BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Holy Bible is Perfect and Proves that Christianity is True (Take 3)

All my arguments against the Bible are continued since the Pro forfeited the last round. 1. Who Were the First Visitors to Jesus" Tomb? Source: Matthew 28:1 Answer: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary Source: Mark 16:1 Answer: The two Marys, plus a third person, Salome Source: Luke 24:10 Answer: The two Marys, Joanna, and "the others." Source: John 20:1 Answer: Only Mary Magdalene 2. Was the Stone Rolled Away? Source: Matthew 28:1-2 Answer: The stone was in place when they arrived, and the angel rolled it back. Source: Mark 16:4 Answer: The stone had already been rolled away upon their arrival, noted also in Luke 24:2 and John 20:1. 3. Who Did the Visitors Tell of Jesus" Empty Tomb? Source: Matthew 28:8 Answer: The visitors were overjoyed, and they ran to tell the disciples Source: Mark 16:8 Answer: They were afraid, and told no one. 4. Where Was Jesus on the Sixth Hour of the Crucifixion? Source: Mark 15:32-33 Answer: Christ was already on the cross at 9 am. Source: John 19:14-15 Answer: It was 9 am as Jesus was being judged at Pilate"s palace. 5. When Was Jesus Crucified? Source: Mark 15:25 Answer: The third hour, as noted in the Amplified Bible, is 9 am Source: John 19:14-16 Answer: The sixth hour is Noon. These five questions are examples of biblical error and inconsistency. They prove that the gospels are contradictory and cannot be reliable as a source for the last hours of the life of Jesus. If the Bible cannot be consistent in a few points, then how can we trust it on any point? If the Pro returns to the debate in the next round, he still has to deal with my rebuttal to his arguments as well. Rebuttals for Pros arguments, which are explained in more detail in round 2: 1. There is no way to prove that the book of Matthew was written before or after 70 A.D. 2. Modern science has shown how Atoms stay together vs. the Pros assumption that Jesus does it because the Bible says so. 3. It is more probable to believe that the tomb was empty for other reasons instead of a resurrection, which is highly improbable. 4. Women as witnesses proves nothing, also considering the inconsistency in the gospels about what they actual reported. 5. The martyrdom of apostles and believers is without evidence, at least the Pro gave none.
The Holy Bible is Perfect and Proves that Christianity is True (Take 3)

This will be my third attempt to find a worthy opponent for this debate. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY SO THERE IS NO CONFUSION: 1. My opponent MUST be a Christian. 2. My opponent MUST believe that the Bible is the perfect word of God. 3. My opponent must understand that they will be arguing from the PRO side. I will define perfect so there is no confusion: "Perfect would entail without error. Error would include contradictions, historical mishaps and other things like author verification, dating and such. " This definition is what we would expect from a perfect God.
Pastafarianism is a legitimate religion

le"git"i"mate adjective adjective: legitimate liG2;jitəmit/ 1. conforming to the law or to rules. "his claims to legitimate authority" synonyms:legal, lawful, licit, legalized, authorized, permitted, permissible, allowable, allowed, admissible, sanctioned, approved, licensed, statutory, constitutional antonyms:illegal Now lets see the definition of what you call religion: re"li"gion riG2;lijən/ noun 1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods. "ideas about the relationship between science and religion" synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed http://www.huffingtonpost.com... People call Pastafarianism a fictitious religion. If I should say the definition for you, then fictitous means not true or real. "But after a Google search, they learned "FSM" stood for "Flying Spaghetti Monster," the noodly appendaged deity of a fictitious religion called "Pastafarianism" that's popular among some atheists and agnostics" This shows Pastafarians are not legitimate. If you say you know the FSM is not real, then what are the Pastafarian beliefs? If you admit that most of ou don't believe in that, then what do you believe in?
Pastafarianism is a legitimate religion

Of course it is not true that the FSM created the universe, and it was indeed originally meant to be a mock religion. However, as it gained a following and popularity, moral guidelines were added. These include things such as acceptance, tolerance, and the use of common sense in situations such as murder and rape. Most Pastafarians don't believe that the FSM didn't create the universe, myself included, but many Christians believe in evolution and the big bang theory. The majority of Pastafarians and Christians will agree that this does not make a Pastafarian less of a Pastafarian, nor a Christian less of a Christian. Even though plenty of it is satire, this does not make it less of a religion. Here is a quote from the founder of modern day Pastafarianism: "Some Pastafarians honestly believe in the FSM, and some see it as satire. I would just make the point that satire is an honest, legitimate basis for religion. Satire relies on truth to be effective. If it"s a joke, it"s a joke where to understand the punchline you must be conscious of underlying truth". Another quote from him states that we are not an anti-religious organization. There are, however, both satirical passages and parts of the Gospel not to be taken literally, such as the Pasta, the Meatballs, and the Holy Sauce. While at some points it is, as you say, mocking other religions, this does not make it less of one. The fact that the Pastafarian Heaven is different from the Christian one has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the religion. By that logic, any religion with a heaven depicted differently from Christianity's should be considered a fake religion.
Pastafarianism is a legitimate religion

When you think about it, it does not sound true that a flying spaghetti stereotype should be considered a god for people. It just seems very unrealistic. Pastafarianism includes pirates as holy beings, heaven being interpreted different ways than in Christianity. It is not a legitimate religion because people get drunk with grog and wenches. This seems to be mocking Christianity as it copies The Trinity. Instead of The Son, The Father, and The Holy Spirit, Pastafarians mock it as the Pasta, the Meatballs, and the Holy Sauce. Pastafarians seem to be more focused on the FSM. To me, this religion seems like a mockery of other religions. http://wikiality.wikia.com...
Pastafarianism is a legitimate religion

The teachings of Pastafarianism normally publicized are those informing of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. This, however, is not what Pastafarianism is about. The main teachings about Pastafarianism are about acceptance and love. The Flying Spaghetti Monster, an entity much like the Invisible Pink Unicorn, is merely to get people to laugh and understand why Pastafarians find other beliefs unlikely, which then encourages them to look deeper into the teachings. Many dedicated Pastafarians view it as many view Buddhism, a religion that can go by itself (as in atheistic Buddhists and Pastafarians), or a lifestyle that can work well with other religions. Pastafarianism is a very easy-going and lighthearted religion, that surely constantly uses humor frequently within its holy scripts, but this doesn't make it less of a religion! In fact, many websites that allow you to display a religion, such as this one, offer Pastafarianism as an option.
Pastafarianism is a legitimate religion

Many do not believe in specific Gods, you are correct. But they do believe in SOMETHING. Man invented religion, so no religion is truly legitimate. Many think a religion is legitimate just because of it being a official religion. But in truth, some religions are man made.(1) So, in conclusion, it was made legitimate by humans themselves. Good luck to my opponent. (1) http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...
Pastafarianism is a legitimate religion

There are several definitions of religions that define them as requiring Gods, and also many that don't. The only way to decide if this is true is by looking to see if there are any atheistic religions accepted as religions by the governments of most first world countries. A very clear example comes to mind, Buddhism. Buddhists don't believe in any specific God, and many will argue on whether or nor a God exists. Does this mean Buddhism is not a religion? No, it just means that Buddhism tries to teach you should do good things in the current life because it's the right thing to do, not by threatening to torture you forever. Both Pastafarianism and Buddhism are religions, but there are plenty Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. that adopt them both as lifestyles.
The US is Horrible at spreading Democracy

Alright I will make this short and sweet. It is really a historical debate.1. The U.S. has been involved in a number of conflicts resulting in the establishment of a Liberal Democracy.Examples:-Libyan Civil War-Invasion Of Iraq-Gulf War(survival of Kuwaiti democracy)-WW1(Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Turkey, and Austria gained limited or total representitave democracy) -WW2(Japan,West Germany, Italy, Austria, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxenbourg, France, and Demark.) In addition to that I would also add South Korea was saved from Communism and later supported in becoming a Capitlaist Liberal Democracy. The same can be said of Taiwan, Thailand, and arguabley the strong NATO presence in Western Europe shattered the vibrant Communist movement after the defeat of Nazi Germany. Furthermore the United States has provided aide to nations on the path to democracy like Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and later Russia her self.All of the aforementioned countries the Untied States have either converted through war or aided via financial/millitary aide. All of which today are Capitalist Liberal Democracies to this day, a few of which are corrupt however they still meet the resolution. Thus it is easy to conclude the US is not horrible at spreading democracy.
Jessie is a Racist Show

I believe that the show Jessie on Disney channel is a racist show. There are many reasons why and one of them is the fact that the characters are so stereotypical. The fact the the character Ravi even changed the way his voice sounds says a lot. Not all Indian boys are like Ravi, not all black girls are like Zuri, not all white girls are like Emma, and the same thing goes for Luke. Does this not disturb you that not just Disney but the creator would let this happen. Its either that or Disney channel is oblivious to everything around them which is likely. I think that the creator or at least the writer is definitely aware of this. The actors may just be as oblivious as Disney channel. And to conclude Jessie makes me sick. Cannot stand watching it. Something needs to be done. Unless someone can convince me that I a wrong a petition is being made.
Jessie is a Racist Show

Did you forfeit because you think you lost, ran out of evidence, or forgot to post?The following quote is a comment for the show Jessie on the website: Jessie: Worst Disney Channel Shows | TheTopTens.com * "Zuri-(-10000 out of 10000)She is such a brat and there are no words that can explain enough of how much I hate her. My sister is starting to act a lot like her. This is a bad show that influences bad things.Emma-(1 out of 100)I give her this score because I feel bad how they make her a "dumb blonde." Disney what are you trying to teach these kids?Luke-(-10000 out of 10000)This guy is always make "suggestions" that are very inappropriate (sorry I keep forgetting how to spell this word). I honestly feel like he is going to grow up to be a rapist.Ravi-(-100000 out of 10000)This kid is always somehow insulting India. I have never been there yet I have so much respect for every country.Bertram or Bertrum-(100 out of 500)I feel sad for him a little because they are always making fun of him being overweight. Disney teach the kids right. You might as well make this show for adults.Least but also the worst Jessie-(-1000000 out of 1000000000000)She always leaves the kids alone and if they do something wrong she either does nothing or sends them to there room to "think about their life" NOT punishment Jessie.This show gives off bad influences. I am only a kid and I love show from the 70's like Sanford and Son, What's Happening and Good Times. I get sick and tired of asking people about the show and then if they ask to tell what it's about and you start off saying when it was aired they are all like "I don't know no show that was from a long time ago. What are you 70 years old"The parts I want to point out is the part were he/she was talking about Emma, Ravi (,this is not a cause of his accent, I agree with you about the accent), Bertrum, and the part about bad influence. These are all very true. (I agree with the whole thing but it is non-related to the debate so do not debate on it. Please do not.)*If the link did not work try this link: http://www.thetoptens.com...
Jessie is a Racist Show

As someone said in the comments section that was supposed to be against me but however will strengthen my point is that the Ravi's personality is supposed to be humorous because it is stereotypical. That sounds pretty racist to me. You have made me change my mind about Ravi's voice but can you not see that their personality is so racist and stereotypical. Click the following link for more info. http://www.8asians.com...
a Jet plane is better then a Train

General purpose of a train, versus the general purpose of a jet planeA train is a method of public transport. Its function is to transport a medium size amount of people (say 30-80, on average) to locations that are normally relatively close by. Trains rarely cross national borders, and very rarely travel to countries on separate land masses. The train serves as a generally more efficient way of travelling across small spaces. However, a jet plane can travel across land masses that are continents apart, something that a train almost never does. For example, a jet plane travelling from Australia to America, would do so infinitely more easily than a train (seeing as trains are yet to do this, at least via rail). Thus, jet planes serve a purpose that trains cannot. Trains are obviously far more efficient at travelling from local town to local town. When both purposes are considered simultaneously, it is impossible to conclude as to which is ‘better’. The underlying problem with my opponent’s argumentMy opponent’s conclusion: “trains are a better way to travel than an airplane”, cannot be affirmed as the purposes of each type differ.1) Trains are better at covering shorter distances2) Planes cover longer distances that trains cannot3) Comparing the two, when their ultimate purposes differ so greatly, is like comparing chalk to cheese4) Therefore, my opponent’s conclusion cannot be affirmed, as whether trains are a better way to travel than airplanes, due to the purposes of each differ so greatly
2nd wave and 3rd wave/modern feminism is harmful and should not exist.

He is plagiarizing as well by not crediting what was actually typed by others, simply placing a link and not marking what they said is plagiarizing, and if he attempts to do it next round he is forfeiting his Final Focus round as well. So ill move to the actual standing arguments. a1. your proof was your opinion not actual evidencea2. you claimed feminists hated men and quoted a woman who wanted to kill men, I showed a feminist that was fond of men, intern nullifying your argument. a3. You showed a 1% difference in favor of men in a small area in Canada, just east there's a 7.5% difference saying women are raped more. a3-5. you pulled a study and didn't read it, it doesn't talk about women in men's prisons raping men. that's not even viable, lets just use logic, sex offenders are being raped by women? no, just no. The burden of proof lies on the affirmation, as they are trying to prove the resolution, at no point did I accept this burden so it still sits there for you to prove. As neg as long as the resolution isn't proven I win, Seeing as my opponent hasn't provided this BOP he has lost this debate. At this point we can only see a ballot in favor of the negation.
2nd wave and 3rd wave/modern feminism is harmful and should not exist.

I challenged my opponent, because they challenged me to a flawed resolution. I am not against gender equality, I am against modern day feminism and 2nd wave feminism (about 1960's-70's). This round will not be for acceptance. 2nd round opening arguments. 3rd round is new arguments/rebuttals (both,or one). 4th round is for rebuttals. 5th round is for rebuttals and closing statements.
Yo Mamma Battle.

yo momma's so fat dora couldn;'t explore her yo momma's so fat she got more crack than a drug dealer yo momma's so ugly she joined a contest and they said sorry no cheating yo momma's so skinny mc hammer wasn't the only one singing can't touch this yo momma's so fat she walked into big lots and they said park it over there yo momma's so fat people jog around her for excercise yo momma's so stupid she thought to asses make one hole yo momma's so ugly she scared k-fed yo momma's so fat when she gets on a scale it says to be continued yo momma's so fat her belt size is equator yo momma's so fat she's on both sides of the family yo momma's so fat they have to grease thr bath tub to get her out yo momma's so fat she stands in two time zones yo momma's so fat she bleeds gravy yo momma's so fat she fell in love and broke it yo momma's so tall she tripped and hit her head on the moon yo momma's so fat her breast milk is kool-aid yo mama so bald you can see whats on her mind yo mama so bald that she took a shower and got brain-washed yo mama so skinny she hula hoops with a cheerio yo mama so stupid she thought she needed a token to get on Soul Train yo mama so poor she went to McDonald's and put a milkshake on layaway. yo momma's so poor her face is on a food stamp yo mama so hairy she wears a Nike tag on her weave so now everybody calls her Hair Jordan yo mama so short you can see her feet on her drivers lisence yo mama head so small she use a tea-bag as a pillow yo mama so greasy Texaco buys Oil from her yo mama teeth are so yellow traffic slows down when she smiles yo mama so old I told her to act her own age, and she died yo mama so old she has a picture of Moses in her yearbook yo mama so old she ran track with dinosaurs yo mama so ugly they didn't give her a costume when she auditioned for the role of chubbakah
banning guns

Thank you for your opening argument. I look forward to continuing this debate. I am glad you quoted those statistics. Whilst they may be true you miss the point of this debate. Whilst more lives are saved by guns then taken by them, what about the case of school shootings. In Stoneman Douglas, only 17 people were killed. Are you actually going to argue that the sum total of a murder by guns is based in the numbers. The value of human life extends way beyond that. Your statistics miss the point. They analyze two very different things. The impact of a school shooting is immeasurable. More so than the death count, but physiological effects which will have a severe impact on the student"s ability to develop. Your use of those statistics completely misrepresents the debate. You cannot value school shootings on the death tolol; it is very rarely high. I argue today that school shootings have a far greater impact than the number of students who die, and it extends to the family, staff and friends of the victims, and is, in my opinion, quite narrow sighted to say that just because less people are killed, guns have a positive impact. Secondly, i would like to address your point about knife violence, without strqaying to far from the debate. In the UK, knife violence is only common because of gangs. A report concluded that nearly 77% of stabbings in London are motivated due to gang violence. Furthermore, outside of gangs, there is very little knife crime. As a result, the best way to avoid being stabbed: don't join a gang. The relevance of this is that you argued that London was more violent than New York. This is only true when you look at a very very small proportion of the statistics - two months of 2018 there were more violent crimes in London and yet still less murders. When the vast majority is viewed, New York is significantly more dangerous - largely due to the high levels of gun violence. (https://www.independent.co.uk...) In London, there were 116 murders in 2017 and nearly 300 in New York. This is attributed to the gun violence that is present in New York, showing yet another reason to ban guns. Finally, I would like to address your point about self protection. In the UK, there is no need to carry guns or knives because there is little threat. Your argument essentially disproves itself. If you take away all the guns; you would not need to carry protection. However, by carrying guns you increase the potential and the ability for gun violence to occur. No guns = no gun violence, whereas More guns = more potential for gun violence. The UK banned guns after Dunblane and Hungerford - both mass shootings - yet Americans are convinced that the only way to protect themselves from guns is by buying more guns. IF you can't recognise that is a flawed concept, then this debate will go nowhere.
banning guns

I lived in england to for 9 years but if you listen to Bbc news they did a whole story on knife violence in the uk, and how they are trying to ban it. Their just limiting the ability for their citizens to defend them selves. Gun violence is lower than you think to because around 30000 thousand lives are killed each year to gun violence. How ever 1 to 2 million lives are saved each year in the us acording to washinton post in fact some lives are saved with out firing a bullet.
banning guns

Banning guns in the USA is a horrible Idea, because your taking the right of law abiding citizens to defend them selves against people trying to do them harm. Also before looking at countries like England and say their less violent then us, their murder rates has tripled, for example London's murder rate is higher than New York, in fact its so bad their trying to ban knives. Do you see the cycle first its guns, than knives, then most likely hammers. Not to mention most gun violent crimes are used with illegal guns. If you don't believe gun trafficking is the problem look at mexico, they have three times the gun violence but stricter gun laws.
In the United States, Abortion Ought to be Criminalized in Most Circumstances

Point 1: Unborn Children are People There is one test for humanity that is always successful. Does it have human DNA? If so, it is human. In the case of unborn children, they undoubtedly have human DNA, and, as such, are people. Point 2: The Right to Life Trumps the Right of Bodily Autonomy If you didn't have life, you couldn't have bodily autonomy. Essentially, to violate the right to life is to violate all of the rights of a human being. Point 3: Unborn Children's Right to Life Trumps the Mother's Right to Bodily Autonomy Given that there's a guarantee that this child will someday become a part of society, unless something tragic happens to it, it's rights are far greater than that of the mother's.