BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christianity is the One True Faith

Thanks to Pro for instigating this debate. While normally Pro would go first in such a debate, I’ll happily utilize this time to post my arguments. Pro asserts that Christianity is the one true religion. If this assertion is to be proven true, Pro must do the following: accredit his belief system with supporting, discredit my belief system with refuting evidence. With that in mind, I will be arguing that Pro’s assertion is false because there is no “One True Religion”. While I firmly hold semi-religious beliefs myself, I do not believe that only one religion is true. There is plenty of evidence to refute my religion, just as there is plenty of evidence to refute others. While some may believe in Christianity, there is no evidence to suggest that it is the only true religion in existence. In fact, no religion is proven to be true, therefore there is no “One true religion.” Over the next few rounds, I will refute any attempts my opponent makes at attesting Christianity as factual truth and not a religious philosophy. Good luck to my opponent and may the best argument win. Let’s keep this civil but impassioned!
Christianity is the One True Faith

Hello, I would like to do this debate on why I believe Christianity is the One True Religion. My opponent will hopefully be HermanGomez95 who I debated earlier on the issue of whether or not the Constitution should be replaced with the Bible as our Nations document on Laws and Morals. We will have 5 rounds with 72 hours to argue and an open voting period for 10 full days. My only rule is that we keep this debate calm, and we respect each others beliefs on this delicate matter of Faith. Thank you for accepting and may the best argument win!
Christianity is the One True Faith

Since my opponent has forfeited this round, I guess I'll just put down some more evidence to support the Christian Faith. This part will be on the Ressurection. The first piece of evidence we have for the Ressurection is that fact that the 12 Apostles all believed that they saw the ressurected Christ. The only two possibilities for this is that either they all had hallucinations, made up the story, or actually saw the Ressurected Christ. The first option is highly implausible due to the fact that the definition of a hallucination is something seen by one individual. If more than one person saw it then it can't be a hallucination. If I were to tell a group of 11 friends that I see a deer, but they don't see it then I'm probably hallucinating. On the other hand, if all 12 of us saw the deer then it's not a hallucination.It's similar to a dream in many ways. How many people have the exact same dream at the exact same time? So a we can see, the hallucination theory is implausible. The next theory is the theory that the disciples lied. Well the problem with this is that how many people die for a lie that they KNOW is false. Many people die for things they've heard, but nobody dies for something they know is false. Not to mention, if it was a lie, then all the Jews and Romans would have had to do is shown the body. The Romans didn't want a Ressurection because it threatened the authority of Ceasar and neither did the Jews because it threatened theirs. So now we realize that the body had to have gone somewhere and was either stolen by disciples, hid by Rome, or the Ressurection happened. The first is impossible for a couple reasons. Jesus was seen as an enemy and traitor to both the Jews and Romans. The Romans would never have left a self proclaimed Messiah left unguarded. And neither would the Jews mainly because they realized that he said he would ressurect himself. In this case, the tomb would have naturally been protected by well trained soldiers and marked with the seal of Rome. And as we know, the only way the Disciples could have pulled this off is if they were ninjas, and even then Rome would have hunted them down in a week. Next we have the belief that Rome hid the body in which case, that would have only make them look weak. And needless to say Rome was the bully of bullies. And even when Christianity grew and refused to worship the emperors all they had to do is show the body or at least show records to show Jesus was still dead. In conclusion to these basic arguments it seems highly probable the Ressurection did in fact happen and the Apostles and the 500 witnesses were willing to die horrible deaths by poison, fire, crucifixion, banishment, and even beheading for what they knew was the truth.
If a Nation denys Reality

Okay let's see how this goes. I will rebut every argument and make some arguments of my own. Although your arguments seem to be all over the place your title claims that "a nation denys reality", you than specify, "Not only this nation, America, but the world has turned a blind eye to reality..." You than specify on the reality, "the problem of a enemy who is attacking them" You than specify on the enemy, "...the non Muslim nations are under attack..." So really this is what I get your resolution to be, "The World is Ignorant of the Muslim's Animosity" Now with a proper resolution let's begin. "Not only this nation, America, but the world has turned a blind eye to reality and have decided that if they ignore the problem of a enemy who is attacking them that the enemy will just go away in time and the world will be at peace again." Quite the unsupported claim. You're saying that the world is remaining silent and ignoring the fact that the enemy is attacking. Well basically all I have to say to win is obviously the whole world is not ignorant since we are addressing this right now, but I will take it a few steps further. 1. Canada is responding by sending support and claims, "We will work with allies to defeat ISIL and the terrorist threat it represents"http://international.gc.ca... (I add this first not to say it's doing the best job, but since I live in Canada and personally I hear more about it) 2. United States is doing a swell job as well sending troops and air force in to attempt to defeat ISIS. From his words, "The U.S. and its coalition partners are hitting ISIS "harder than ever," http://www.cnbc.com... I could name others but why? You and I are apparently not ignorant, and the United States and Canadian government are also not ignorant of the fact that we do have an enemy and they are doing their best to destroy the enemy before it destroys more. "This is what is happening in the world today, the non Muslim nations are under attack by a virulent virus which if left untreated will surely destroy its host nations." What is this virulent virus? By the use of the word "Non- Muslim" are you saying that the virus is the Muslim people? I can seriously make quite the arguments against that but would first like you specify who the virulent virus is. (I'm almost positive I know what group you are referring to I just want you to specify before I go into a lengthy argument separating Muslims from extremists.) In conclusion... We will see what you have to say in the following round.
If a Nation denys Reality

Not only this nation, America, but the world has turned a blind eye to reality and have decided that if they ignore the problem of a enemy who is attacking them that the enemy will just go away in time and the world will be at peace again. This enemy is like a virulent virus which won't go away if left untreated but will takes down the host nation in which it lives and thrives . This virulent virus lies dormant in the nation body building up a confidence in the nation body that it can in time adopt to to the uneasy feeling that it is under attack thinking that the virulent virus will fade away if not given into without any special intervention being required to cure itself. Virulent virus though do not just go away by wishful thinking and they only build up strength and in time overpower the host if left untreated. This is what is happening in the world today, the non Muslim nations are under attack by a virulent virus which if left untreated will surely destroy its host nations. Ignoring this virus will not make it go away, only acknowledging that nations are under attack and taking appropriate actions will rid the nation bodies of this virus.
If a Nation denys Reality

OK first off your red herrings although interesting and thought provoking are inexcusable. This isn't a quote debate and many of your quotes don't even pertain to the issue. So first off, I joined this debate thinking that you were saying that we're denying reality for which I successfully negated and told you that the world is addressing the situation and told you the fact we're discussing this proves your resolution is wrong. Than you started going on a tangent telling many quotes twisting some to match YOUR OWN context. However you are blaming Muslims. Blaming Muslims (a religion) for being the cause of everything is like blaming all Germans for WW2. And you know something else? We'd be playing the part of Hitler by deporting everyone which will cause global outburst and possibly a world war. Again you hardly negated anything I said. I asked for your plan and didn't receive any. So already you lose there because we can't discuss something without a plan. I already told you it would be a waste of money when the government is already in debt (to countries like India btw) I told you this could cause a world war for which you had nothing to say. I told you that even with deportation the bad ones will continue to stay the same way outlaws always remain and bad people will do bad things and usually stay where they're not wanted. Do you even know what the Muslims beleive? In love and peace in the most similar way Christians beleive. I suggest you research more into Muslims beliefs. In conclusion... Well I believe without a doubt that the world is not denying reality because all known forms of reality are addressed by every single person. I also beleive that Muslims are not our enemies and when we talk like that it is like Hitler calling all Jews enemies. It is you who needs to face reality and realize that there are bad people and good people. But stating that a whole religion is bad is terribly wrong. My name is Brian N. Johnson and this debate is over.
If a Nation denys Reality

OK now you come out and say it. You wish to deport muslims and think that will solve the problem. Well it won't, and saying that that has not been addressed is wrong because this issue and solution has been brought up and on ballance it should not happen. for the following reasons. 1. Money- Deporting would be completely counterproductive. It would cost $420 to $620 billion dollars and would take up to 20 years to accomplish which is practically impossible to do in a country with limited terms of government officials. Not to mention the money these people make and add to the economy. http://www.theatlantic.com... 2. Public safety- The bad ones no matter how you like it will find ways to stay. The same way heroin and cocaine are here to stay you cannot get rid of the bad people. Criminals will always find a way to be a criminal. Also the friends of those people will go on strike and you will see an outrage like never before. 3. Ethics- do we need to bring up how unethical it is to deport all those Muslims? Where are you going to deport them? This is the kind of thing a well known German leader did to the Jews. DO we want another world war? http://immigrationtalk.org... Alrighty here are some things that need to be clarified because you don't even have a platform set for this debate. You need to have a plan, because how are we going debate whether or not to do it without a plan? You say we should just deport them all. Well I've shown how that's a waste of money, I've shown how that is completely unethical and you don't even have a plan set forth to remove the muslims. In conclusion By your resolution I've already won this debate. SInce I have proved that deportaion and everything you say has been addresed and nobody is denying reality. I will hear more, maybe you have some points that the world is denying reality remember the BOP is on you and so far you haven't proved your point.
Abortion Should Get the Same Penalty As First Degree Murder

Rules: 1. You must argue against this stance BUT you must argue it from a pro-life perspective. You must defend the view that abortion is murder and should be illegal but argue that it should be treated definitely from ordinary murder. Argument: A woman who gets an abortion has made a plan, she planned for her baby to die and she knows he baby will die after the abortion. The doctor knows this too. The law should hold both liable for murder in the first degree and they should be sentenced the same way any first degree murderer would be.
Abortion Should Get the Same Penalty As First Degree Murder

1. CON is taking things out of context Any rational reading of what I said under "Argument" would imply that I'm only talking about women who plan to have an abortion. I also said "the same way any first degree murderer would be". A person who killed with a plan but it was in self-defense, say someone escaping from a kidnapper would not be held guilty of first degree murder. Treating the cases the same means applying the same standards, so "self-defense" applies when the alleged victim is an adult, therefore it applies when the alleged victim is a fetus too. It also means that any cases where insanity defense would apply in the case of the murder of an adult would also apply to cases of a woman who murdered her unborn baby, although that doesn't mean she'd be free to have her abortion, she'd go to a psychiatric ward just like someone who is "not guilty by reason of insanity" for murdering an adult. 2. "Preponderence of the Act" The woman knows that that lump of tissue in her body(it's a lump of tissue as surely as you and I are, I'm just arguing that all these lumps of tissues deserve equal rights and treatment in our justice system) will die if aborted. She also knows that the law says the lump of tissue is legally considered a "person" so she knows that the ACT, the thing she is actually doing is against the law. Her personal feelings about whether the law is right to regard a fetus as a person and try people who kill it for murder are irrelevant. It would be like if someone was caught with marijuana and then argue in court that they are not guilty because they thought it was an herb and not a drug. Similarly the woman may consider aborting the baby to be a medical procedure and not murder but she knew the law's stance on it, she knew what the consequences could be. If she disagreed with the law, well that's no excuse for breaking it. She knew the risk she was taking in breaking it. 3. Jury screening. Prosecutors will be aware of the possibility for pro-choice jurors to refuse to convict, and will make sure all jurors agree with the law. 4. BROKE THE RULES, I WIN "The inherent absurdity of the Pro-life position is it's presumption that other people best know what ought to be done with anothers body despite not knowing their personal situtation. " Con REFUSED to abide my rule that he must argue from a pro-life perspective. Right here Con presents as pro-choice. VOTE PRO! 5. Not the same moral status? The woman plans to end the life (which is real as established by science, the only legitimate debate is over whether it is a person not over whether it is alive) of the fetus. If you are pro-life, if you believe that the fetus is a person how can you not support giving it the same moral status? 6. Con says we won't be able to catch every single woman. We don't catch every single murderer, rapist, thief, should we just not have any laws? And what about all the women who will be deterred from doing it in the first place and the lives that will save? REGARDLESS, BACK TO #4 YOU BROKE THE RULES! SORRY BUT YOU DID.
Abortion Should Get the Same Penalty As First Degree Murder

1. A philosophical disagreement is not insanity. Otherwise anybody could commit murder and say "your honor I believe that no one is entitled to the right to life" and get off with "not guilty by reason of insanity". If abortion is treated the same as first degree the law will be written to carefully say that it prohibits the killing of human persons from the moment of conception and that the fetus shall be regarded as a fetus for the purposes of the law. While "insanity" is often oversimplified as "not knowing the difference between right and wrong" if this were literally how it was implemented one could claim that one's worldview sees one's action as being "right" on any given law and that therefore one is insane. If a voice in a woman's head says "get an abortion or else..." then that's different, but if she gets an abortion because she believes that the fetus inside her doesn't deserve to have the right to life, tough. She still knows what the law says on the matter and if she doesn't ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. 2. Health reasons is the same as self-defense. This of course would be clarified, but just like if you must kill a grown person or else they will cause you to die then it's legal so too should that apply to unborn babies. 3. The unborn baby is an equal human being with an equal right to life. If a woman has a baby and kills it and it was planned it's first-degree murder. We are drastically short-changing justice if we treat the deliberate killing of the unborn baby as less serious than the deliberate killing of a born person.
Abortion Should Get the Same Penalty As First Degree Murder

Thanks for the interesting proposition, Pro.Like my opponent, my opening argument will be short. My advocacy will be primarily that even from a pro-life perspective, abortion ought not be treated the same as first degree murder of another individual. First lets define first degree murder as murder both premeditated and willful[1]. Even if abortion is morally equivalent to murder, there are three reasons that it ought not be the legal equivalent of first degree murder; recall that since I'm arguing from a pro-life perspective, the ideal is to convict as many women engaging in abortion as possible. The first reason is lowered conviction rates/commutations. Remember that the resolution presumes the legitimacy of the pro-life worldview hence fetuses are human; however the mothers aborting their fetuses clearly do not think so . What this means is that their lawyers can, and will, plead that their inability to recognize this fact constitutes insanity/lack of moral culpability. Recall that first degree murder is defined as both premeditated and willful. My opponents argument is incorrect because these women getting the abortions do *not* believe that they are killing a human, and as such the conviction rate for their crimes will go down as their inability to recognize basic humanity could easily be used. The supreme court has consiently ruled in favor of restrictions on the maximum penalties on the mentally impaired, and as such many women would get off due to the fact that it isnt premeditated--you cant premeditate a murder of a non human. It would be an act of insanity.The second reason is the necessity of abortion in some cases. A woman aborting a child in a health situation (where she would die if she did not abort) is not doing so willfully, and as such treating abortion as first degree murder would not yield the same conviction rates. The third reason is cost.The costs to imprison/execute people in the US is astronomical. Re-education as to why abortion is bad is a better solution for first time offenders than first degree murder penalties.1. http://criminal.findlaw.com...
We should have a world government

First off, a major catastrophe, no matter how big, won't destroy half the world. "Just tell the whole world to become pacifists and we can keep going without killing." Just how well do you do think that your proposition there will work? You also said that there is no threat for America. You forgot the other 194 countries. Some are going to break out into war, and with the tangled net of alliances, who knows how that will work. Also, my expectation for Catalonia have begun. Arrests are happening, and there is civil unrest. How long until the others begin war? 1 month? "For the last two years, the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock stayed set at three minutes before the hour, the closest it had been to midnight since the early 1980's. In its two most recent annual announcements on the Clock, the Science and Security Board warned: "The probability of global catastrophe is very high, and the actions needed to reduce the risks of disaster must be taken very soon." In 2017, we find the danger to be even greater, the need for action more urgent. It is two and a half minutes to midnight, the Clock is ticking, global danger looms. Wise public officials should act immediately, guiding humanity away from the brink. If they do not, wise citizens must step forward and lead the way."(https://thebulletin.org...) If your argument is "America is fine" and you don't mention the other countries, you don't see the full picture, and therefore, you can't really argue that all is fine. It is very likely that in less than 5 years, a majority of US citizens will be holding guns in some world war. "A segment of the American population fears the creation of a world government, thinking it will become some kind of totalitarian regime " la the Third Reich or Soviet Russia or a superstate out of Orwell's "1984". A logical consequence of such a government for these folks would be the curtailing of their freedoms. Probably no guns allowed. Universal health care. Too many taxes. Eventual dictatorship." (http://bigthink.com...) Also, a world government would mean that each individual government would share their advancements, we could have scientists across the globe working together, meaning better medical, scientific, and industrial advancements all over. The UN and EU are both some form of a higher government, with the UN basically being a world government, with less authority. Einstein said, "I am by heritage a Jew, by citizenship a Swiss, and by makeup a human being, and only a human being, without any special attachment to any state or national entity whatsoever." All the money spent on military would be used for better things, like changing energy sources as to prevent global warming, or helping the poor and homeless. We could actually discover a cure to HIV and cancer. I personally support a world government, and I hope others do. Good Luck