BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abiogenesis Is A Sound Explanation For The Origin Of Life On Earth

Full ResolutionAbiogenesis is a sound explanation for the origin of life on Earth. ProHas the BoP and 4 sets of 10,000 characters, with 3 days to post per argument, to AFFIRM that abiogenesis is a sound explanation for the origin of life on earth and refute Con. ConHas also 4 sets of 10,000 characters, with 3 days to post per argument, to NEGATE that abiogenesis is a sound explanation for the origin of life on earth and refute Pro. Definitionsabiogenesis - the concept that organic molecules and subsequent simple life forms, on earth, first originated from inorganic substances. . https://www.merriam-webster.com...sound - based on reason, sense, or judgment. . https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...explanation - a statement or account that makes something clear. . https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...origin - the point or place where something begins, arises, or is derived. . https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...life - the condition that distinguishes animals, plants, fungi, protista, archaea, and bacteria, from inorganic matter, including the capacity for metabolism and reproduction. . https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...Earth - the planet on which we live that is third in order from the sun. . https://www.merriam-webster.com...the sun - the star round which the earth orbits. . https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
The historical Jesus predicted a first-century doomsday

Did the historical Jesus preach an imminent day of doom? He may have or he may not have; his earliest followers certainly anticipated an immediate apocalypse and littered their messages with this anticipation (1 Thess 5:2–3, 1 Cor 7:26, Mk 13, etc.). Jesus was most likely an obscure man from Nazareth. Baptized as an adult by John the Baptist, he began his own preaching ministry shortly thereafter collecting a small and insignificant number of followers who thought he was the Messiah come to deliver Israel from foreign rule. In this way, Jesus appears to have been the head figure of one of many early first century messianic movements, with his followers expecting him to rise to power, overthrow the Romans, and re-establish Jewish rule in its rightful place. Whether intentionally or not, Jesus seems to have founded a doomsday cult. But it is intentionality that is at the center of this debate. Jesus' followers preached him be be an apocalypticist, but can we be sure he himself was an apocalypticist? Jesus' followers expected an imminent overthrow of Roman rule, but how can we be certain that Jesus himself predicted the apocalypse to happen soon? I will argue that we cannot be certain when Jesus predicted the day of doom would occur; and that we can also not be certain that Jesus preached an imminent apocalypse. I will show that the words attributed to Jesus in the gospels have clearly been constructed by their authors—intending them for their contemporaneous audience (Christians living in about 70–100 a.d.). Having shown these words and sentiments to be the words and sentiments of the gospel authors, it will be clear that we cannot rely on early Christian writings to determine the thoughts of a man who himself left no writing and whose supposed theology—attested in multiple ancient sources in drastically varying character—was never reliably recorded by anyone. Did the historical Jesus preach an imminent day of doom? He may have or he may not have. What I will show is that any conclusions drawn regarding specific aspects of the historical Jesus' theology—that he preached imminent doom or that he didn't preach imminent doom—are unsubstantiated. I will show that my opponent's position cannot possibly rest on evidence about Jesus' theology because such evidence simply does not exist. It is just not possible to validly draw conclusions about the specifics of Jesus' theology given the shroud in which the historical Jesus has been wrapped by his early followers. I will cite material from early Christian authors and modern scholars to support my claims and refute those of my opponent. When the last round has been posted, it will be clear that any conclusions regarding the prediction of the historical Jesus are simply unfounded and unsubstantiated. JM
The historical Jesus predicted a first-century doomsday

ResolutionThe historical Jesus Christ predicted that the doomsday would happen within the short time span of his own generation (within the 1st century CE).ClarificationThis resolution is NOT an attempt to faithfully interpret the New Testament, though the writings of the New Testament may be used for evidence. The debate is about the probable historical Jesus, not necessarily the Jesus of Biblical trust and faith (though it can be).A previous similar debate was completed here: http://www.debate.org...DefinitionsYou may disagree with these definitions and adopt your own, but the following definitions are offered to clarify the resolution and my own meanings. "Jesus Christ" or "Jesus" is a proposed historical human being of the same rough profile of the central character of Jesus in the Christian gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. “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.” 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 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. If you wish to forfeit, then post it. Don't let the time run out.
Being a KKK member or Nazi should be allowed because of free speech

You sick, depraved, conniving little cunt. You are literally the reason why myself and the rest of the world hates your sh!thole of a country. The USA will actually defend anything. Even the greatest mass murderer of the human race. "Ah yeah whatever, sure Hitler killed like half a million americans and millions of jews and australians and new zealanders and french and russians. Women, children and animals, all tortured horrifically before being brutally and ruthlessly murdered. But like that was likeee a 100 years ago man, let it go. If people wanna like worship him and maybe take up his beliefs kill like i don't know, a few THOUSAND here and there like thats their choice because like the first amendment, freedom of speech says that I'm a dumb cunt" Yes, yes you are. Just because a few old american cunts, way back in the 1800s said; "AH GUYS, need to write some rules for this country" doesn't mean they're perfect. The constitution has actually been amended (modified or changed, for your weak mind) 27 times. Which just goes to show that our society is constantly changing and the old men who originally wrote it aren't gods. They made mistakes, like all humans do. Just like the massive one you've made right now by starting this pointless debate. The constitution isn't perfect, and so for the sake of the rest of the world, STOP QUOTING IT EVERY TEN SECONDS. All name calling and jokes aside, this is honestly pathetic, and you should be disgusted. Belief in a religion, man, society or group that takes pleasure in murdering human life should never EVER be tolerated or socially acceptable. There is a reason society shuns Neo Nazis and the like. What a distasteful and vile notion. May you never run for office or even cast another f^cking vote. You are a disgrace to the human race. Kudos.
Being a KKK member or Nazi should be allowed because of free speech

I myself hate the KKK and nazi's but in the first ammendment it states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I believe that hate speech laws should not be a thing. Hate speech is based on opinion. One person could think praising Hitler is terrible but there is people who think it is normal and they do it everyday. I say no more...
Bill and Ted is a time paradox!

It would seem that Pro has misinterpreted my argument. I never said that either the past nor present Bill and Ted will cease to exist, only that it would be impossible for multiple Bill and Teds to return to one specific point in time. While it is true that the past versions of themselves that Bill and Ted meet when they return from the future have to go through what the future selves went through, it is incorrect to assume what happens to this cycle because the two past selves may have traveled to a separate reality that the future Bill and Ted did not travel to, allowing them to pick up the historic figures as well, and travel back to another separate reality in the present. Also, this movie takes place in a fictional time line. The future that they travel to is one where they are more or less revered as gods, which is of course not at all what our future shall be. The point being that not enough time had passed to show any significant changes that could have occurred from them pulling the various historic figures from their times because none of the figures shown had any true world changing effects on the world as we know it. It is also not known at what point in their lives they were taken, so it is unclear whether this would affect the important decisions they may have made, or if they were to try and tell other people about their journey to the future, whether or not anybody would believe them.
Bill and Ted is a time paradox!

Well, as con is explaining, there is an unknown of which what Bill and Ted after they have had gone into the past had done after returning to their final time. But the thing is that, the machine they used was a telephone booth, but even though it was created in the future, this doesn't mean that when they do return and see themselves again, they just disappear. If the Bill and Ted of the present were to meet the future Bill and Ted, that means that at one point in time that they would have to repeat said events in the movie. But once they have returned to the present they meet themselves again, which means the ones they meet must also go through this cycle. Also, they never just traveled into only one time, they went to multiple time periods. Take into consideration, when they went to the past, at means that everything that was happening never happened. In thinking so, then when they were then returning to their own time, they would meet themselves because then time went to that specific moment. Even though they were going to a specific date and time, doesn't mean that this set of Bill and Ted will disappear once meeting themselves. Also, with knowing that mater that is created can not just destroyed or be lost from nothing, than that is stating that the Bill and Ted's that comes back have to be alive, while the other set are continuing their adventure. Also, if you take into consideration, the movie itself is a time paradox, because the events that happen in that movie caused not significant change in history, but still altered.
Bill and Ted is a time paradox!

Pro has not offered a definition of what a time paradox is. Definition: A temporal paradox (also called a time paradox and time travel paradox) is a paradoxical situation in which a time traveler causes, through actions in the past, the exclusion of the possibility of the time travel that allowed those actions to be taken. Ignoring the fact that pro has misused the phrase "time paradox" in his argument (Bill and Ted were able to travel back to their present time perfectly fine) and there is only speculation as to how time travel works, I strongly disagree with pro's conclusion. First of all, the way in which Bill and Ted traveled through time was with a telephone booth from the future, with which they entered a specific date and time into. This is where pro's argument falls apart, if they were to enter a specific date and time into the machine, they would travel to that exact moment in time and not any time before or after. (i.e. if they traveled to February 15, 1995, at 5:00 pm, they wouldn't show up again at 5:01 pm) Also, pro seems to believe that this cycle will keep recurring over and over again, when in fact this is false. The past Bill and Ted will arrive in the present, but what happens to them when they arrive in the present is unsure. This is because they essentially create two separate entities of themselves at one specific point in time. It's possible that the Bill and Ted that return to their present arrive in a separate reality, but again, that can only be left to speculation. It is however, impossible for them to have multiple "past selves" return to their future because the machine was designed to only allow them to travel to one specific point in time. So unless the duo decided to return a minute or two later than their other past selves, (which does not happen in the movie) it would be impossible for them to return to the same present multiple times.
Bill and Ted is a time paradox!

Ok, I am for the topic, Bill and Ted is a time paradox. With in the movie, they are walking and they met themselves from the future, and they converse with the Bill and Ted of the present. Later in the movie the Bill and Ted of the "present" are in the position of the "future" Bill and Ted's. With this, they have become the future Bill and Ted's, and they meet another set of Bill and Ted's, which means those they have met are now "present" Bill and Ted's. Because the "present" Bill and Ted's have to go through this cycle of going into the pass and all around,(the point of the movie) so those of the "present" become the "future" which makes a new set of "presents". So through out the movie, there will b a time paradox, because those of the "future" have to continue on with their lives, what happens to the new "futures" and the new new "futures"? So the logics and everything is in a spin. With this logical reasoning, i believe that this movie is a time paradox, there is no end of this cycle, which makes time irrelevant to all sorts of beings.
Bill and Ted is a time paradox!

Unfortunately, whenever pro and I have this argument, we also end up going in circles. To prevent this, I will skip to my closing statement. -The time machine will only return them to one specific point in time, not a second before or after. Making multiple Bill and Teds returning to the present impossible -The movie does not provide evidence for or against whether history was altered due to the actions taken by Bill and Ted -The science and logic behind time travel at this point in time is nothing more than speculation. We can neither prove nor disprove a whether there is truly a time paradox in this movie That is all. Thank you Corey for the debate, I look forward to seeing this argument between us finally be resolved. In memory: "Take them to the Iron Maiden." "Excellent!" "Take them to the guillotine." "Bogus..."
Bill and Ted is a time paradox!

As con is admitting that, within the movie, that it is unclear to know what really could or is happening, than in the sense of it, no one is truly right. But also, the sense of time is that, we are going through the time line of Bill and Ted. Their time line in the movie is that, they do the events they do and return, which is the set time line of the characters in the movie. So Bill and Ted already set a set path for which they follow. This states that the past Bill and Ted's will go through the said events in the movie, but since going back in time, they set for another copy of their lives to be made for which they can then remet themselves. For which it must continue on forever, and since we can't see the whole span of time within the movie, we can not know for sure that there were no effects from bringing historical characters into the present time. Also, it was possible for multiple Bill and Ted's to return to a specific time because there had to of been a set of Bill and Ted's to of gone into the past and on their adventure to come back to the point in time they were in front of that store. So technically, there were multiple Bill and Ted's to return to the same moment in time because Bill is Bill and Ted is Ted, their beings have not changed only the time period they are in. I don't think anyone would believe anyone if they were to tell another person that they have had traveled in time. The whole ending of the movie because it hasn't shown enough we can make a speculation of what that can or could of happened in the future of their infinite lives. That concludes my argument for this debate, thank you Ryan for debating and we shall finally finish this discussion. In memory: "Remember when I asked your mom to prom, shut up Ted!" "Bogus." Rockin Beethoven!
The number 4 is Even

If my opponent read what I wrote in R1, the definitions that I provided must be agreed upon before the debate begins. Nevertheless I will allow my opponent's definitions change of the word 'even' to mean: a number that is a multiple of two and is divisible by 2. Now on to my argument.From hereon, I will refer to the sentence '4 is even.' as 4=E.P1: The sentence, 4=E should be read as making a straightforward claim about the nature of the number 4.P2: If the sentence 4=E is true and should be read as making a straightforward claim, there must exist objects of which the sentence is describing.(ex. For the above sentence to be true, the number 4 must exist.C1: If 4=E is true then there must exist mathematical objects.---From P1 and P2P3: If mathematical objects exist, then they are non-spatiotemporal objects.(ex. If the number 4 exists, it is an abstract object as opposed to a physical or mental object.)P4: Abstract objects do not exist.C2: There are no such things as mathematical objects.---From P3 and P4C3: The sentence 4=E is not true for the same reason that the sentence, 'Santa has blue eyes.'is not true.---From C1 and C2I look forward to my opponent's response.
The number 4 is Even

I will be arguing for the negation of the resolution, namely that the sentence "The number 4 is even. " is false. My opponent will argue for the affirmative of the resolution or that the above sentence is true. Round 1: Acceptance, clarifications, definitionsRounds 2-3: Arguments and rebuttalsRound 4: Closing argumentsDefinitionsThe definitions that are provided must be agreed to before the debate begins. Number 4: The natural number following 3 and preceding 5. Even: an integer that is "evenly divisible" by 2, i. e. , divisible by 2 without remainder.
The number 4 is Even

Analysis of debate: My opponent has not upheld his burden the resolution 4 is even. the word "is" is making a descriptive claim. 4 is even. we are to assume the the number four exists and debate on it's nature/characteristics (if it is indeed even). Instead my opponent has debated on the existence of the umber four. My opponent has drop my awesome midget analogy. in his last rebuttal of blue my opponent says "I perceive the specific wavelength of light in a specific way." by the same token I perceive the number 4 therefore it must be real. he says that abstract is and adjective and minatory is not so the objection is it has to be an adjective? and My opponent says I violated his only rule but he conceded to it and it was never a major issue in this debate.
The number 4 is Even

to respond to my opponent calling me a moron or ignorant buffoon.The sentence 4 is even is consistent with fact and reality nice try though. moving on to my opponents argument about why my analogy fails but in his argument he concedes his entire case. He says the color blue exists objectively so it wouldn't matter if we were here to see the color blue it would still exist it simply wouldn't have a label much like that the number four exists 4/2 is still two 2*2 still would equal four "Never did I claim that "average" objects do not exist, nor did I claim that the color blue does not exist. The color blue is not an abstract concept, but a specific perception evoked by a specific wavelength of light. So my opponent's analogy does not apply to the case of abstract objects not existing. And as to logic or reasoning as to why abstract objects do not exist in reality or actuality, we must simply look to the definition of an 'abstract' object. It is defined as: "thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, oractual instances"[5]. As in, an abstract idea or thing does not exist in reality or actuality. So, it follows from the fact that a sentence regarding a truth claim regarding a non-existant concept cannot be true or false in that truth is intrinsically connected to reality. Since abstract objects do not exist in reality, any sentence making a definitive statement about them would be false." he says we 'simply look to definition of abstract' the definition of a word proves the existence of the concept bad argument according to my opponent Minotaur's exist would be considered true since the definition of minotaur is half man half bull then he must exist. nice try and if we were to accept this I would automatically win because of the definition of 'even'. And furthermore you're claiming the number four does not exist in reality but I can see the number four I think that's empirical evidence I can see a tumor on an MRI i think that's empirical evidence that a tumor exists my opponent has not been arguing that the number four is not even he has been trying to argue the number four is not existent we need empirical evidence mostly for things that we can't see like gravity we prove gravity by testing newtons theory usually the second one Fnet=ma or the sum of all for forces acting on an object is equal to the mass times the acceleration we apply this law and we now gravity exists because it never fails . Claiming that the number four is even is false that's huge burden on you you're saying all numbers that are even are false. my opponent has not made any arguments as too why the number four is not even he has made an argument as too why the number four does not exist however in order to debate this resolution it assumes that the number four does exist in order to debate it's nature and characteristics. my opponent has not held his burden nor has he made any arguments . thank you cordially, HPG
Mankind would be better off with out a god

To answer your first question on how the belief in God helps the human condition, Well the lord gives us instructions in Deuteronomy of how to control the condition in ten simple commandments. So the answer is yes, He does idea to help and guide us. Then you ask of downfalls. I was always thought happiness comes from the inside, Not of what is around us. "Why am I so happy? " Because the fruit of the spirit is not happiness. Anyone can be happy, And anyone can be sad. It's a natural human characteristic. "Do many good and bad things just because i'm human. " What is good? What is bad? Only this could come from a universal morality! God has formed this morality, And has created it to bring peace to humanity. People naturally know when someone did something wrong. No one gets slapped for no reason and has to thing twice before knowing what they did was wrong. Without God there would be no eternity, No stable morality, And everyone would have a reason to judge someone else. Thank you.