moderate consumption of alcohol (one to two drinks per day) reduces the risk of developing diseases such as coronary heart disease, ischemic stroke, and total stroke. [2] To prohibit moderate consumption of alcohol would negatively impact health. Sources: [1] http://history1900s.about.com... [2] http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org...
There exists a scientific miracle in the Qur'an [#2]

Aristotel says - "It has been previously stated that the discharge accompanying sexual pleasure in the female contributes nothing to the embryo." then continues, "The chief argument for the opposite view is that what are called bad dreams occur by night with women as with men;" then he says " but this is no proof, for the same thing happens to young men also who do not yet emit semen is infertile" So Aristotel opposes who says "female contributes nothing to the embryo" because of "bad dreams occur by night with women as with men;"So Aristotel does not say "gender is identified by sperm". But Quran does say."we are able to make the heaven expanding more that it is already expanded." - Tafsir Alnukat waloyon (year 1058)Again 11 century scholar says " the heaven expanding more that it is already expanded." So you are wrong. "Rebuttal 3 [Knockdown refutation]: Pro is still committing the same non-sequitur fallacy by implying that if the Qur'an cannot be matched, it should be sent from God. "Where I said "Qur'an cannot be matched, it should be sent from God." I basicaly said if it is the work of man, then it is most possible other man also could do the same. And to prove this opposition (all who oppose to Quran) required to produce three verses alike Quran or better. And it is not "Black Swan" argument.Is producing three verses is ho hard?! Is humanity so stupid that they cannot do better job than the Arab who lived in desert, in 7th century and also was illiterate?! There are four explanations for who wrote Quran:1. Non-Arab did it.2. Arab did it.3. Muhammed (s.a.s.) (and his companions) did it. (is option is unnecessary because Muhammed (s.a.s.) and his companions were Arab)4. God did it.Is here another possible explanation. If you use a very little (minimum IQ requirement is 40) logic, and deduction, and rational thinking, you will left with one choice, and it is upto you (by, you I mean each person). All, you have to do read the Quran, study it (what it says, why it says that, what is the reason, and etc, ask questions to yourself.)I did not say arithmetic miracle, I said "simple arithmetics".(Allah) Rules the cosmic affair from the heavens to the Earth. Then this affair travels to Him a distance in one day, at a measure of one thousand years of what you count. 32.5The angels and the Spirit ascend to Him in a day, the measure of which is fifty thousand years. 70.4First of all where these verses say Go in the sky?! And it does not say also "2 camel day = 14 foot day" It says (first one) your 1,000 years is equal to 1 day for the affair (which is traveling). So you are wrong, again.I have left approximately 2400 characters, if you count.And by the way, it is the muslims who saved the ancient greek knowledge, from Church. You should thank us, for making you able to quote from Aristotle.
Everything that humans do is because of their own self-interest.

To be frank, I'm disappointed with my opponent's response. He clearly misses the point of my argument, even when I allow him to advocate a triviality. My opponent's main counterargument is to argue that PE is not an empirical doctrine, but he has given no reason for why this is so. I can tell he is unfamiliar with PE or any philosophical discussion about it because if he were truly a proponent of PE - which he obviously is given his position - then he would realize it is very much an empirical doctrine. As you can see from my two links[1][2], PE is a descriptive account of human behavior. In fact, the second link goes into great detail to describe PE "the empirical doctrine that the determining motive of every voluntary action is a desire for one's own welfare." It should plainly obvious it's an empirical doctrine - it attempts to explain an element of human behavior. "But there is not one [politician] who is not motivated by his self-interests, whatever those may be." My opponent employs an analogy and then drops it's original content. He states that corrupt politician is redundant, but we use it anyway. As I stated in my previous round, this is NOT so. There is obviously a politician who is conceivably not corrupt, and thus those "corrupt politician" is not logically identical to "politician." However, he sweeps this rebuttal aside by reiterating his position. Mongoose, if you're going to use an analogy you should stick to it. Since my opponent has completely disregarded my point about it being unfalsifiable, I feel no need to say anymore. ---References--- 1. http://plato.stanford.edu... 2. http://philosophy.lander.edu...
Steady State Theory VS Big Bang

I will be proving Steady State Theory/QSS is a superior cosmological model to the Big Bang. Subutai will be proving The Big Bang Theory as superior cosmological model to Steady State Theory. Burden Of Proof is shared. Evidence varying from: Equations, Graphs, Videos, Theology, Scholarly papers, ETC are welcome. First round is for acceptance. 2 is for evidence 3-4 evidence/clash, 5 clash and final statements. Good luck!
All Drugs Should be Legalised for Recreational Use

Economics of ProhibitionMy opponent claims that prohibition is at least not problematic for the economy. The evidence my opponent uses to back up this assertion of is that during prohibition the economy takes a hit? I think we agree on this one.Just because drugs cause financial problems does not mean that those financial problems will increase with legalisation in fact all the information currently available to us shows that legalisation is beneficial to the economy as a whole.Human Freedom"I would be interested to know how drugs retaining their illegal status impacts "human freedom"."The freedom to take drugs?Lowers Drug AdditctionIt is interesting that our example is the same country (sort of showing you didn't read or check my source's) in fact in Portugal drug use has gone down by over 50% since legalisation [1]. You haven't provided any source for your assertion that "Since then, drug abuse has increased and the number of homoicides related to drug use has gone up by 40%. The rate of drugs related HIV/AIDS and Hepititis C in Portugal is now eight times that of E.U countries." and the only information I can find on the matter contradicts you [2][1] http://www.forbes.com...[2] http://content.time.com... "HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped"
All Drugs Should be Legalised for Recreational Use

"We know the economics of prohibition, we know that when a substance is prohibited the economy takes a hit". On the contrary, recreational drug use has been shown to have a negative impact on the economy and the healthcare system as a whole. The total cost of drug abuse is estimated at $524 billion a year. Illicit drug use accounts for $181 billion in healthcare and productivity loss. Concerning fatality rates, in 2011 drugs overdose accounted for 41,340 deaths in the U.S alone. In the same year the number of U.S drugs related deaths exceeded (for the 4th time) the number of fatalities in road traffic accidents. Almost five people per hour died of recreational overdose according to 2011 statistics. In 2012, U.K drugs related deaths also exceeded the number of road traffic accidents. Such information confirms that drug legalisation is not cost efficient, or beneficial to the economy or overall standard of living. Human Freedom What people choose to do in the privacy of their own home is their choice. My stance is that drugs are illegal for valid reasons and should therefore remain that way. I would be interested to know how drugs retaining their illegal status impacts "human freedom". Lowers Drug Additction An example of drug addition and drug use not being lowered would be Portugal, where recreational drugs were decriminalised in 2001. Since then, drug abuse has increased and the number of homoicides related to drug use has gone up by 40%. The rate of drugs related HIV/AIDS and Hepititis C in Portugal is now eight times that of E.U countries.
All Drugs Should be Legalised for Recreational Use

EconomyWe know the economics of prohibition. We know that when a substance is prohibited the economy takes a hit [1]. This will reduce the standard of living for the populous as a whole. Human FreedomI would like to know what my opponent thinks gives him the right to regulate what a person does to their own body in the privacy of their own home.Lowers Drug AddictionUnder almost every example of legalisation drug consumption goes down, this is because in countries where drugs are legalised there is not legal pressure not to come forward as an addict and because of this in countries where drugs are legalised more addicts get treatment [2].[1] https://mises.org...[2] http://www.forbes.com...
The people on this site are hypocrites( excluding the arguing) they talk of ignorance on the christi

I'm not saying I'm superior because of knowledge, I'm not saruman. People don't realize 1.) if you believe in a God that created the world, he is in every part of the world. When someone creates something it has a purpose. If god is superior and you realize that then you should just go with his will. Evil is a corruption of Good. The natural state is a good state. No one can be completely bad , people can only veer toward bad ideas( sinning) by commiting evil actions.
The people on this site are hypocrites( excluding the arguing) they talk of ignorance on the christi

On the part of the Christians but they do not realize the logic and reason of the Catholics ( mainly) for example they say it is wrong ( in terms of A RELIGIOUS ARGUMENT) to assume that all that is unnatural is evil, is it not bad when a cow acts mad ( not in accordance to the cows nature ( unnatural)) or when a dog meows..what other evil is there besides that which is corrupt? I will be pointing out the ignorance sand general points of theological reasoning in order to show how flawed the viters are. Con will defend them. Hopefully after this argument the voters will not hate me, I would ask them to feel free to vote against me but PLEASE REFLECT ON HOW YOU ARGUE AND WUY YOU CRITICIZE!!!