BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christianity was not started by Jesus, but rather by his confused followers...

Go out on the street and ask anyone to read our two arguments, and just as soon as anyone sees that you are claiming to be Jesus incarnated, it is YOU, not me, who will be deemed mentally imbalanced at the very least and possibly insane if you truly believe you are Jesus. You say the Bible states : "THOU SHALT NOT LIE !"" Most fascinating is the fact that you proclaim I am lying, when it is an undeniable fact that you are lying about being Jesus! I am sincere when I suggest you go seek psychiatric help. Why are you hung-up on the name of Jesus? I never disagreed with that issue. Yet you keep harping on it. That"s just more evidence of your mental instability. Since I"m sure you don"t like feeling attacked by others, why would you so quickly attack me? Please be aware that just because you might see conflict in your environment does not mean you personally are being attacked. ONE ALWAYS HAS THE FINAL SAY ON WHAT"S INSIDE THEM: PEACE OR WAR. Jesus was no anarchrist. You have gone so far as to tell me I"m a liar. Again, what EVIDENCE do you have that I have LIED, per se? Just because I disagree with some of the basic assumptions and beliefs of your orthobox Christianinanity does not make me a liar. It merely means that my beliefs differ from your own, which is my prerogative. Did I tell you that you are a LIAR just because you interpret the Bible differently from me? You have the right to disagree with me; you do not have the right to call me a liar. And please don"t waste our time claiming that yours is the only correct one just because most Christians believe the same way you do. What"s preventing millions of Christians from being wrong without realizing it?! What you are calling a FACT is only a fact from an historical standpoint. Whether these facts are correctly recorded, or properly interpreted, is another KIND of factually, which in the instance of the Holy Bible HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED AS FACT. My main quote, Matt 13.11-117, remains as a primary piece of evidence that the whole truth of which Jesus was aware SIMPLY IS NOT FOUND ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE.. You have not been able to counter this premise of mine, and so you have resorted to name-calling and various other childish attacks unbecoming a legitimate debater. It is exceedingly arrogant, egotistical and unethical of you to PRESUME yourself to be Jesus! And to act as though you are he. Even for the sake of debate. Your responses are not those of a polished, mature debater, but are only knee-jerk reactions to issues you clearly have never considered before. Maybe you should get off your high horse and deal with my statements like an adult, and use rationality instead of presuming me wrong right-off-the-bat. Show me the EVIDENCE that I have lost the debate, that I have lied. Stick to the "facts" "if any can be found or established. Truth must be more important than one"s personal beliefs. I am ready" CONVINCE ME, Vajrasattva-LeRoy.
Christianity was not started by Jesus, but rather by his confused followers...

Like so many of the "debaters" you're obviously insane & you're lying your head off.All you're doing is wasting everybody's valuable time.The FACTS that I've given you can very easily be proved, historically, etc. such as the FACT that Christ's name couldn't have been Jesus, the FACT that English didn't exist in Biblical times so we couldn't have conversed in English, etc. Anybody's who's actually read the Bible knows that you're lying. Your statement that my words & teachings aren't in the Bible is utterly ridiculous. The Bible may say that Saul heard the voice of who you LYINGLY refer to as Jesus, but it wasn't me- it was "Yahweh" .You've already lost the debate, & you're losing much more. The Bible states : "THOU SHALT NOT LIE !" It is said that telling a lie is a sin, & that the soul that sins shall DIE !Goodbye !
God Does Exist

My opponent has stated that his objection to the teleological argument is evolution. To my mind, this totally underestimates the level of fine-tuning that's necessary to produce complex, interactive life like us. If the force of gravity was weaker, no carbon could have formed in dying stars and no life would be present at all. On the cosmological argument from contingency, he asks why I assume God is the explanation of the Universe. Well this is because the explanation of the Universe has to be outside of space and time. It has t be immaterial and atemporal because of this. The only thing that could cause things to come into existence and be outside of space and time is a disembodied mind, which is what most people refer to as God. I will move onto Con's statements that unembodied minds have not been proven to exist later on. His objection to the Kalam Argument relies on him ignoring the first premise, whic he has accepted by offering no refutation to it. If all things have a cause and this is based on the law of cause-and-effect, then we must accept this law in all cases. This law stipulates that causesalways preceed effects. Therefore, we must posit the cause of the universe as being an intelligent agent because only agent causation can cause violate this rule of cause-and-effect we have set up. The moral argument objection assumes that we haven't known since forever that murder, genocide, etc, are really wrong. I believe we have and that there is good evidence for this. As long as one objective moral value exists, then God exists.
Patriotism, in moderation, should be taught in public schools.

Honestly, Korezaan, I have many good points as to why we should teach patriotism moderately in schools. However, I must concede to your excellent debate and arguement points, not because I don't have very good rebuttals but because I am a very busy person and I don;t have time to refine or even type them. Happy New Year, BYE!
Patriotism, in moderation, should be taught in public schools.

I still see no definition of "Patriotism, in moderation". I also see no real responses to my R1. But okay, lets go straight to the PRO's R2. Now that you mention it, I don't see where you say this is being taught either. In high school? Junior high? Elementary? Kindergarten? All of them? I'm going to have to assume you mean all of them, since you didn't define specifically. With that in mind, the lines you just posted work for CON. Free Choice isn't really a thing that children have, if you tell them something they will believe in it. That's why teachers and parents are very careful when the child is still very young, because they are very impressionable. In the case of patriotism, giving them a choice whether or not to believe in it IN KINDERGARTEN will just result in a blind faith. That's why the only things they teach you in kindergarten are simple, easy, generally accepted moral guidelines such as "be nice to other people". Unless you go to a catholic school. Then you'll also be taught that Jesus loves you. (Which results in a lot of Christians in this country.... coincidence?) TRUE patriotism is not. But explain that to a kinder gardener.
Patriotism, in moderation, should be taught in public schools.

Patriotism, as defined by the Merriam Webster online dictionary, is a love or devotion for one's country or homeland. If we use this definition as the foundation for our debate then why shouldn't it be taugh in public schools? Then is nothing wrong with teaching our youth to love themselves, to love thier country. I am not saying that America is perfect, nor that our government upholds everything it should. However, America is the country that allowed us to become the people who we are today. Even if we are unpatriotic persons we developed from our experiences in good old America. If we give seed to a society that lacks patriotism then what will become of our land of Liberty? It'll become a place where people didn't care about common good of the state and thus ultimately not caring about themselves.
Pornography is detrimental to society.

It seems my opponent forfeited. It was an interesting debate for someone's first try. I have formal debate skills so I may have had the advantage. I would like to thank Pro for hosting this debate. Vote Con. On that note, I was planning to leave a poem written by one of the Forgotten Ones. But instead I will leave with a song, perhaps two will be even better. Note: Folks, keep it dirty not clean. http://www.youtube.com...
Should The NFL have an international team

Simple answer of why an NFL anywhere other than the USA, along with maybe Mexico and Canada, would not work: TIME ZONES. If a team was in, for example London, other than maybe one road game if the NFL added a team in say, Dublin, would be a long flight to the States and then back for home. And, unless they have 8 road, bye week, 8 home, something the NFL would never do; that would happen multiple times a season. As a result of those flights it would be hard for the team(s) to sign free agents due to jetlag.
Should The NFL have an international team

yes because they can spread there empire and get more popular. I noticed on the subway that European fans were wearing jerseys from many different NFL teams. So I decided to ask them how they became fans. To my surprise, many of them discovered NFL football in three ways: While attending college in the states, while living/working in the states for a short period, and by picking the games up on satellite and watching them with American friends abroad. None of the Europeans I spoke to last year became fans because of the London game itself. Marc Reeves, NFL International Commercial Director, told me at a conference last month that he does have a gargantuan task selling the NFL product abroad. He said to me, "my team and I have the job of pushing the boulder up the mountain. Our gains may not be noticeable but they are there and it will take some time to be significant." Yes it will! Most likely, it may take ten to twenty years to build a mass fan base. Although the London game itself is the tent pole for selling the NFL product abroad, much more has to be done on a grass roots level to create a real and ever lasting interest abroad. Some Europeans I met became NFL fans from their exposure to NFL Europe. The Europe league didn"t make the large-scale impact the NFL hoped it would, however, it was still cultivating and educating fans. Several fans told me they would go just to see the cheerleaders, do the wave and watch the kicks. Yes, that"s right, the kicks and punts were the most popular plays to many foreign fans. Most Europeans grew up kicking a soccer or rugby ball so it"s a skill they appreciate and can relate to. The loudest cheers I ever heard at the NFL Europe games I attended were always associated with kicks and punts. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
why should Canada keep paying the native for not doing anything

It will be my intention in this debate to disprove the argument of the Con that Canada should cease paying reparations to the Native Americans. I will take several routes in order to warrant my advocacy, if any of them are effective I urge a vote for the Pro in this debate. My first route will be to prove a constructive argument for the Pro, and my second will to refute the argument(s) of the Con. The argument of the Pro is as follows- When one takes the property of another it is only just for them to provide something of equal worth to the person they have taken property from. For them not to do this is a violation of the principles of justice; meaning that they are doing something they shouldn't do. Furthermore this matter is made worse when the transfer of property among differing parties is done involuntarily as was the case with the original settlers who colonized Canada. Not only did they violate the principles of justice by not providing something of equal worth for the property they took, but they provided nothing in return. Canada's later action of providing reparations is the least (and I do quite literally mean the least) that the country could do to help consolidate their original action of taking Canada's property in the first place. At this point I would like to cite Robert Nozick's Entitlement theory to warrant my prior analysis. This theory was originally proposed in his 1974 book 'Anarchy State and Utopia[1]'. Nozick states that "A person who acquire a holding in accordance with the principles of Justice is entitled to that Holding"; the canadian colonists did not acquire Canada in accordance with the principles of justice, thus they are not entitled to that holding. But what about their children? Surely they shouldn't have to pay for their parents misdeeds right? Well according to the second prong of Nozick's entitlement theory they do "A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principles of justice in transfer, from someone else entitled to the holding, is entitled to the holding. [1]" Since the original colonists were not entitled to Canada neither were their children Finally Nozick argues that if good are acquired unjustly then justice in rectification must occur. For the Canadian government this takes place through the payment of reparations. [1]. http://en.wikipedia.org... Therefore were Canad to stop paying reparations to the Native Americans they would be violating the principles of Justice. Onto my opponent's argument Con provides no compelling warrant as to why Canada should cease paying reparations to the native Americans. Con's argument concerning her own nationality is irrelevant as one injustice does not warrant further injustice.
Google+ Hangout Debate: Justice Requires the Recognition of Animal Rights

http://www.youtube.com...Watch my copy of the video instead. It will save you from having to skip ahead a bunch of times.Apologies in advance for the poor quality of my case. I literally prepared it 10 minutes before and this was my first live LD debate. Thanks to my opponent for working everything out. The debate was awesome fun. Looking forward to our future insider trading rematch!
Google+ Hangout Debate: Justice Requires the Recognition of Animal Rights

Resolved: Justice Requires the Recognition of Animal Rights Good debate, Lars. Hope to do a good one on Insider Trading in a few days. Debate ends at 45:30. Feel free to skip through the prep time periods. Pro/Affirmative: Wallstreetatheist (blue shirt and Americanish)Con/Negative: larztheloser (black sweatshirt and New Zealandish--think Flight of the Conchords)http://www.youtube.com...;
christmas is in essense a comercial holiday

Haha, well done on the days of the year. I obviously was not as informed as I assumed. I just joined two days ago. However, I believe we both have minor things to note on the other persons logic. I know it is formal to refer to your oponent as a "he" but I am in fact a she. As for citations, as my knowledgeable edged opponent states, are indeed crucial for a debte, but sadly impossible for me to utilize, given my current access to insufficient technology. I encourage my opponent to not take my word for each thing I say, and see for theirself weather my brain catches up to my speech. But alas, we must return to the debate at hand. Christmas was begun as a holy day to honor the birth of Jesus Christ. But, the modern day Christmas is a cold mockery of such. Many people end up let down or upset, depressed and even suicidal around the holidays. And as for the Santa Clause argument: I would not lie to my child in order to, or under the excuse of, making them smarter.
christmas is in essense a comercial holiday

Sorry, but I won't have enough time over the next few days to publish a few points of my own, but I will try to refute some of what you said.Although my opponent has not said much that is in favor of his case, (since he, in the second round, just defined some of the terms that he was going to use throughout the debate), I would like to refute just a few of the things that he has said. In R1, my opponent said "There are 364 days in a year", this is simply not the case. In a calendar year, there are 365.25 days in a year, there are 365.256363004 days in a sidereal year, 365.24219 days in a tropical year, and 346.620075883 days in a draconian year (while the Draconian Year is also lower than the others, as what he said is, that does not mean that he is right, and thus we cannot believe anything that he says without citations.) [1] In R2 he says "corrupted with Santa Claus", while Society is not becoming corrupted with Santa Claus as part of it. According to InterColliegateReview, having children believe in Santa Claus actually helps them develop critical thinking skills, whereas telling them he does not exist would not help foster these kinds of skills. [2] In R2, my opponent says "cling to useless traditions", but the truth of the matter is that society benefits when people have these kind of traditions. By having society more focused on community and giving than receiving and self-centeredness, we are not making society cling to useless traditions, but instead we are making them cling to the exact opposite of useless traditions. Sorry for not having enough time this week to make a case of my own, but I hope that refuting your arguments was good enough. Happy holidays! [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.intercollegiatereview.com...
christmas is in essense a comercial holiday

Hello! And my apologies for not clearly stating my case. Although I agree with every single term definition, when I referred to "Christmas", I was thinking more along the lines of the public holiday, corrupted with "Santa Claus" and no longer the pure day of worship it was created to be. Now, even people who have nothing to do with Christ, go out and spend money on pointless items, and cling to useless traditions that have no true meaning.
christmas is in essense a comercial holiday

Hi, and thanks for opening this great item for debate, I accept. Before we start this debate, I just want to define a few key terms, to ensure that we are, in fact, speaking of the same things. If you are in conflict with any of these definitions, just make sure to note that in your speech. "In Essence": the basic, real, and invariable nature of a thing [1] "Christmas": the annual festival of the Christian church commemorating the birth of Jesus [2] "Commercial": engaged in commerce [3] "Holiday": a religious feast day; holy day, especially any of several usually commemorative holy days observed in Judaism. [4] Good luck, and have fun! [1]: dictionary.reference.com/browse/essence [2]: dictionary.refence.com/browse/Christmas [3]: dictionary.refence.com/browse/commercial [4]: dictionary.refence.com/browse/holiday
In order to solve school/campus shootings, we should allow more people to carry guns

82 pre-schoolers were massacred this year. 142 school shootings since 2014. It is of epic proportion, not a few incidents. It is much easier to view these as remote incidents if you have not been affected. I have not, personally, but numbers are increasing at alarming rates. That must be acknowleged, as it is fact. Vigilantes are noble. Full of passion to protect, and full of fire to "right a wrong". But they are not trained, and can cause more damage than good. Kids and college students are in danger and the first reaction is to worry about gun rights and the 2nd amendment? It indicates that there is a certain desentization that has occurred over the last decade. Desensitized, un-trained, vigilantes protecting everyone? Ummm. no thanks. Repectful civil debate is lacking in the political forum. Reform doesnt mean taking guns. Reform is change as society changes. Society is changing.
In order to solve school/campus shootings, we should allow more people to carry guns

Going with my opponents logic, "Guns create violence". Does it? Possibly, but other things also create violence like video games and movies, but do we ban those? Guns are just an easy target to say that something causes violence, but in reality the necessity of guns is necessary. Why should we take away the 2nd Amendement, just because of a few incidents? In fact, we must use common sense that if we were to take away guns, do you think criminals will follow the rules. Because it is assumed that they won't, it is necessary to bring protection among people through the means of allowing people to bear arms. Personally, I prefer a trained concealed weapon, but would feel much safer with a trained individual with a gun in the room; than having nothing to the victim's aid.
circumcision has negative results it should not be allowed until the age of 18 or for health reasons

I believe that through our current research circumcision has had negative results on men. There have been results in which the foreskin has been cut too tight, it has taken away sensitivity, and it is done against the will of children. Doctors claim that it limits the spread of STI's and STD's but this claim should be considered false because how little of an affect it actually has.
circumcision has negative results it should not be allowed until the age of 18 or for health reasons

The first thing this article claims is that there is easier hygiene for males. Though this may be true the foreskin is actually fused to the head of the penis until puberty so there for a child can easily learn to properly clean his penis as he grows. Saying that a penis is easier to clean so a child foreskin should be cut is equivalent to saying that a child's ears should cut because it would be easier to clean behind the ear. The second claim is that there is a decreased risk of UTI's (Urinary tract infections) This is true as well but, if you take a look at the research there is only a 0.9% difference between circumcised and uncircumcised males. Circumcised males have a 0.1% chance Uncircumcised males have a 1% chance. though it is 10x more likely that a circumcised male will get a UTI it is still a low chance. A Japanese study of 603 boys who were not circumcised did not find one case of UTI. The third claim Is there is less of a chance for a STI to form. There is also a study showing that circumcision do does not prevent some of the STI's claimed. Cleanliness is a major contributor in theses studies as well. STUDY- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Apparently there is also a higher risk of penile cancer but, there are no American studies of the incidence of penile cancer and its association with circumcision status. Penile cancer is rare, and the estimated American incidence is about 1 per 100,000. This rate is also lower in other countries. Now lets talk about the cons of Circumcision. 1 off its barbaric as late as 1986 no anesthesia was used on newborns. but if we focus on the now no experimental anesthetic has been found to be safe and effective in preventing circumcision pain in infants. Infants even show signs of PTSD due to circumsion. 2 there a penile complications later in life. The skin can be cut too tight and when puberty happens a the penis grows it can be painful. 3 pubic hair can grow up the shaft making it intercourse painful to a males partner if shaven. 4 callused skin will occur on the head of the penis due to friction of clothes. Callused and damage skin has been know to be less sensitive. there have been reports where men claim to feel less sensitivity when circumcised later in life. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
circumcision has negative results it should not be allowed until the age of 18 or for health reasons

Most of the research into circumcision is positive to men's health. Not just their spiritual (if you're into that) but studies conducted by the Mayo clinic which is a credible source shows that circumcision at a young age can do the following: decrease the risk of STI, STD, penile cancer, and phimosis. None of which sounds pleasant as a man. Circumcision can also provide a better opportunity for genital hygiene keeping the old six-gun clean. Citied: . http://www.mayoclinic.org...