BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Earth is Flat

Sources from previous round: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org...I will begin this argument by stating that con has not properly followed the rules of the debate. In his case, he was supposed to provide arguments and evidence regarding the earth being round, and he properly failed to do so. Therefore, con also failed to provide sources (since there was no argument).Con's set of rules also didn't include plagarism as a restriction, and he showed lack of conduct by accusing me of breaking a rule that was never put in place. Con is clearly looking for loopholes for the purpose of receiving votes, and this behavior is completly unacceptable in a formal debate setting.There is no evidence to rebut, therefore my argument stands. Since I have properly followed the rules unlike my opponent, I encourage all viewers to vote pro. As a side note, I would like to thank all viewers of this debate from the bottom of my heart for reading my argument. I was recently diagnosed with HIV, and the support I have received from members of this website has been extraordinary. To whoever is reading this, I hope you have a wonderful day and always remember you are beautiful. God bless you all!
Jesus is a myth, based on other pagan religions.

Instead of providing a bunch of evidence against this claim, I will merely make a few statements of fact. Most every example of similarity between Jesus and other pagan gods, are mentioned in manuscripts that postdate Christianity. In other words, if you look at the original texts, you will not see many of these claims. Many of them are complete fabrications, without any evidence to support them. So, whatever pro provides as evidence must come form religious texts that predate Christianity. I'll require references for every claim you make, since you have accepted the BOP. Even then, Old Testament prophecies about the virgin birth and a Savior predate many of the original pagan texts. As you follow this debate, I want you to keep a few things in mind. (A) 1) TERMINOLOGY One thing to look out for when presented with copycat claims is the use of Judeo-Christian terminology. There have been many religions throughout history whose members participated in ritual baths but it was not baptism. Political and religious groups may have celebrated a communal meal but it was not a Eucharist. Followers may consider their god a savior of some sort but they are not called Messiah. Religions may speak of an afterlife but they do not consist of places known as Heaven and Hell. Critics may use such terms to make their connections seem stronger but this is a misuse of terminology as these words are usually of Judeo-Christian origins. 2) TIMING When presented with comparative evidence, ask yourself: Did the figure precede the Old Testament Messianic Prophecies? (most do not) Does the timing of the evidence precede Christianity? (many religious texts and reliefs post-date Christianity) Does the figure precede the life of Jesus? (figures like Apollonius of Tyana do not) 3) SYMBOLISM Ask yourself what the symbolism is behind such parallels. Like most religious and political groups of antiquity, a sect might have celebrated a communal meal but it did not hold the same significance of the Christian Eucharist. Members might consider their deity a savior but they did not consider the figure a savior from sin and damnation, etc. 4) SOURCES Do the claims actually come from the sacred texts of the religion in question (most hardly ever do). Most references simply quote secondary sources by authors of the same ilk. When they do cite a religious source, most critics will not specify the book, volume, or verse number yet they readily quote exactly where the "copy" can be found in the Christian Bible. As I mentioned earlier, I will require these references, or your evidence will be dismissed. I believe I'll stop here and wait for pro's opening argument. The podium is yours. (A) . http://thedevineevidence.com...
Jesus is a myth, based on other pagan religions.

Some people claim that Jesus is just a myth, and point out that He is similar to older pagan deities. They claim that He is, in fact, based on them. I disagree. Pro must accept the burden of proof. Note that this is not about whether or not Jesus actually existed. This debate is strictly about the Biblical Jesus. My contention is that He is unique, in all of history. Pro must show, conclusively, that Jesus is based on other religious writings, and beliefs. Four rounds. Round one: acceptance. Round two: Opening statements. Round three: Rebuttals. No new arguments. Round four: Closing arguments.
Gay Parenting is Not the Best Child-Rearing Method

REBUTTAL"You used the example of Zach Wahls and he seems to be a very nice young man indeed. But if you misunderstood, I am not saying that same sex parents cannot do what heterosexual parents do. In some cases, they do it better. But in the case of sucessful child rearing, they fall short because of the natural evolution of the family." I already gave evidence that shows homosexual parents can successfully raise a child."Men and women were made to raise children. When was the last time you've seen a pregnant gay couple? Men cannot impregnate men and neither can women impregnate each other. It's just the way the world works."It's funny you mention that men and women are made for raising children but what about sterile couples huh? Heterosexuals who can't have children or women and men who have medical conditions that prohibit them from having children. they are no diffrent from homosexuals in my opinion. Who cares if a man can't get a man pregnant or if a women can't get a women pregnant. Sexual intercourse is not the only way of having a child. For lesbians you have artificial insemination and adoption and for gay men you have surrogacy and adoption."In a society where gay parenting is a readily accepted thing, I personally believe everyone has the right to children. But we have to realize that when we throw away traditions and morals, we throw away a part of our common sense. Heterosexual parenting may be a thing of tradition, but sometimes tradition are not a bad thing at all."No its not a bad thing, However its 2013 and not everyone believes in traditions and morals like you do. It's a personal decision."And yes, men can play both roles, but in order to truly parent, you cannot just "play" the role, you have to BE the role. Huge difference."That's not always the case. I've in countered men who play the roll better than most women and vice versa. Just because your born to be that role doesn't mean you're automatically going to be good at it.When going into this debate you need to provide evidence supporting your opinion otherwise it makes it untrue but my opponent failed to do so. Gender and sexual orientation does not determine whether a child will grow up to be just fine. Love and the commitment of two parents determine that. You don't automatically become a great parent because you are in a heterosexual relationship with traditions and morals because from personal experiences I've seen those type of familes fail aswell.I thank my opponent for allowing me to participate in this debate. I hope to win. (1)http://en.wikipedia.org...
Gay Parenting is Not the Best Child-Rearing Method

I've set myself to failure with this debate, and I apologize, but I will come foward with my rubuttals to end this argument. My evidence that fatherless kids do poorer than their peers with fathers can be found here: http://www.civitas.org.uk... You used the example of Zach Wahls and he seems to be a very nice young man indeed. But if you misunderstood, I am not saying that same sex parents cannot do what heterosexual parents do. In some cases, they do it better. But in the case of sucessful child rearing, they fall short because of the natural evolution of the family.Men and women were made to raise children. When was the last time you've seen a pregnant gay couple? Men cannot impregnate men and neither can women impregnate each other. It's just the way the world works.In a society where gay parenting is a readily accepted thing, I personally believe everyone has the right to children. But we have to realize that when we throw away traditions and morals, we throw away a part of our common sense. Heterosexual parenting may be a thing of tradition, but sometimes tradition are not a bad thing at all.Of course traditions can be rewritten; that's what we see going on today.And yes, men can play both roles, but in order to truly parent, you cannot just "play" the role, you have to BE the role. Huge difference.I believe that we both have a point and that same sex parenting and our opinions on it differ because of our religious and progressive views. Thank you
Gay Parenting is Not the Best Child-Rearing Method

My opponent says gay parenting is one one of the worst methods of parenting, however studies show other wise. Before giving my arguments i will address my opponents arguments."But if I may use a statistic I will use this: Fatherless kids tend to do worse than kids without fathers. We all know that."If you are going to use a statistic you need to provide evidence for it. This should be disregarded because my opponent did not give evidence supporting it. "For example, a lesbian couple raising kids: the lesbians are both women. Are not their kids being raised in a fatherless home? I do not care how masculine one of the women may be, it is fatherless, none the less." Yes they are being raised fatherless but that's not a bad thing. I have evidence that shows that children of lesbian parents turn out just fine without a father. I'm a not sure if you heard of zach Wahls but he is one of many young boys raised by lesbian parents who grew up to be great men. Wahls has started his own small buiness that offers tutoring services to junior and high school students. Wahls is also an activist who advocates for equality. He is now doing great things to change this world. "Two gay dads raising children: their children may miss out on the warm nurturing a mother may bring; not saying that dads cannot be nurturing, but for the same reason many single dads with girls have a desire for their daughters to grow up with a mother; girls need mothers and boys need their daddies. And girls need their daddies to model what a real man is like and boys need a mother to model what a real woman is like." You proved my point. You said they are missing out on a nurturing mother, however you also just stated men can be nurturers as well. What can a nurturing mother do that a nurturing father can't and vice versa? What exactly is a real man and real women? Last time i checked there was no set definition on what a real man acts like and what a real women acts like. People are different. Not all men act masculine and tough and not all women act feminine and girly. MY ARGUMANTS 1. The scientific research has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been generally consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents. 2. All familes are different. Not every heterosexual house hold has a nurturing mother and protective father. Sometimes it's the other way around or 50/50. Since we are speaking from a personal experience point of view i have came across families were the mothers have had the upper hand in the household and the fathers were stay at home dads. My opponent did not really give much so I can not go any further. (1)http://en.wikipedia.org... (2)http://en.wikipedia.org...
Gay Parenting is Not the Best Child-Rearing Method

Let me rephrase this. Gay parenting is one of the worst methods of parenting.I say this because, gay parenting involves a union of two adults (of the same gender) parenting kids. Let's ignore the facts for a second. Facts are only facts when they're accepted to be facts even if they're facts or not. In a world obsessed with the factual knowledge of facts, I would like to use common sense and personal experience, instead of facts. But if I may use a statistic I will use this: Fatherless kids tend to do worse than kids without fathers. We all know that. If you observe a healthy parental establishment of one man and one woman raising kids, you will note this. They complement each other. A father and mother are like pieces to a puzzle. The gentle nurturing of a mother complements the firm, protective loving bond of a father. And as I can see an argument pooling from this, may I note that in this case, this is a healthy parental establishment, and we know that not all father-mother households are loving and nurturing.For example, a lesbian couple raising kids: the lesbians are both women. Are not their kids being raised in a fatherless home? I do not care how masculine one of the women may be, it is fatherless, none the less. Two gay dads raising children: their children may miss out on the warm nurturing a mother may bring; not saying that dads cannot be nurturing, but for the same reason many single dads with girls have a desire for their daughters to grow up with a mother; girls need mothers and boys need their daddies. And girls need their daddies to model what a real man is like and boys need a mother to model what a real woman is like.In the age of modern parenting, many shapes and forms of parenting occurs: gay parenting, single parenting, divorced parenting and so on. I am not singling out gay parents and saying that they are the worst of all. I would rather see a child being raised by two loving parents (gay or straight) than see them raised in a single parent home. But I firmly believe that a man and a woman raising their children (biological or adopted) make the best pair. And this debate should have been called: Father-Mother parenting pair is best for kids,And I apologize for the awkward wording.
Gay Parenting is Not the Best Child-Rearing Method

Before I start, I would like to say that my opinion on gay marriage is neutral, I am not one of those crazy pro-family people, I just hold to the stance that gay parenting is not the best for child-rearing because of:1) Evidence that a child needs a mother and a father2) It doesn't matter whether there are two parents in the home, the balance of parenting needs to be divided amongst a man and a woman for the best child rearing method.I am not arguing that gay parenting is wrong, just like I am not discriminating against single parent homes or homes split by divorce; all I am arguing is that gay parenting is not the best child rearing method.
The Unborn Are Persons From Fertilization

I would like to begin by pointing out that the unborn are not disqualified for personhood (at least in the United States). In fact, wantedness defines the unborn's status in this country. If an unborn child is unwanted, they are considered no better than trash to be disposed of as we please (e. g. through abortion). If they are wanted, they are considered persons and we treat them like any other person. If the unborn has a treatable defect in the womb (such as spina bifida), then they are treated like patients. Also, if a pregnant woman is murdered and the unborn child also dies, the murderer is charged with two counts of murder (such as in the fairly recent case of Scott Peterson who murdered his pregnant wife and was given a harsher punishment due to killing two people). I would like to amend Con's definition. It is not exactly true under my argument that human=person. My argument is that if we define "person" as someone deserving of basic human rights, including the right not to be killed (the most fundamental of all rights, since without that right you cannot enjoy any other right), then the unborn from fertilization should be considered persons for the reasons given. Obviously the details do matter. As is stated in my argument, it is prima facie wrong to kill an innocent human. Sometimes it is morally justified to kill an innocent person (e. g. in a just war, as innocent deaths can't always be prevented), and we are morally justified in pulling the plug on a brain-dead human. My argument is that if we're going to kill the unborn, we need a morally justifiable reason. Under my argument, all entites were were similar to humans would be included. I don't mean similar in appearance. Remember that my reason for considering all humans valuable is that we all (unborn and born) have the inhernt capacity as moral, rational creatures. Any exterrestrial or fantastic creature that would exist, if they have the same qualities that make us valuable, would also be deserving of basic rights, including the right to life (which is the most fundamental of rights). It would be just as wrong to abort a Vulcan or Klingon unborn child as it would be to abort a human child. So it is unfortunate, but Con's entire last round was used attacking a Strawman of my actual argument. Nothing he said last round rebutted my qualifications for basic human rights, and he did not offer any qualifications that should supercede the ones I gave. As such, I extend my argument (as he has not even refuted a single premise) into the next round.
Minimum wage is better off the way it is now.

You say that so many law students have to get money by working jobs to pay rent. My view on that is this. For people who are going through college and working hard they should be rewarded for this. That is why I think it would be a good idea for the government to support people in college more than they would a person in their 40s. As a country we have to make sure the future generations are not in a hole they cannot dig themselves out of. I would prefer the government helping out the kids in college rather than raising the minimum wage for the people in college because it would be unfair to business owners. If we give this assistance to people throughout their whole lives then as I have said before there is no motivation. We should get our people in their 20s off to a good start and then let them run on their own. I did say that raising minimum wage for young would be good but the government should be the ones helping out the kids not business owners. As for you saying it is hard to make it in America you are right. You have to work hard to make it here. If we raise minimum wage then it will be easy to make it here. Our motto has always been if you work hard you will be successful. If we raise minimum wage our motto will be you will be you are successful no matter what. You keep saying raising minimum wage will benefit people who are poor and on minimum wage. Of course it will but all we would really do is take money from successful people and give it to the poorer people. How would raising minimum wage reduce our debt? Please explain that to me too. Raising minimum wage will just force businesses who use minimum wage workers to jack up their rates. If these businesses have to pay out thousands of more dollars to their employees then they will raise their prices. Raising minimum wage will not create more jobs either. If anything it will reduce them. The company will either raise their prices or cut jobs to make up for the money lost because of the increase. If such a big jump in minimum wage occurs some companies will not be able to afford to pay their workers $10.10 an hour and therefore will have to cut jobs. Many businesses will take a major hit if we increase minimum wage. Raising minimum wage is just another step closer to socialism and communism. In communism everyone is equal. Raiding minimum wage would make us more like a communist nation.
Minimum wage is better off the way it is now.

I agree that minimum wage being 10.10 would be really good for young worker's but, does have the influence for people not to go to college. But, if i may inset a new argument the older people should be able to go to college for free. As president bush did for the mother's back in 2000. Many people are afraid to go to colleges or what their parents want them to major in is not what they want. Yes, not everyone who works at fast food actually needs assistance but, it is very hard to make it in America. So many law school students ave to get extra jobs just to pay rent. Women are left alone to take care of who know how many kids, because the father left. Also 10.10 minimum wage should be for all people and all ages, because that's fair saying "when you get older you cannot get more money, you've been working all this time or maybe you haven't but now that you are older you get paid less.? That doesn't make since to me. If anything you should get paid more. Overall 10.10 minimum wage could reduce the following: reduce overall hunger (The price of food would go up but, also food stamps could because they would have less amount of people qualified for it) would increase the overall economy (reduce much of america's debt) increase the amount of teenager's to work and not sell drugs or fee like they could never get a job due to social class, ethnicity, sex, family history benefit the economy causing more people to come to america to work and the economy would be better so more businesses could be created which would allow more people and the small business to hire more people. for places such as WALMART (owns 45% U.S, wealth) they could also hire more people and wouldn't have an issue due to how much money they (walt family) pay themselves with that they could lower some of there prices to get more revenue eventually paying their workers more than 10.10 But, places as Aldi's which already pay their workers above minimum wage wouldn't have to change anything
Minimum wage is better off the way it is now.

Your whole argument was based around helping the people on minimum wage. Of course raising minimum wage would help those people. I somewhat agree with you that minimum wage should be increased. For younger people I believe there should be a different minimum wage than there is for older people. As I have said before minimum wage shouldn't be for an adult in his 40s with kids and a wife. The minimum wage jobs should be a start for people, not a permanent job. If we raise the minimum wage for younger people that will give them a good start off to their future endeavors. Then the regular minimum wage of $7.25 should be enforced when they are in their late 20s. You talk a lot about people on minimum wage receiving food stamps and things that cost the taxpayer money. If we raise minimum wage then the Walmarts, Mcdonalds, etc... will raise their prices as a result causing more money to the taxpayer. Food stamps should not go to people who can't find a job or are poor because they are get into trouble with the law. To get food stamps you should prove that you are a good person to society and are actually trying to find a good job. Minimum wage will hurt small businesses too. If we were to raise minimum wage by that much it would hurt small businesses a lot, especially the ones that have a lot of minimum wage employees. I can see how increasing minimum wage for younger people would be good so that they can sustain themselves and worry about getting ready for the real world as opposed to worrying about money. However, if we get adults in their 40s sustaining their families on minimum wage then that becomes a problem because then there is no motivation. In America, you are suppose to have to work hard to obtained a job to support yourself and if you have one a family.