BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This House Believes that Mark Purposely Ended His Gospel at Verse 8

"As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. "Don"t be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, "He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him just as he told you."" Trembling and bewildered, the women went and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." And there the Gospel simply ends! Mark gives no accounts of anyone seeing Jesus as Matthew, Luke, and John later report. In fact, according to Mark, any future epiphanies or "sightings" of Jesus will be in the north, in Galilee, not in Jerusalem. This original ending of Mark was viewed by later Christians as so deficient that not only was Mark placed second in order in the New Testament, but various endings were added by editors and copyists in some manuscripts to try to remedy things Even though this ending is patently false, people loved it, and to this day conservative Christians regularly denounce "liberal" scholars who point out this forgery, claiming that they are trying to destroy "God"s word." The evidence is clear. This ending is not found in our earliest and most reliable Greek copies of Mark. In A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Bruce Metzger writes: "Clement of Alexandria and Origen [early third century] show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them."1 The language and style of the Greek is clearly not Markan, and it is pretty evident that what the forger did was take sections of the endings of Matthew, Luke and John (marked respectively in red, blue, and purple above) and simply create a "proper" ending. Since Mark is our earliest Gospel, written according to most scholars around the time of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE, or perhaps in the decade before, we have strong textual evidence that the first generation of Jesus followers were perfectly fine with a Gospel account that recounted no appearances of Jesus. We have to assume that the author of Mark"s Gospel did not consider his account deficient in the least and he was either passing on, or faithfully promoting, what he considered to be the authentic Gospel. What most Christians do when they think about Easter is ignore Mark. Since Mark knows nothing of any appearances of Jesus as a resuscitated corpse in Jerusalem, walking about, eating and showing his wounds, as recounted by Matthew, Luke and John, those stories are simply allowed to "fill in" for his assumed deficiency. In other words, no one allows Mark to have a voice. What he lacks, ironically, serves to marginalize and mute him! In simple words - Mark died before he could finish his Gospel [Sources: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...]
Evolution is proven fact. The god of the bible cannot be proved.

I do not retract my statement of "God Bless" by expressing the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, both freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I have not declared war on you, I am merely using my right as a human being. Also, God does not hate children. I do not know where you have gotten your information, but I must say you were rather misguided. You said that I have lost this debate, but with all due respect sir, you are not the one deciding, the reader is. If they do agree with you, though you have yet to give a piece of evidence for the existence of God, while I have only scratched the surface of my evidence, I will respect their decision. But you sir, have no right, to declare the winner. Just like you, I have "stated what I 100% know to be true and I can prove it." So, I propose we move on past this small squabble and proceed into Round Four. If it will make you feel better, I will not say my "foul language" at the end of this round, but I do not, under any circumstances, retract my previous greeting.
Evolution is proven fact. The god of the bible cannot be proved.

Thankfully I am smart enough to read the endings of people statements before reading anything else. Its a college trick that my professor pulled on the class in which at least half the class failed including me. But after that, obviously not me and that was 21 years ago. So when you said "god bless" then its time for me to sign off for the round because you have effectively declared war on me in which I am not going to be any part of. Also when you do that to others who do not share your ritualistic annihilation, and you cannot even prove that your god exists, and this so-called god of yours hates children for jeez sakes, then unless you rephrase your dischord, this debate is over and you lose because I do not appreciate foul language as its always, no exceptipns, none, "god blast" if anything OR nothing. Now should you choose to rephrase your superlative language with an apology that you mispoke, because if you notice I NEVER do crap like that and state what I 100% know to be true and I can prove it, whereas you can prove absolutely nothing about your non existent god, and I can prove what I know to be true for everybody else, they just don't know it... then its onto RD4. Its up to you.
Evolution is proven fact. The god of the bible cannot be proved.

I hope that this will be both fun and enlightening. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As my opponent has already pointed out, we will not be debating on the issue of evolution, so there is even no need for it to be referenced for the remainder of the debate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As well as this, since my opponent has not provided a format, I will take the time to do so. It is as follows: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Opening statements Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Defense of statements and closing argument --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, onto the burden of proof. The burden of proof is laid upon both me and my opponent. While I may have the majority of the burden, he also will have to backup his claims about the evil of God. 1. Why is there evil in the first place? 2. Why does God allow evil? 3. Does God have a right to be "angry"? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Again, I look forward to this debate, and may the best man win!
Evolution is proven fact. The god of the bible cannot be proved.

Evolution is proven factAntibiotic resistant microbes is 100% confirmation and certification and proven fact that evolution is taking place right here in the here and the now. Antibiotic resistant microbes are evolving every single second of every single day to become more resistant to antibiotics.The so what nothingness god of the bible (thankfully) is not proven factNo matter which language you speak god is NOT proven fact. 1. My opponent cannot win the evolution argument in which was just listed. I will list another point to evolution that is also irrifutable in round 2 with a video. So only religion is left to argue. 2. Why should this god be believed in when he is knowingly evil and thus creates evil, hates children, creates genocides, creates wars, bloodshed, has freely admitted to having anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, jealousy, in other words is completely immoral? 3. Prove god according to the bible exists.
Guantanamo prisoners coming to Uruguay.

I'm proposing this debate as an open quest for opinions because this for me as a Brazilian citizen is something really intriguing with potential tragic consequences. One might take, especially my fellow countrymen, a point against this question besides that of the Guant"namo prison close down. Some would say I'm just a pathetic neurotic person who believes cheap conspiracy theories. Well, that is not the case. If any of you guys would take the time to make some serious research about how Brazilian politics and economics have been conducted in the last 6 years it would become almost for sure crystal clear to anyone that this country is consistently marching to become a new kind of monster in the world. So, my concerns are that transferring prisoners captured in Pakistan, a widely acknowledged Muslim republic to not only support but protect terrorist groups, to a country like Uruguay would have some sort of reasons beyond those weak arguments posed by Obama's and Uruguayan's administrations. I'm not supposing anything but rather proposing some questions like for example why Uruguay when there's no previous records of any anti-terrorist policies nor any recent experience in the country? Why now? The U.S. Defense Department says these are low-level detainees so why have they been kept in Guant"namo for more then 10 years? The detainees being transferred are all of Muslim culture so why take Uruguay as a destination to them? The U.S. says these men cannot go back home... Why? The worst of my concerns is that Brazil and other countries in the region are studying offering U.S. Defense Department similar aid to find a new home to Guant"namo detainees. Moreover all the commotion around the alleged human rights questions is a strong selling point to the public opinion and also makes a great cover for what seems to really be going on. Uruguayan president, Mr. Mujica, is well known as a great guy with all his humbleness public demonstrations but I cannot see much of his past as an urban guerrilla activist back in the 70's in the news. And he has already declared the Guant"namo detainees will receive a refugees status basically meaning they will have the right to pursue Uruguayan citizenship and be free to walk around. That makes me freeze! Uruguay may very well become the new base to Muslim extremism and terrorism in the years to come which casts a huge danger over Brazil.
if marvel were to fight dc universe marvel would win

The only rule established by my opponent is that I must assemble a team comprised of 5 DC entities. Given this remarkably light constraint, allow me to introduce my team. 1. Mordru [http://dc.wikia.com...] 2. Darkseid [http://dc.wikia.com...] 3. The Anti-Monitor [http://dc.wikia.com...] 4. Imperiex (Prime) [http://dc.wikia.com...] 5. The Presence [http://dc.wikia.com...] Additionally, there are some rules of engagement I ought to briefly take care of. Location: Inside of this maze [http://www.astrolog.org...] This maze is enclosed on all sides. Walls, floor, ceiling. Taking a cross-section, each passage is 8 feet tall and wide (the Hulk is usually depicted as less than 8' tall, so I figured that this would accommodate him). Additionally, the walls of the passages are opaque, and are composed of a material impervious to damage, ensuring that the maze can not be destroyed. On top of that, also note, from here on, that team composition cannot be changed in any way (adding/removing/substituting team members), and that all characters have the equipment and supplies usually associated with the character. One pre-battle note: given the small size of the maze (compared to some of my rather large team members), I would have the Presence use his powers over existence to manipulate the size of my team such that all five members will fit comfortably within the confines of the maze. Good luck to my opponent, whose team of mutants will (I imagine) have a difficult time taking on some of the most powerful characters in the DC universe.
Evolution is more likely than Young Earth Creationism

Evolution will be defined as the process through which older life forms adapted to their environments and slowly became more modern life forms. The world is over 4 billion years old. Young Earth Creationism states that God created the world with life forms exactly as it is today (i. e. , if dinosaurs existed, they existed alongside humanity, etc. ), the Bible is interpreted completely literally, and the world is 10,000 years old or less. The Burden of Proof is shared. Each side has the burden to prove that their side is more likely. Good Luck.
CNN should let Joe Biden participate in their Democratic Presidential debate even if he doesnt run

I'll begin by posting my opening argument? I will begin by breaking up the question "CNN should let Joe Biden participate in their Democratic Presidential debate even if he doesn't run" into 2 parts. First with: "CNN should let Joe Biden participate in their Democratic Presidential debate" followed by "even if he doesnt run" as I believe they are 2 separate issues which should be addressed separately. Joe Biden should absolutely, unequivocally not be allowed to participate in their Democratic Presidential debate. Why you may ask, well as I shall demonstrate with sound logical augments backed up by credible evidence Joe Biden's character is not fit to participate in any debate of any kind. Now you find yourself asking what's so bad about old Joe? Well it's no secret that Joe was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, United States. And what do we know about Pennsylvania? That's right vampires. Me and my team over at NASA have been collecting evidence for some time now and have come to the conclusion that Joe Biden is in fact actually Dracula, Now this is an indisputable fact that should not be ignored and we have published our findings on YouTube found here - It would be very foolish of Fox news to allow the debate to continue as it will put many lives in danger as Joe may be unable to control his insatiable thirst for breast milk. Now my opponent may be thinking at this stage well this is the 21nd century and we can't just go around discriminating against any joe blow we don't like. But to counter this I would say Joe is no ordinary blow and the rights of the people to enjoy an honest debate outweigh the rights of Count Biden. Now to the second part of the question "even if he doesnt run" which is irrelevant because as we all know vampires don't run they fly.
CNN should let Joe Biden participate in their Democratic Presidential debate even if he doesnt run

"I am not a troll I am a human being"You are both a troll and sub-human. You have contributed nothing to the site, probably never will, and your accomplishments in real life will likely mirror that.... There are reasons why abortion is legal, and your very existence is one of those reasons. "I have not forfeited "You attempted to troll the debate, did so badly and pathetically, as you always do when you try to troll, and you did so on a debate where trolling was explicitly outlawed, meaning you have broken the rules and therefore forfeited the debate. If you were able to comprehend the meaning of simple words you might have been able to avoid making yourself look completely retarded, but that is still hypothetical since your stupidity knows no bounds, troll :)Con broke literally the only rule in this debate of 'no trolling', voters therefore must award full points to me since Con broke the rules.
Video Games (yes) Board Games (no)

I like board games and hope this will be a good debate. Rebuttles: Pro stated that the reason video games are better is because more people play them. First, where is the evidence for this? I personally see many people still play games like scrabble, cards, monopoly, etc. Second, this in no way proves that video games are better. Suppose that more than 80 percent of the population smoked. That doesn't mean we can conclude that it's better to smoke than to not smoke. I know that's a bad example but you cannot decide whether something's better than something else just based on the usage. Arguments Against Video Games: 1. Video games are directly related to increased aggression in children that play them [1]. This is bad because aggressive children are more prone to violence and thus crimes. Arguments for Board Games: 1. When you play board games, you interact more with other people. When you play video games, you might occasionally talk with other players or play multiplayer, but most of it is completely self-centered. Board games are better because you actually play with other people. 2. Board games are better because they require more thinking and strategy. Games like Stratego, Chess, and Risk require lots of thinking on the players part. Not so much for video games. When you play a video game, you don't have to think as much and in fact the article "Video games make boys stupid" says that there if you "give a boy a PlayStation II... it is statistically more likely to make him slower at reading and writing. He will also have more learning problems." [2] Good luck Sources: 1. http://www.healthline.com... 2. http://www.theinquirer.net...
Jesus vs. Buuda who will win? PRO=Jesus Neg=Buuda

Well to refute my opponent I would like to state the powers Jesus has by turning to Steven Colbert. Jesus powers refers to the many various and wonderful mystical powers with which Jesus wields to smite his enemies! Some of these blatantly amazing powers include turning water into wine, wine into gasoline and gasoline back into dinosaurs. Amongst His other mighty powers: Making the Red Sea surfable for The Jews Heat vision/AKA:Jesus Beam Making taxes (and tax collectors) cool again Turning Peters into rocks Creating horny girls in order to attract a following of disciples Invention of the color TV in 1953 Nuclear weapons technology granting Also floods are possible because if you look in the Old Testament in the bible you'll see the Story of Noah and the Ark. Also back from my friend Mr. Colbert he has proved in his book(I Am America and So Can You) that god has won every war he has fought with non-god at 0 and the democratic congress with -1. Problem is he doesn't occupy well with the case of the Iraqi war. Also Jesus has hundreds of thousands of angels and more with god who has all of Jesus' powers and more. Also with the leadership of Kenny from South Park(Episode where Kenny beats hell with PSP) Heaven is unstoppable. To refute Buddha's power of making things out of matter all you have to do is secure him in a nom-matter container. Also to drive the nail in the Coffin Jesus has the plaque which he used vs. the Egyptians to free the Jews. So now you can clearly see Jesus is the ultimate Alpha Omega.
Jesus vs. Buuda who will win? PRO=Jesus Neg=Buuda

Hahaha, no! Jesus could never hurt the Buddha! First things first, Jesus is a pacifist, and no Jesus doesn't have an omega flood or a Jesus beam. Jesus does have resurrection, sadly Buddha as reincarnation so this point is rather moot. Furthermore Jesus needs to be on a cross to be resurrected, Buddha can make sure Jesus does not find a cross by sitting on him, because as my opponent said, he is big. Next let us check this excerpt from http://www.dlshq.org..., a site dedicated to Buddha: "Buddha performed some miracles. A savage serpent of great magical power sent forth fire against Buddha. Buddha turned his own body into fire and sent forth flames against the serpent. Once a tree bent down one of its branches in order to help Buddha when he wanted to come up out of the water of a tank. One day five hundred pieces of firewood split by themselves at Buddha's command. Buddha created five hundred vessels with fire burning in them for the Jatilas to warm themselves on a winter night. When there was flood, he caused the water to recede and then he walked over the water." 1. Buddha can turn into a fireball and shoot fireballs, this owns Jesus. 2. Plants come to the aid of Buddha, he controls the Ent army! http://www.secretmuseum.com... 3. Buddha can split things when he commands it, Buddha would split any cross near Jesus on command. Jesus would never resurrect. 4. Buddha creates matter out of nothing, 500 vessles, this is akin to Jesus' talent for feeding many people with only 2 fish and some bread. 5. Even if Jesus could make an omega flood Buddha has the ability to make any flood recede and then walk over it anyways. Furthermore another site that lends some expertise on Buddha: http://web.ukonline.co.uk... has this to say of his first supernatural power: "1. IDDHIVIDHA - THE POWER OF TRANSFORMATION. The Buddha said "If a monk should frame a wish as follows: "Let me exercise the various magical powers, let me being one become multiform., let me being multiform become one, let me become visible, become invisible, go without hindrance through walls, ramparts or mountains as if through air, let me rise and sink in the ground as if in the water, let me walk on the water as if on unyielding ground, let me travel cross-legged through the air liked a winged bird, let me touch and feel with my hand the moon and the sun mighty and powerful though they are, and let me go without my body even up to the Brahma world," then must he be perfect in the precepts (Sila), bring his thoughts to a state of quiescence (Samadhi), practice diligently the trances (Jhana), attain to insight (Panna) and be frequenter to lonely places." " Thus Buddha can quite literally do anything, and if somehow he did manage to die he would just be reincarnated. I now stand open for my opponent's rebuttal.
Jesus vs. Buuda who will win? PRO=Jesus Neg=Buuda

As my buddy Steven Colbert would say "God loves and blesses America." Thus if God loves America Jesus loves america too or is kicked off to the underworld. Now since America fights a bunch of people Jesus fights for America thus we win. Now when we go after China which we'll end up doing, Jesus will have to fight Buuda(excuse me for miss-spelling it)and it will be the god fight of the century. The reason I think Jesus would win is because he'd use his Jesus powers on Buuda(ex:omega flood, jesus beam, resurrection). Buuda won't fight back because first he's fat, and second he tries to be peaceful thus Jesus will walk all over him.
E-sports is a valid proffesion

Those definitions are acceptable. Allow me to define further, Using the merriam-webster dictionary. Justifiable: capable of being justified Justified: a : to prove or show to be just, Right, Or reasonable trying to justify his selfish behavior I shouldn't have to justify myself to them. justify the ways of God to man " John Milton b(1) : to show to have had a sufficient legal reason (2) : to qualify (oneself) as a surety (see SURETY sense 3) by taking oath to the ownership of sufficient property Sufficient is a loose term, But if we examine E-sports, They do have a sufficient legal reason for existing, To provide entertainment and to gain money. Concerning the definition of profession, E-sports does require specialized knowledge. While E-sports does not require long intensive academic preparation it does require intense preparation and training. Also its important to realize the definition says often not always. As always, I look forward to your response.
E-sports is a valid proffesion

As Con, I will be debating that E-sports (a professional gamer) isn't a "valid profession. " To start off, If we intuitively equate the term "profession" with any job that an individual can get paid for, A professional gamer would indeed be a profession, And you would be right. However, I will make a distinction between "profession" and "valid profession" here since that is what you stated in the topic. I referenced the Merriam-Webster dictionary to define the terms valid and profession for this debate. Valid: well-grounded or justifiable Profession: a calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive academic preparation If you agree with the above definitions, We can proceed with the debate. Note that I will be debating strictly on the semantics of the above definitions.