BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jainism is the oldest living religion

From the refrence provided : "Although today's Hinduism differs significantly from earlier forms of Indian religion, Hinduism's roots date back as far as 2000 BC" The roots of hinduism, which can be termed as 'vedic religion', can be dated back to 2000 BC. The current 'hinduism' is significantly different from that historical vedic religion. The roots of Jainism is the shraman tradition, which was a non-vedic movement parallel to vedic religion. If we are going to consider the roots of a religion, rather than its present form, the religion of vedic-religion should be compared with Shramana tradition, both of which can be dated to Indus valley civilization of India. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shramana
Jainism is the oldest living religion

Jainism have its roots in the Indus Valley Civilization and are the last direct representative of Shramana movement. It follows the teaching of 24 Tithankaras . The last Tirthankar, Lord Mahavira, is dated by historians to 599 - 527 BCE. The 23rd Tirthankar, Lord Parshvanath, can also be reliably dated by the historians to 877 - 777 BCE. No living religion can be reliably dated to exist before Jainism, hence it can be termed as the oldest living religion.
Modified Capitalist Liberal Democracy is inevitable form of government for everyone.

I expected my opponent to make the argument that China was not "really" communist, hence why the source I linked in the previous round specifically argued against the notion that China was communist "in name only." Clearly my opponent didn't read it. The fact that many Chinese government officials are rich doesn't at all negate the idea that China is a communist country. Though China did modify/replace the rigid communist economic system, it is still a heavily communist nation in every single other aspect. Of course, these other political aspects of communism shape and influence China's economy which can probably be most accurately described as Market-Leninism [1, 2]. As my previous source noted, Chinese leaders have been careful to keep control of the commanding heights of politics through the party's grip on the three Ps: personnel, propaganda, and the People's Liberation Army. The Chinese government provides cheap government loans, subsidies, and tax holidays that fund high-tech ventures. This is the opposite of capitalism which distinguishes the market vs. the government. China imposes drastic interventionist contributions from the government and subsidizes "private" business which is more of a communist practice than capitalist one. There is no doubt that China is communist in far more than name only. If my opponent wants to continue disputing this, I invite him to explain how/why China is not really communist, and in the final round I will verify that indeed they truly are. The point here is that this model has been successful for China, and other countries are taking notice and may follow suit [3]. As far as Sharia Law goes, my opponent's argument is that only 6 countries follow Islamic law. That does not negate my points, which were a) Many people do not deem economic prosperity as the sole indicator of a successful nation, b) Many people don't like/want democracy, c) Some people believe that religious authority is paramount to man's authority (politics) and prefer to live by God's word over man's. Given how deeply religious many people particularly in the Middle East can be, just because there are only a handful of nations who follow Sharia Law doesn't mean they will ALL inevitably convert. Even if they do, who is to say they will convert to democracy? My opponent dropped my argument that democracy is gaining opposition even here in the U.S. and that it can be considered tyranny of the majority [4]. The resolution is also problematic, because even the U.S. is not a true democracy [5]. The law of the land, the Constitution, is not entirely democratic [6]. I have yet to see why worldwide democracy and capitalism are inevitable. All Pro has proven is that these ideologies are popular or at least popular through force and coercion. [1] http://www.nytimes.com... [2] http://www6.cityu.edu.hk... [3] http://www.nytimes.com... [4] http://www.sullivan-county.com... [5] http://1215.org... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Modified Capitalist Liberal Democracy is inevitable form of government for everyone.

Firstly, China may under the official name of communist however they are well other capitalist and no one will question they are a globalized economy which has lower worker rights then most Americans. As a matter of fact 1/10 of the wealthiest Chinese people in China actually are high ranking Chinese officials in the People's Congress or top advisory group. Also "fortunes of 103 descendants of the revolutionaries revered in China as the "Eight Immortals," who backed Deng two years after Mao's death. Three of the descendants headed or still head state-owned companies with combined assets of about $1.6 trillion in 2011, or about a fifth of China's national output. Twenty-six ran or held top positions in state-owned companies; 43 ran their own businesses or became executives in private firms."[1] The previous quote ought to show without any doubt the condition of communism in China. Secondly on the note of political Islam, Now in the world only 6 governments proclaim to be an Islamic State: Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Mauritania, and Afghanistan[4]. 3 of which are fighting civil wars. Also one can see now a rejection of Islamism and embrace of liberalism in Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt as result of the Arab Spring which has shown liberal elements have now began to take hold in the Near-east[3]. Also S. Arabia has been said by a member of the royal family him self that Arabia is progressing slowly towards a democratic society.[2] While their are a handful of Authoritarian regimes left their is no evidence to support Liberalism will not consume them as they have Monarchies, Fascism, and Communism[5]. 1. http://www.heraldextra.com... 2.http://www.youtube.com... 3.http://www.bbc.co.uk... 4.http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. Francis Fukuyama End Of History and The Last Man(1992) first edition
Modified Capitalist Liberal Democracy is inevitable form of government for everyone.

First, Communism has not been a complete failure. China is a communist nation [1], and is considered a BRIC country - a country deemed to be at a particular stage of newly advanced economic development [2]. As for Islamic countries, many people do not deem economic prosperity as the sole indicator of a successful nation. Many people in the Middle East don't want democracy [3]. They believe that religious authority is paramount to man's authority (politics) and prefer to live by Sharia Law. Because Sharia Law is based on the Quran, it cannot or should not be practiced in a democracy which encourages voting based on policies other than kinship or religious affiliation. Not everyone values freedom/democracy in the way Americans do. Further, not all Americans value democracy either. In many cases, it can be considered tyranny of the majority. There is a Libertarian/Voluntaryist movement that espouses voluntary government; it rejects the notion that other people should vote on laws and values that affect your life. This movement which stands contrary to democratic ideas is gaining exposure and becoming increasingly popular with the new generation [4]. This indicates to me that worldwide democratization is not "inevitable." A benevolent dictatorship could be successful. A great leader with great power can allow a country to prosper; it's when a bad leader comes along that the nation suffers. Considering my opponent's opening argument was short and sweet, I'll leave mine at that for now. [1] http://www.foreignpolicy.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.aljazeera.com... [4] http://www.policymic.com...
Modified Capitalist Liberal Democracy is inevitable form of government for everyone.

Liberal democracy as defined as, "a form of representative democracy with free and fair form of elections procedure and competitive political process. The most interesting feature of liberal democracy is that all adult citizens is given the right to vote regardless of race, gender or property ownership." Has been shown over the last several decades of history due to the fall of Communism, deterioration of Islamic Authoritarianism, decline of trade barriers to be the inevitable form of government for all nations. Also it is plain to see rival system such as Fascism, Communism or Theocracies are declining over the world and existing autocratic states either claim to be democratic in some sense or on the road to democracy. Good luck!
The argument from design

As this is a one round debate, I'm going to assume that this is supposed to be two speeches rather than an actual debate. As such, I'll just post my negating speech: One of the arguments regarding the seemlessly eternal theism-v-atheism topic is that of the design of the universe. This argument was proposed by "philosophical" theists claiming that because the universe is elegent, complex, and so utterly beautiful someone had to create them. Although some may consider this a philisophical or even intelligent theory, my summary of it can be described as "Math is hard, there's no way people made this." The main reason this theory fails is because it is used as a reason to assert a god exists. This is the same argument as "we exist, therefor somebody made us argument", but it is simply extended to "everything exists, therefor somebody made everything", and the same arguments apply against it. Simply because humans cannot comprehend some things in the universe, and just because humans happened to realize how things are structured when observing both the smallest and largest entities in the universe, does not mean that a magical creator who we have no proof of the fact that something created it in the first place, other than the fact that a human is not capable of creating it. Thus, one must first prove that there is an all-powerful deity powerful enough to create an entire universe before you can assert that a universe was created by one. Another reason why this theory fails is because it focuses around mathematics. Mathematics, like time, had no existence before Humans arrived. Just like the sun would always rise and always fall, you could have groups of objects in one area, and occasionally that group would be mixed with another of group of the same object. This occurred, however there was no math, just like the sun rising and falling was not because time passed, it simply happened and Humans used it to measure time. Like time, eventually humans showed and noticed that group of apples rolled into a group of more apples, and devised a system where he could find out how many apples he now had in one group instead of individually counting them all. The same goes for triginometry. Triginometry did not always exist, but when people realised they needed a more efficient way lob something through the air from one point to another (like the catapault) they developed a system to make this more efficient rather than simply "eye-balling" it. this system of mathematics, which started with sentience and is still evolving today, is simply how we rationalize numerical events in the universe around us. Because math is just a method created by humans and not by nature, this theory also falls. Of course I could assert that the only reason we actually have math is because Homotheus handed my XGreat Grandaddy a burning stick, but I think we can all conclude that this simply isn't true.
The argument from design

Philosopher Robin Collins has identified three features of the universe that point strongly to the existence of God: (i) The so-called fine-tuning of laws, constants, and initial conditions of the universe for complex life of comparable intelligence to ourselves. (ii) The extraordinary beauty and elegance of the laws and mathematical structure of the universe. (iii) The intelligibility and discoverability of the basic structure of nature. There is no reason why we would expect any of these things to exist in a universe that arose naturally, but we DO expect them under theism. The most common objection to this kind of argument is that multiple universes might exist, each one with different constants, and so it should not surprise us that at least one of these universes supports life. However, the only multiverse hypothesis that enjoys any sort of scientific support is inflationary cosmology, which (we have every reason to believe) creates the same constants that make the universe just right to support life. If that is not the case, or if some other "universe generator" exists, then its own existence, and the fact that it just "happens" to produce such a rich diversity of universes, would itself need explaining. In addition, multiple universes, even if they account for fine-tuning, do not account for the beauty and intelligibility of the universe. The argument from design, then, provides compelling evidence for a creator. Source: http://www.infidels.org...
Santa Claus is Probably a Pedophile or Stalker

My opponent completely fails to not only refute my arguments, but to also provide reasoning that his arguments should be taken above mine. "Santa Claus watches children to see if they are behaving well"Which means that Sanata Claus watche children cosntantly, even when they are partcipating in certain innapropriate activities. He also seems to have no problem with that which meansthat he is probably a pedophile which affirms the resolution. "it does not imply that he is stalking us"He watches us without our permission, without any regards to our privacy, which further means that he stalks us. "he checks to see if your naughty or nice"meaning he is watching us meaning he is a stalker. He always judges whether we are naughty or nice meaning he breaks all privacy barriers (therefre making him a stalker) and watches us do naughty activities that may be of a sexual nature that he probably enjoys. "he only way you would assume he is a pedophile is if you were one yourself"I neither confirm nor deny this. Anyways my opponent didn't come near to adequately even coming up with a argument that comes close to contending to my arguments.
Santa Claus is Probably a Pedophile or Stalker

He Sees You When You’re Sleeping; He Knows When You’re Awake To kick this off, Santa seems to always be watching you, emphasized by the popular line “he sees you when you’re sleeping; he knows when you’re awake.” This implies that Santa is always watching you. In the shower, in the bathroom, making out with your teddy bear, eating dinner, and even watches you when you are sleeping. The f*ck is with this guy? This right here proves he’s a stalker! Hell, without our permission, without our knowledge he is somehow always watching us… Don’t look behind you. Knows Whether You Are Naughty or Nice Wait, so first he is constantly watching us and now he wants to know whether we’re naughty or not?! Holy sh*t pedophile alert! To emphasize his pedophilia he only brings gift to children also! Wait so let me get this straight, he knows who is naught and nice, and he is constantly watching us. So this means Santa is constantly watching naughty girls. Santa likes pornos apparently. What a sick f*ck. He isn’t even discrete about it! I mean c’mon Santa pull yourself together! Checkin’ His List Twice Yeah list of names, addresses, and personal information. How the hell else does he know where I live?! Hell even knows how to break into my house without me even knowing! Truly only a stalker would be able to do this! Oh yeah, and he’s making sure whether we’re naughty or nice by checkin’ his list twice. You don’t even wanna know how he checks to see if we’re naughty or not… Let’s just say his method is seduction… hohoho indeed Discriminating Proof That Santa Claus is a Pedophile Stalker He’s holding three weeping children in his arms, a face that says “Yup I finally got ‘em an’ im satisfied!” and no parents or adults to be seen anywhere! Photo was probably taken by one of his slave elves…
Life begins at conception

That's not what you said though. Hate to hold you over the coals on this one but you said, "Life begins at conception," and placed this debate in the 'Science' category. You then took it even further in that direction with the specificity of, "Life begins when a sperm and egg combine.." and further still with, "ALL individual life begins at conception.." So not only are you wrong on the science technically and idealistically in many ways, but you are also off semantically as well by your choice of language. Life (in the broad sense) has already '"begun'". Life continues on by morphing generationally.. Further, life (in the broad sense) does not make much sense to us in terms of ultimate meaning when we look at single individuals, rather it makes more sense when we consider the "collective". But notice this is different than, "Life beginning at conception." The only saving word you used is "individual" .. So if you are referring to what makes an individual, even still, those parts didn't start at conception either, but rather came from their parents.. and those came from their parents.. This isn't just an idea, it is literally mechanically-physically so, the material "stuff", DNA/chromosomes from both mom and dad were once "INSIDE" and WERE mom and dad. So it would then be accurate to say you, in fact, ARE your mom and dad (who were alive before your "individual" conception of their parts came together to make you). You the individual is only important if we were then to discuss your memories say, or your experiences as an individual, but the stuff that physically makes you was around and literally already around and IN your parents before your conception, and was totally alive. The interesting part is that your parents are their parents too, and so on, and so, and so, until you can connect other life relationally the further back you go generationally. So to talk about the "individual" is to talk about one grain of sand on a vast beach, and then pin the importance of an individual at an arbitrary moment in the cyclical morphing and reproduction of the massive organismic collective we call and refer to as Life, is simply silly. An example of what you have done is like me saying, "The beach started when the grain of sand was made.." Which actually sounds really cool, but you then see my point? That doesn't quite accurately describe the beginning of the beach nor the individual grain of sand in/part of the beach.
Life begins at conception

I purposely used a bold bias here to see if there would be any other biased people against me, so I could prove a point. But I see you are logical and not biased, so I will give you my true stance on this. I am talking about when a new individual life begins, a new human. This new life begins when the haploid sperm and haploid egg combine to create a new diploid celled organism, which is the new human. Now the reason I made this biased debate is to see how many people are ignorant to this biological fact. Yes the sperm is alive, and yes, the egg is technically alive. But the difference is, the sperm and egg contain THE MOTHER AND FATHER'S OWN INDIVIDUAL DNA haploid blueprints. This new life form starts when the sperm and egg combine and create a NEW DNA BLUEPRINT that is different from the mother and father. A new life begins at conception, and what I mean by that, is that a NEW ORGANISM starts at conception when the haploid sperm and egg combine.
Life begins at conception

Yet a sperm and an ovum are also "living" cells (gametes). It would be more accurate, then, to say, "Multi-cellular life begins (or reproduces) at the moment of conception" (or something to that effect). Even one of the terms used to describe this 'kind' of reproduction is sometimes referred to as "morphologic". Living cells can then make 'copies' of them selves, still not always producing a being, certainly not a human being yet, but still, in fact, "living". Also, your opening doesn't exactly account for other 'kinds' of life in the exact same way as multi-cellular, animal-cell based life; e.g. flora, plant and vegetative life. The processes are somewhat similar, but always, and the terms would not be the same. To say, like you did in a broad sense, "LIFE begins at conception," is simply not accurate. It causes an infinite regress and a whole plethora of other question considering the sperm and ovum are "living" cells. For example: Where did the living sperm and ovum come from? I like how you kept your opening/challenge short and sweet but it's inaccurate in scope, technically wrong and limited and doomed from the start by the specific terminology and wording you chose. I sincerely hope you are a trained biologist, or at least a physical anthropologist by vocation, and can better explain your idea.
The tooth fairy exists

To be honest, this debate was meant to have a humorous undertone. If the opponent would like to debate this topic at a serious level, then I will drop my first argument. ---Indeed, the concept of the "Tooth fairy" exists, along with those of "vampires, aliens, werewolves, inter-dimensional beings, ghosts, Gods, and literally any type of being your mind can imagine." Indeed, "mind can imagine something" and the object itself does not necessarily exist in reality. But the idea of the object surely exists. Therefore, the "tooth fairy," at a conceptual level, does exist. Semantic argument: This argument is based on a subjective definition. The term "God" would be defined as a myth by an Atheist, but it would be defined as a holy Being by those who are devoutly pious. This is where any semantical argument lacks, so I would rather not debate the topic at this level. The absense of evidence and the evidence of absense This argument is overly simplistic. Because a person goes into a child's bedroom to find the tooth fairy and the tooth fairy is not perceived, then the tooth fairy does not exist? Centuries ago, biology had not developed and scientists were unable to view things at a molecular and atomic level. Does that mean that at that time, molecules and atoms did not exist? Ad populum argument I am saying that the concept of the "tooth fairy" exists and therefore, as a concept, it is undeniable that it exists. It does not matter how many people believe in it or whether this number constitutes a minority or a majority or neither. The fact that this idea is established means that it exists. My point when I mentioned that the idea exists in many cultural is to simply show the widespread existence of the "tooth fairy" (again, strictly as a concept.) ---The bottom line of this debate is one of semantics. Can something exist as a concept? Since thought can be viewed at a strictly scientific function of chemicals, we can say that the thought of the "tooth fairy" is physical in nature and therefore, to some degree, tangible. Thank you, and I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.