BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jesus existed, and was the son of God.

"Uh, yeah, I saw the same thing too! I saw Jesus!" more like"Uh, yeah, I saw Jesus! I was a complete idiot, and didn't understand a word of what he said, so much that he got angry at me and called me "satan!""That motive doesn't make sense, because in mark's gospel, Peter, who is thought to have dictated the gospel, is called "Satan" by Jesus. so "He look, the son of God came down and insulted me in the worst way possible" doesn't really have the same appeal. The stories could be passed onThe people who wrote the gospels preached around the time and place of Jesus. If what they said didn't match up, they wouldn't have lasted long.Pro, do you believe he has magical powers?I don't like to use the term "magic" because that has connotations of witchcraft and wizzardry. Which is the power of evil spirits. God is the sustainer of the world, and Jesus is God, so everything that happens in science, God makes happen, so he could easily make science not do something instead.Please present parts of gospels that were from eye-witness accounts.Mark was written with Peter in the room, there's one.Matthew was a disciple of Jesus.Mark was there in Mark 14:51-52James wrote letters in the NTThe website2. Well, if that's the only story there are problems about validity with...3. Jesus always knew that he was going to have to die.4. They are the same. Whoever wrote that website was not very good at fitting them together.1. Mary Goes (possibly another Mary)2. They find the stone gone3. They tell the disciples4. They see Jesus5. No answer yet.6. He had a scribe7. John could have added it to the end afterwards.8. Or mabye it's the way John's chosen to record it.9. Could be writing style.10. But John does have the death and ressurection....Again, Good luck for the next round!| I love Avicii and Coldplay btw...are they singer-songwriters?
Jesus existed, and was the son of God.

Evidence in the new testamentThe Gospels, were not written by Jesus (unless of course you believe like I do that the Bible is inspired by God), but eye-witnesses at the time.The Gospel according to Matthew - Commonly thought to have been written by Matthew, a tax collector, who later became a diciple of Jesus. Though scholars say that it may also have been based off Mark's Gospel.The Gospel according to Mark - Written by John Mark, the earliest of the gospels. Thought to have been an interpreter of Peter - Cousin of Barnabas, who travelled with Paul on some of his journeys. Some say he was the young man in Mark 14:51-52, meaning he would have first hand experience of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane.The Gospel according to Luke - Luke was a physician who was with Paul for parts of his other book "Acts", using we to describe actions in verses such as Acts 16:10-17The Gospel according to John - Written by John, one of the disciples.I'm claiming that the goepels were not only true because they say so, but because There was no reason for a forgery A forgery on this scale would have been really hard to complete The Gospels were from eye-witness accounts. No. 4Yes, the Star Wars episodes have many different episodes, but they tell the same story of different times, but the four Gospels are all recording the same time. While there is a lot of overlap, which confirms that they are talking about the same person, there is also a lot of details that are found in only certain Gospels, making it unlikely that they were all forged together.No. 5By disciples, I am referring specifically to Peter and John, who were instrumental in writing the gospels, as mentioned above. They would have been absolutely sure about these details, and they are recorded as the same, even by different people. So they must have been convinced themselves. And to the "more susceptible" argument: I'm sorry, but do you know how to fill 5000 men with just 5 loaves and 2 fish? Evidence from outside the Bible|"If any evidence could be accepted here, it would be historical evidence from a non-Christian biased source. There are lots of it, Pro |bringing them up would mean I wouldn't be able to refute, as they are real, non-biased sceintific evidence. On the 'Son of God' | part, it will be an interesting debate."As I said earlier, the two historians Josephus and Tacitus wrote on the existance of Jesus. Jesus's existance is much more certain to historians to other people at the time such as Caesar.The Gospels can be used in this debate because it is historical evidence. There are lots of the gospels in archeological numbers.Also Good luck to Con for the subsequent rounds
Jesus existed, and was the son of God.

I accept. Welcome Vir to his first debate!Okay, but first, I'm going to say this debate is quite a hard one to debate. Jesus probably existed, but whether the revival took place or not is a different story. That brings us to whether He was the son of God. Which, as an atheist, I lack the belief of, effectively and unintentionally changing the topic to whether God exists. I'm not saying I want to change the topic, I'm just saying that if it comes the time where the existence of God has to be debated to proceed with the debate, it's not going to be irrelevant. Evidence in the gospels or new testament or Paul's letters Circular reasoning. Jesus was true because the gospels say so, the gospels were true because they were the word of God, God is true because the Bible says so, the Bible says Jesus was true... That's no better than me claiming I am the ruler of the universe because the book I wrote says so. You cannot use literature of Christ for evidence of Christ.No.4, saying that because the Gospels have similar important details but tell different parts of the story is evidence that they are independent sources, I have to say that does not in any way make anything and independent source. Star Wars has so many episodes, they all tell the same story but of different parts and times. Does that mean evidence that Star Wars is real? As long as they are all intentional in creating the same story, in this case the same character, the evidence is in no way independent.No. 5, people need a lot of evidence to do so, meaning that the disciples were completely sure of the events.First, who do you mean by 'disciples'? And yes, people do need lots of evidence to do so. But in that time, people didn't know as much as us how our natural world works, meaning they would be far more susceptible to claims suggesting the supernatural controls such and such. Thus the mere certainty in the followers of Christ back then in their belief that a deity created everything was generally acceptable by the people. Furthermore, the promise of a higher being that loves you, and promises a land of eternal bliss and immortality for the soul was too much to pass for the people then. But now we know better. The disciples then, whoever you may mean, could have convinced the poeple with false knowledge or the promise of immortality, having nothing to do with evidence.If any evidence could be accepted here, it would be historical evidence from a non-Christian biased source. There are lots of it, Pro bringing them up would mean I wouldn't be able to refute, as they are real, non-biased sceintific evidence. On the 'Son of God' part, it will be an interesting debate.Good luck to Pro for the subsequent rounds.
Jesus existed, and was the son of God.

Format: whatever you want... Matthew 28:18 - "Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."" This debate will be about the validity of that claim. Firstly, I want to establish that Jesus definitely existed. Ignoring the countless copies of the gospels that have been found from a time when many of the people who saw Jesus were alive, there were also two Roman historians who wrote about him, Josephus and Tacitus. The latter of which described Jesus in a negative light making it unlikely to be a forgery. Secondly I want to show the validity of the New Testament using these principles: 1. Some of the new testament was written very soon after Jesus' death. For example Acts, which was written in 30AD. 2. Most of the New Testament (other than Paul's letters) was written or dictated by eye-witnesses who were around at the time of Jesus 3. The new testament comes from more than 2 independent sources. Many historical facts just have one. 4. The fact that the Gospels have similar important details, but tell different parts of the story with different significances, is evidence that they are independent sources, or at least some of them. 5. In many cases, the writers of these stories portray their own thoughts negatively. Under normal circumstances, people need a lot of evidence to do so, meaning that the disciples were completely sure of the events. I look forward to debating with you.
Death Penalty

My opponent does not refute my case at all. Extend it. I will refute my opponent's round 2. My opponent shows the cost of the death penalty. However, this is a bare assertion, as my opponent provides no source. I provided a source, and my opponent seems to disagree on this, and provides statistics, but he provides no sources, making it a bare assertion, so there is no reason to buy his, buy mine. Pro says that some laws get taken away if you are imprisoned. Again, this is a bare assertion. Also, the right of life will not we taken away, as everyone has the right of life. In the end, my opponent fails to refute my innocent argument, only saying mistake happen, and I refuted that. He says my cost argument is false, and gives statistics, but it is a bare assertion, when mine are sourced, so vote for Con. Also, my plan was to just put them in jail for the whole time, and Pro fails to refute that.
Death Penalty

Apologies, con. No, I meant that during a case that capital punishment is more expensive. But for life in prison the case is 740,000, and then an added 90,000 for every year that prisoner is left to rot. Meaning that after 10-15 years, the one person is executed at the same cost as someone spending life in prison, with the person still alive having most likely many years more. Also, the constitution says that once you're imprisoned some rights get taken away. Similar to how you took away the rights to someone else. Why if someone else gets their right to life taken away, why shouldn't they get their life taken away.
Death Penalty

I will post my rebuttals this round. Pro says that we are most likely going to kill a guilty person. As I said, guilty person, innocent person, all people have the right of life. Death penalty violates this rule. Pro says that we have to make them pay for killing, and murder. We should rather just make them to a full-life prison, it will cost less. And anyways, there isn't much difference to a full-life of prison and to die. The cost is different, as I showed, really different, so we should just setence them to a full-life prison, because we don't kill anyone, and we can always bring them back if innocent. Pro says that a capital case is more expensive. You are literally arguing my side! !! More expensive means bad, and you concede that, so please vote for me! !! Pro says that there are many years for the judgement, and the innocents can appeal. Well, then why are these cases? They won't believe them. Pro says, "He wouldn't leave jail anyway. .. "This is false, as I showed that they can leave jail, but they it is impossible to leave from life. . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...There are at least many people who will be alive if there was not death penalty, so we should ban it. Pro says that mistakes happen, and there are good things about death penalty. I have shown that the death penalty is bad, it has no good effects. Also, mistakes happen. A terror attack. Mistakes happen. Breaking the Mona Lisa. Mistakes happen. Breaking the eiffel tower. Mistakes happen. Light a house in fire. Mistakes happen. Killing the entire human race. Mistakes happen. Mistakes should not happen, therefore we should ban the death penalty.
Death Penalty

Well, we are more than likely killing a guilty person. The fact that we won't ever have to risk that inmate escaping prison, terrorizing other inmates, or roaming the streets again is satisfying. People should pay the consequences for their crime, and especially when their crime is serial murder. You've taken the lives of people, several people usually, and ruined the live's of those people's families. What about the costs of the funeral, what about life insurance, what about the student loans that never got paid back? Someone needs to pay, and they need to pay hard. Not only that, a capital case is usually more expensive, but it's after the case. Your tax dollars for the rest of that criminals days goes to housing him. You're basically paying(I think yearly), for a place to stay for the guy who raped sally sues 4 year old daughter. Also, there's usually several years of time before murderers get their rightful judgement. Sometimes even 20 years, before an inmate receives the death penalty. That's plenty of time for an innocent man to appeal to the court, but if he doesn't get those appeals accepted, then it wouldn't matter. He wouldn't leave jail anyway...just like he wouldn't live. Unfortunately, mistakes happen, but theirs plenty of good to come from the death penalty.
Death Penalty

Just debate all rounds, even the first one.We are killing a person! What if that person was innocent? There are many cases of innocents. It shows that there are 148 cases of this, and 4.1 percent are innocents!https://www.aclu.org...https://www.theguardian.com... This is a lot of people! If we kill any of these innocent people, we cannot return them. We should rather but these people in jail, not killing them. This is because the death penalty costs a lot, look at this."Cases without the death penalty cost $740,000, while cases where the death penalty is sought cost $1.26 million."http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...This is a lot of money!!! We can just put them in jail, it saves a lot, and if they are innocent, we can take them out of jail, put we can't take them out of their grave!!!So death penalty should not be allowed!!!
"Life" is LESS than 11,460 Years Old

I guess this is going to be an arguments of mathematics, huh? Ok, first off, the title says that life is less than 11,460 years old. So I'm going to debate that first. Argument 1: We Have So Many Signs of Multi-Billion Year Old Life Forms Let's say scientists are right (that's a different debate) and have found fossils dating back to the milti-billion years, like this one [1]. This prokaryotic life form was thought to exist from aproximatley 3.43 billion BCE to 3.4 billion BCE. This is just one example of many microfossils that we have found, let alone the dinosaurs and other somewhat evolved organisms. Take Sue, who is 67 million year old dinosaur [2]. She is another example that disproves this topic. I don't really think that this point can be disproven.Argument 2: Do You Understand This Stuff? [3]Do you understand carbon dating? At its half life of 5,730, it is at 50%. At 11,460, it is at 25%, not zero percent. At 17,190, it is 12.5% and so on. For anyone to understand, take this easy math problem(s):1 2-- -- = infinity. 0.5/2= 0.25. 0.25/2= .125, and so on. You can divide forever.0 0You can not divide in any way by zero. You can't divide by zero and you can't get to zero by dividing. Therefore, carbon dating can stem to the point in which the earth was actually created. Therefore, your point is disproved.So look, obviously, life is far older than 11,460 years old. I believe in God but also in evolution, but that is a whole different debate. So it looks like you are mistaken on this concept. Thank your for this debate and your time.[1] http://www.foxnews.com...;[2] http://science.howstuffworks.com...;[3] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...;
"Life" is LESS than 11,460 Years Old

Premise- all fossils containing any amount of Carbon 14 are LESS than 11460 years old. Contention-radiocarbon dating fossils as currently calculated is incorrect. Definitions Constant(N) - something that is invariable or unchanging. example- the speed of light. Newton's first law of motion states any object, including light, that is in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an unstable and/or external force. Therefore taking into account and removing the universal debris, the speed of light will remain constant. Half-life- that amount of time it takes for a quantity of a substance to be reduced by half. Equation X/t=X(.5) Continuation Full-life- that amount of time it takes to reduce said substance completely to zero, or twice the half-life. Equation X/(2t)=0 References http://www.c14dating.com... http://personal.psu.edu... http://radiocarbon.org... http://i.word.com...
"Life" is LESS than 11,460 Years Old

Except that EVERY time you reset and restart the decay clock you are breaking the Laws of Physics and arbitrarily changing a constant! The sample IS NOT NEW every time it is halfed! Therefore the original start time MUST be used and that is when the organism dies! The illogic that EVERY half WILL be NEW and therefore take 5730 years to decay is astounding! Once the organism dies, the ENTIRE amount of C14 begins to decay AT THE SAME RATE. It does not matter how many times one cuts it in half it is ALL still part of the original sample! Organism A dies the CONSTANT decay rate clock starts and the equation is A/5730=A(.5) Then you change sample A to a NEW sample B: B/5730=B(.5). As a scientist you KNOW samples A and B are not the same. A is NOT B. Correct? Where did sample B come from? Did sample B come from organism A? NO, it did not! Sample B is NEW! The sample A from organism A is now useless because the entire sample is now 5730 years old from the time organism A died. Since logically sample B is not from organism A, just what is it that is being measured? A/5730=B(.5), B/5730=C(.5), C/5730=D(.5), D/5730=E(.5) That is NOT mathematically OR logically sound! One cannot substitute A because of the CONSTANT. Sample A MUST remain IN the equation until it is 0. Once sample A from organism A is zero, THEN you can switch to sample B, presumably from organism B! A/t=A(.5) A/2t=0 Therefore ANY amount of C14 found in a sample fossil means that fossil is LESS THAN 11,460 years from the time it died. The "oldest" fossils all still contain trace amounts of C14 making the time it lived LESS THAN 11,460 years ago! "Life" is less than 11,460 years old. Report this Comment
"Life" is LESS than 11,460 Years Old

Check out this link:http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...You also did nothing against my argument against "Life is older than 11,460 years old." Isn't what this debate is about? Even if you are right about carbon dating, you are not right about the fossils. Ever heard of uranium dating? So since you did nothing to attack what this debate is ABOUT, just state some wrong 'facts' about C14, I stand my place. Please argue my arguments or leave.
"Life" is LESS than 11,460 Years Old

Every definition I can find states the decay rate of C14 is constant. The Laws if Physics state that constants cannot change. It is illogical to claim that the Laws adhere to the first half but NOT to the second half, where the constant decay rate slows down! In my example of the rate of speed at which light travels, unless acted upon by another force, will remain the same, or constant. By the logic you claim is correct lets substitute the speed of light for the decay rate of C14. So a ray of light leaves its source thus starting the clock. This ray if light travels for 5730 years. This ray if light does NOT encounter any other force but for some unexplainable reason it just slows down by half! Is that correct? So now it takes 11,460 years to travel the same distance it traveled the first time. Then again, without encountering any other force and for some unexplainable reason it slows down again taking 22,920 years to travel the exact same distance it traveled the first time and the second time...then 45,840 years then 91,680 years. If that was the real way a constant worked then the earth would never be lit by the sun! That is the illogic of dividing by half each time...it becomes infinite. So what you are saying is that the LAWS of Physics of a constant, without any external interactions, changes by slowing down for the second half, and for the third half, and for the forth half, ad-infinitum? My math was correct. X divided by t equals half of X X/t=X(.5) lets say X is 1 kilo of sugar and t is 5730 years 1 Kilo of sugar divided by 5730 years equals half a kilo sugar. All the scientists agree that is the definition of half life . Further more they all agree that rate is a constant, but only for the first half. Once it reaches half the constant decay rate breaks all the Laws of Physics by slowing down, thus proving to be a variable and not a constant. Is that what you are saying? I am stating that is incorrect and illogical! I am stating that math must be used logically as well! My continuation states that "Full Life" is that amount of time it takes for a substance to be reduced to zero. Logically if it takes t amount of time to reduce by half then 2t will reduce it to zero. So my continuation equation is also correct. X/(2t)=0 1 Kilo of sugar divided by (2(5730)) or 11460 years is zero sugar remaining. Therefore when C14 is detected in any fossils that fossil is LESS than 11,460 years from the date of its death! After 11,460 years all the C14 will have decayed back into nitrogen! I'm sorry but matatical geniuses do not always make logical geniuses! The clock DOES NOT reset with each half! If it is constant the clock MUST keep running at the same speed. And the clock starts when the organism dies.
Saturday is the true day of worship not sunday

wow i looked at the link and i give up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Canada should provide a third major internet provider

Firstly, The U.S has over 13 Internet service providers that are standalone and don't fall under a provider (I.e Telus)[1]. This gives a wide variety of choices for what type of person you are, how much Internet you need, and the cost of the Internet. In Canada, the choices are limited to two major Internet providers (Bell and Rogers) that will, in the foreseeable future, never be challenged without a third provider. This to is due to the bandwidth limitations for the other companies that provide Internet in the whole region of Canada, including the 3 territories. Even promoting a smaller company to major Internet status would increase competition between the providers and as it comes with business the prices would lower if they wanted a chance. This has been seen just between the two companies now, with Rogers Ignite[2] and Bell Fibe[3] being responses to fast internet. Canada needs this, because their internet is the 9th most expensive in the world for high and low bandwidth. My opponent, it is your turn to debate. https://en.wikipedia.org...[1] http://www.iphoneincanada.ca...[2] http://www.bell.ca...[3]