BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jesus Christ is God

There is no evidence that, if the historicity of Jesus is proven, he was anything more than a human being. Biblical references to Jesus and his apparent supernatural abilities and apparent divine lineage can't prove anything more than any legend that happens to feature an historical figure. I am accepting, for the sake of the argument, that Jesus was an historical figure, but am proposing that he was not an incarnate deity, the son of a deity, or even in communication with a deity, but rather was a mortal human being. However, even the historicity of Jesus is in question, as no remains have ever been found and very few (if any) contemporary sources outside of the Bible mention his existence. Of course, Christ's historicity is irrelevant to his divinity (although proven historicity would be a step towards proven divinity). After all, the fact that we have proof that Tutankhamun existed doesn't prove that he (or any other Pharaoh) was an incarnate deity. In order to justify accepting the historicity of Jesus but not his divinity or any kind of divine attributes associated with him I would refer to the theory put forth by the 13th Century Icelandic historian/politician Snorri Sturluson, who suggested that mythological gods started off as historical figures who developed a cult following after death that evolved into deification. Obviously, in this case, as belief in God occurred before Jesus existed, that theory would have to be extended to include the possibility that Jesus, after his death, because his teachings were so closely related to belief in God, became synonymous with God. This would be further suggested by the fact that the radical changes to the religion that would eventually become Christianity in it's various forms occurred because of Christ and these changes in many ways setting him up as the deity of a new religion (after all, Christians use Christ's name more often than Yahweh's).
Transwomen Should Be Eligible to Play Sports in the Women's League

In case the title wasn't self-explanatory enough, this is a debate on whether or not transwomen should be eligible to play sports in the women's league. I will argue that transwomen should be eligible, While my opponent shall argue against this. Here's my argument. 1) Transwomen are still women. 1. To differentiate transwomen from ciswomen is to reduce women to a body part, When in reality, Women are more than just one part of their body. 2. Being born without certain human parts doesn't make you less of a person, Just as being born without certain female parts doesn't make you less of a woman. 2) Women come in all shapes and sizes. 1. One shouldn't have to have an hourglass figure to be considered a female, Nor should one have to have a lack of physicality. 2. Though transwomen are built different from ciswomen, Even ciswomen are built different from one another; no woman is built the same from head to toe. 3) Transwomen were born males: not athletes. 1. While the male body tends to be stronger than the female body, It's not guaranteed to be, Meaning that a ciswoman is capable of being stronger than a transwoman. 2. Fitness and nutrition play a bigger role in someone's capabilities than gender does. 4) Gender isn't black and white. 1. Contrary to popular belief, There are a dozen feminine characteristic traits, As opposed to just one. While both genders have some of them, Neither gender has all of them, Meaning that female attributes of which a ciswoman might be deprived of, A transwoman could actually have. 2. Which female attributes anoint someone a female is a matter of opinion, Rather than a fact, And to base rules off of opinions is not only prejudice but is unnecessary, Because the facts are there, And the fact is that no feminine characteristic trait is more feminine than any other (femininity is femininity). 5) There are pros and cons to everything. 1. While many athletes strive to be bigger and heavier, Others aspire to be smaller and lighter (such as gymnasts, Figure skaters, And horse riders), Causing a transwoman's inherent nature to be just as much of a disadvantage in the women's league as it is an advantage. 2. Rather than being more or less equipped, Transwomen are just differently equipped, As all women are, From each other. There's my argument.
Minors should not be charged as adults.

Let's do an activity: If you were a judge and you were facing a 9-year old boy who killed a friend with a choke hold, what would you do? Charge him as an adult because he committed a very serious crime, or sent him to be disciplined in a detention center or something of the sort and he will be tried once 18? Charge the boy as an adult? I think not, the trial should be held until he is 18 because that would be the most ethical decision and it would be supported by the law.
Minors should not be charged as adults.

"According to the U.S. Department of Justice, crimes committed by juveniles have increased by sixty percent since 1984" 60%!!! WRITTEN BY THE US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOUND BY ASSOCIATED CONTENT! compus mentus in corpore sano tRANSLATION : A sane mind in a sane body from latin. If the minor is compus mentus, then the child should be punished. http://www.timesonline.co.uk... http://unlvrebelyell.com...
Minors should not be charged as adults.

not just yet, I have my ace in the hole! I enclose a 16 page document with info on children who kill! I will enclose the names of the kids the times of the crime or trial and what they were guilty of http://www.trutv.com... Jesse Pomeroy- 1874. tried for 11 counts of murder as far back as 1871 Mary bell 1968. murder 2 counts. sentenced to 12 years. Willie bosket- 1978 2 counts of murder Edmund kemper 1964-1973 10 counts murder Shirley wolf- 1 count murder 1983 Thompson, venables 1993 murder of James bulger, 2 Nathan Abraham, 1999, 1 count murder Lionel Tate- 2001 1 count murder Stuart harling, 2006, 1 count murder jasmine Richardson, 2006, 3 counts murder Eric smith 1994, 1 count murder ps: I also enclosed murders not mentioned in my link like Lionel Tate
I want to talk about Jesus.

I would suggest that you created the spirit of Jesus within yourself. A natural physiological response to acquired information, Relative to a certain stressful period of your life. Adolescence being probably the most emotionally and physiologically stressful period of most peoples lives. And historically there may well have been a guy called Jesus And the mythology surrounding this guy is the information on which you base your personal belief. Nonetheless this is not reliable evidence of truth nor reliable evidence for a God theory. This is simply evidence of your own consciousness. It would be far better to acknowledge the faith you have in yourself, Rather than rely on what is in reality, An overwhelming faith in supernatural deities and mythological tales.
I want to talk about Jesus.

Jesus is the love of my life. He treats me like a princess. I'm so in love with Jesus, Not in a weird way, But so in awe of Him. I can't wait to meet Jesus. I want to look in His eyes, And see God. I was 15, When Jesus saved me from Hell, And my salvation saved my life. Jesus gave me a reason to put down the pills, And go on living. Jesus has been so faithful to me. Let me know what kind of evidence you need, And I'll see what I can do.
Fathers Should Have a Say in Abortion

"Fathers don't come into play in these decisions, because at no point after ejaculation are his concerns the primary concerns." This is the fundamental belief that makes me so angry. So according to my opponent, fathers are no more than sperm donors? When there is disagreement between parents regarding the abortion, then the result should be to go through with the pregnancy. NOTE: If the mother has valid medical evidence suggesting that the pregnancy would be a danger to her health then that medical evidence should override a father's decision to have the baby. I'm not saying that a woman should be forced to take unnecessary risks with her own life. However, if the mother and the fetus are both perfectly healthy then there's no reason to not proceed with the pregnancy if it is the father's wish. >>>>>>>> "The father doesn't get a say in abortion, because abortion is about a woman's right to make choices about her body." The father should have a say in abortion because it's his child too. And like any decent parent, fathers who love their children fight for them and their existence. No one contests a mother who wants to have her child. As a father, I'm not fighting for my child because I view him/her as property, I'm fighting for my child because it's my son or daughter the mother is talking about aborting. >>>>>>>> "Fathers should be required to pay financial support (if needed) because that's what the child needs." I couldn't agree more. >>>>>>>> "Should the father demand the child be born then the women should be strapped to a gurney so that she doesn't slip off and get an illegal abortion. If she dies due to complications, oh well." If the mother slips off and gets an illegal abortion then that was her choice and she should be held liable to the father. If she dies during complications, that's terrible and tragic. My only wish in that situation is that she would've gone through with the pregnancy and given the baby to the father after birth. In that scenario everyone would have won (including the child) >>>>>>>> "Your idea is predicated on the idea of equality, but it's really thinly veiled villainy." Never in a million years would I have thought that a father wanting to take responsibility for his child be considered villainy. This idea makes me very sad. >>>>>>>> The point I'm making is that fathers should be granted some say and some recourse in the decision of whether or not to abort. I'm not saying that the father's wishes are absolute and should always be honored. I'm saying he should have a voice that is protected by law. However, my opponent's disregard for fathers is so typical of how we view men and their relationships with their children. Personally, if I conceived a child with a woman and she: 1. Didn't tell me she was pregnant 2. Aborted the baby without my knowledge I'd be furious and devastated. I can't believe that any humane society wouldn't grant me some kind of recourse.
Fathers Should Have a Say in Abortion

The mistake being made here is a pretty easy one and shouldn't take too long to simply point out. We don't allow abortion having anything to do with childbearing. The entire argument is predicated on right to privacy, medical sovereignty and not being forced to take unneeded risks. Further, fathers aren't required to pay for their children because it's his property too. .. rather he is to pay because it is in the best interests of the child. During pregnancy the best interests of the mother and her choices about her body are paramount. When a child comes into the picture the best interests of the child are paramount. Abortion isn't about children and child support isn't about men. So fathers don't come into play in these decisions, because at no point after ejaculation are his concerns the primary concerns. -- If it were, hypothetically, taken into consideration it would only matter in two specific cases (where the parents agree it is a moot point) so the cases are: When the father wants the women to have an abortion, and she doesn't want to: If given any weight this is forced abortion and abhorrent. When the father wants the child, but the women doesn't want to carry the child to term: If given any weight this is forced pregnancy and requiring women to take undue risks with her life because somebody else demands it, which is again abhorrent. So beyond the entirely wrong idea of why our laws are as they are, one must also find that your suggestion is abhorrent. -- A. The father is 100% the parent of the child. B. The child doesn't belong to either parent. The father doesn't get a say in abortion, because abortion is about a woman's right to make choices about her body. Fathers should be required to pay financial support (if needed) because that's what the child needs. -- "Should the father decide to not abort the child, then the mother should be required to honor his decision. The mother can always give the child to the father after he/she is born. " Should the father demand the child be born then the women should be strapped to a gurney so that she doesn't slip off and get an illegal abortion. If she dies due to complications, oh well. -- Forced birthing is abhorrent. Why should the mother be required to honor his decision? What about her decision? Why is it that she has no right when it comes to making decisions about her body? Your idea is predicated on the idea of equality, but it's really thinly veiled villainy. The father is no more empowered to make personal medical choices about the woman than her preacher or her governor. -- As nice as this sounds in your head, when you think it through just a smidgen you realize it's absolutely barbaric and unfair.
Fathers Should Have a Say in Abortion

For the record: I am not in favor if making abortion illegal. I believe in the right to choose. I do, however, disagree with the notion of a "woman's right to choose." The last time I checked, it took both a man and a woman to create a child. So where do fathers come into play in this decision? We should be talking about "parents right to choose." I'm so sick of the notion that children belong more to the mother than the father. Of course, proponents of this argument attest that it's true until the time comes to provide financial support when suddenly men hear, "Well you're the father, so pay up." The way I see it there are only two ways to look at this. Either: A. The father is 50% the parent of the child B. The child belongs more to one parent than the other If you believe A, then you can't argue that a father should have no say in the decision of abortion. If you believe B, then you can't argue that fathers should be required to provide financial support for their children. Personally, I take the position of A. Fathers are responsible for their children. I will not, however, accept responsibility for a child without also being afforded the same rights and privileges to the child as the mother. When a woman seeks an abortion she should be required to declare the identity of the father. His written authorization should be obtained before the procedure may be administered. Should the father decide to not abort the child, then the mother should be required to honor his decision. The mother can always give the child to the father after he/she is born. In cases where the father is unknown, unavailable, or incapable of providing consent then the mother should be required to sign a legal document attesting to such. After the abortion is performed, should the biological father learn of what has happened (and he can prove that his consent was undermined by the mother) he should have the right to impose civil liability against the mother. NOTE: In cases where conception occurs through illegal means (such as rape) I do believe the father's rights should be forfeited as a result of his crime against the mother. I am leaving this debate open to anyone who would like to accept it. However, my opponent should not be someone who is Pro Life, as that is a completely separate debate. This debate is purely about extending the right of choice in abortion to fathers.
The Right to Smoke Tobacco Cigarrettes Should Not Be Banned

So I noticed that you made a contradiction in your case. You say, "companies are stealing from you," and that's bad. But, later, you said, "raising the prices to a high price is the solution." I'm confused because your problem with cigarettes is also the solution?? You say that raising prices will stop people from buying cigarettes. AGAIN, as I have stated, they will either buy it from the black market, OR, they will buy the expensive cigarettes. People are willing to do anything for their addiction, as I'm sure that you have experienced with your smoker parents(sorry by the way). I'm assuming that your parents were intense smokers because tobacco is very addictive. So, don't you agree that they would find a way to get cigarettes anyway? Banning them won't really solve anything. It will really just create more problems that it was planning to solve. I don't know if you read what I wrote above about a bad history of bans, so I'm just gonna put it here again: -Ex 1: 1920: the fed gov. banned alcohol. It led to organized crime, massive bootlegging & and a new smuggling industry. -Ex 2: New York tried to ban sugary drunks with an appeal to science. The result was anti-government rebellion as well as lawsuits. According to the Atlantic: The NY ban was doomed to fail. It 'poisoned the water' for better ideas that would have more impact. -Ex 3: Univ. of Vermont banned the sales of bottled water in 2013. It backfired and considerably and increased the sales of single-use bottles of unhealthy drinks, adding more plastic to the environment, and unhealthy options were more accessible. -Ex 4: According to Forbes.com: Georgia passed a law banning undocumented workers; it triggered $140 million in agricultural losses; crops rotted in the fields/ -Ex: 5: Trump's Muslim ban is still causing deep social divisions, distrust among our allies, and costly litigation. Thanks Again -flaming.liberal
The Right to Smoke Tobacco Cigarrettes Should Not Be Banned

OK so you have a point about the black market but something you haven't thought about is the amount of money that businesses are stealing from you, for just 1 packet of cigarettes are $31, JUST 31! just think about how much money you would saving by banning cigarettes also, my answer to how we ban cigarettes is that we increase the price until it is almost never bought and then take cigarettes of the market permanently. my parents are smokers which has been changing my life and if we ban tobacco then no other kids or children have to go through the same problem as me thank you for reading
The Right to Smoke Tobacco Cigarrettes Should Not Be Banned

Okay, I understand your three reasons quite well, and at first glance, it may seem true, but as I said in my 1st case, if tobacco was sold on the black market, it would be unregulated. Here are some health harms that could come from tobacco banning: -people will buy on black market---get dangerous, unregulated tobacco which results in even more health harms -withdrawals resulting in unhealthy obsession Challenge(please answer this in next response): How would you even ban it? Question: Do you realize that the federal government would be banning an entire industry, killing thousands of jobs, and harming the economy tremendously.
The Right to Smoke Tobacco Cigarrettes Should Not Be Banned

Hi, I'm hectic and I'm voting AGAINST smoking I believe smoking should be banned and I can give the proof of why. 1. smoking is a toxic item and has a lot of deadly chemicals in it such as cyanide, carbon monoxide, tar, formaldehyde, ammonia and so much more(1). 2. it is not a good influence on kids and young adults, it is believed 9.7 percent of high school students are smokers by the time they leave high school(2). 3. finally, its just plain bad on your health, smoking could cause cancer almost everywhere around your body and is responsible for about 85% of lung cancer deaths(3). in conclusion smoking can effect everyone even people around you so it should be banned (1) http://www.quitsmokingsupport.com... (2) https://www.tobaccofreekids.org... (3) https://www.cdc.gov...
Mutations would eventually lead to the extinction of a species

This debate was conceived of before my starting the thread in the forum. The full resolution is: "Mutations (along with Natural Selection) would eventually lead to the extinction of a species as opposed to it evolving or retaining population size." The debate rounds shall be in this manner: R1: Acceptance R2: Opening arguments, No direct rebuttals, Rebuttals can be made in the form of creating one"s own arguments. R3-4: Arguments R5: No new arguments. Solely rebuttals. Debate Rules: 1. Words shall be taken in their most contextual definition as defined by m-w.com. 2. Arguments that are not refuted/dropped (In a particular round) will not be counted as concessions. If the argument is not picked up again or refuted by the end of the debate, it will be counted as a concession. It is the burden of the debater to ensure that a dropped argument remains dropped. 3. Common conduct rules will apply. 4. Sources should preferably be posted into the 8000 character limit. TinyUrl or a direction to the comment section is allowed, but discouraged. Debate format: 8000 characters 2 weeks voting 5 rounds 72 hours to reply Voters will be required to comment
Pokemon isn't getting worser

Well, Pro didn't give me any sort of reasoning suggesting that I am blinded by nostalgia. As a person who's only been a fan for a couple of years, I wouldn't know which is better. Pro didn't establish any sort of rules suggesting that whoever accepted this debate HAD to be a Pok"mon fan. And if I didn't play older Pok"mon games, then I cannot be blinded by nostalgia. I rebutted Pro's claim, didn't forfeit any rounds, and put reasoning into my argument. This is a straight up win for me, and I should win this by a landslide.
Pokemon isn't getting worser

I would like to point out two things: 1) Worser isn't a word. I assume you mean worse. 2) How can you prove that we're just blinded by nostalgia? You state that I'm "blinded by nostalgia" as if it's a fact. You have the BoP of addressing that I AM indeed blinded by nostalgia. Since I only play newer Pokemon games, I wouldn't know which is better, thus, I CANNOT be blinded by nostalgia.
College Football should adopt a playoff system

Fairness With a playoff system, what is the point of the regular season. I have already stated that the system in currently in place increases competition during the regular season so that only the best teams get into the championship. This means that teams have to play their heart out every game because once you lose it's over. Wanted With the current system, the stakes are high enough to make every game matter. There have to be risks if the best team is to make it into the championship. The point of the current system is to properly assess who the best teams are during the regular seaon so that once the championship arrives only the best teams are left. Revenue As my opponent has not brought any empirical evidence to support his claim that a playoff system would lead to more revenue I believe it may be discarded.