BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is more probably that the historical figure Jesus was in fact God than he was not

turning the other chick means allowing the aggressor to do more harm. i do not think, any sane person would do that. i am a sane person.so gospels are impractical. and what about loving your enemy ? have you ever done that?it is true that william kraig is a great scholer but it is also true that he is a devout christian. he loves christianity. therefore chances are that his views may be biased and partial. partial views will not lead us to the truth.therefore i dismiss the testimony of william craig. there was no resurrection.source:http://www.reasonablefaith.org...when gospels are impractical, all its stories may be impractical. we cannot rely on them. jesus has no power to save himself.suicide bombers and jesus are not the same thing because suicide bombers want to kill people and in the process they are ready to get killed. but jesus has no such intentions.therefore, jesus was a ordinary man with no supernatural power. so he was not god.
It is more probably that the historical figure Jesus was in fact God than he was not

if Jesus fits in the denifition of God, then He is God, if not then He is a historical figure" - The problem with that statement is Jesus was a historical figure and He is God I also do not believe that the gospels are impractical. It is what God has called us to do. You used the example of turning the other cheek and said it is impractical. Why is it impractical? Have you never done it? Or do you just hurt everyone that's ever hurt you? You shouldn't believe something just because some random person says its true but William Craig is a very well known author and debater in Christian apologetics so if you have ever seen a religious debate before, I'm sure you have heard of him. Also his statements in combination with the evidence I have already given is enough information to neccesitate the conclusion the resurrection did not occur. Your only argument against the resurrection is that you don't want to believe my evidence and someone that has a doctorate degree on the subject. "You said that Jesus has all the power but he choose not to use them. how are you so sure about it" -I'm sure about it because that is what he gospels say and I have already proved them to be reliable. No I do not think it is in the nature of every being to want to save themselves. How would you explain martyrs and suicide bombers. Also if you read the bible you would see we would not expect Jesus to save himself. I only talked about suffering because you brought it up last round... Therefore my claims are that the gospels are reliable, Jesus claimed to be God, and was resurrected (which normal people don't do) therefore it is more probable that Jesus was God than He was not. So far you have not been able to refute any of my arguments. Thanks for the debate
It is more probably that the historical figure Jesus was in fact God than he was not

in this debate 2 things are relevant:1] the defination of god i.e. god= a being with supreme power in any form.2] if jesus fits in the defination of god or notall other things are irrelavant.if jesus fits in the defination of god, then he is the god, if not then he is a historical figure.the point that gospels are impractical, is not only relevant but also important because everything we know about jesus, we know from gospels.if gospels are wrong, then our knowledge about jesus will also be wrong. the diciple, the apostles would not lie. this is your point. you support it with the help of an author named william craig, phd,dth. i don't understand why should i believe this man.therefore resurrection is not true.you said that jesus has all the power but he choose not to use them.how are you so sure about it? therefore jesus may not have all the power.you said jesus could save himself but he choose the wish of his father the god.why? don't you think it is the nature of every being that it always want to save itself?therefore gospels are impractical because it always contains things that are contradictory, impractical, anti natural, abnormal.for example why should anybody love his/her enemy? or why should anyone will not protect himself if he has the ability to do so?your point of suffering is irrelavant because suffering is not the element of defination of god.neither it is related to any element of the definationtherfore we find the following facts:1] resuurection is not true.2] jesus may not have all the power.3] gospels are impracticalconclusion: jesus has no supreme power, therefore, he is just a mere historical figure.
It is more probably that the historical figure Jesus was in fact God than he was not

sorry, i just wanted to show you what are the relavant facts to prove jesus was a god. now here comes my argument:1] the body of jesus was not found in the tomb, doesn't mean that he was resurrected. if a man's body was missing, it doesn't imply that he was resurrected. it may be stolen or disposed off to show miraculous power of jesus.apostles may lie.2] there are many advice in gospel which is impractical i.e. it is impossible to follow those in practice. for example: love your enemy, if someone slapped in your left chick turn another chick.so this shows that jesus may not have any knowledge of the real world. this is not a charactaristics of a god.3] jesus cannot save himself from romans and jews. this shows that he did not have any power like god. he was just a healer and nothing else.4]the prophecy jesus made that "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, and nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed." came true. this only shows that jesus had some power of telling the future. but this does not make him god. god has endless supreme power. jesus only had limited power.5] where in these days, jesus christ ? christians worship him like god but he did not save his followers in modern day from suffering. in fact christians suffer more than non christians: 2 world wars, several gulf wars, terrorism, economic crisis. where is jesus christ in these days?conclusion:jesus christ has no endless supreme power. so he did not fit in our defination of god who has supreme and endless power.
It is more probably that the historical figure Jesus was in fact God than he was not

definationgod = a being having supreme endless power in any form.1] it is irrelevant who wrote gospels. if gospels are not contradictery, then it should be accepted as true. 2] jesus has the power to forsee future. he said "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven.He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, and nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed". whatever he said in this prophecy came true later on. nearly all the world become christian.still the kingdom of christianity prevails. this is a proof of jesus's miraculous power.3] now the accuracy of gospel. according to you, the time when gospels are written, spreading false teaching might cause death.this shows that gospels cannot be false or inaccurate.in your second issue you said that suddenly the acts ends when paul was in house arrest in rome. you found the reason could be, in your words,"Paul must have still been alive when Acts was finished." well from where you come to know this fact/reason? you have not mentioned any source.so gospels are accurate.4] any court of law will believe in the witness of such person who has nothing to loose, nothing to gain, just like our apostles.why? because this kind of persons are impartial or lacks partiality. they have no power to harm the judicial proceeding. the courts believe in this kind of person and so do i.conclusion:jesus has power to forsee the future.he resurrected and whatever is written in gospel about him was true. since he has miraculous power and a form, he is god.
This house supports the Dakota Access Pipeline.

There is a lot of controversy surrounding DAPL. Most of it surrounds the land the pipeline will be built on. The neighboring Native American reservation is concerned because it borders their water source and an old burial ground. Unfortunately the land has already been destroyed. As such it should be put to good use. !st I bring to you the simple economic benefit. It is very costly to transport oil by rail and diesel as we do know. Building the pipeline will drastically decrease the cost of domestic oil production. This in turn reduces our foreign oil dependence and keeps more money in the US economy. Comment if you dare refute me.
No Futher Restrictions on Guns

Welcome audience and challenger!I am back for yes, another debate on gun restrictions in the US and have made sure to correct my flaw in my first debate, which was a misstated title, due to lack of experience on the site. Now I am back though, and will hopefully make my point a little more clear, thanks to more experience on the site!As my opponent, you will be taking the Con side, which would be for further restrictions on guns. I will be taking the Pro side, standing for no further restrictions. I would also like to point out that this debate will not be over one specific state. Yes gun laws do vary throughout the states, but I would like to focus on the concept of no further restrictions then there already are. The only "rule" I ask is that you leave the first round solely to acceptance and/or greetings. I only ask this because I have not stated an opening argument or statement yet. I would also like to inform you that there is a six thousand character limit. Thanks to my opponent in advance!
Resolved: Donald Trump's border wall policy is a bad idea

Thanks for the quick response. R1: Bureau of Prisons is not a good actor My opponent states that the Bureau of Prisons is perfectly capable of carrying out the wall. This is not true. Not only does the Federal Bureau of Prisons have less funding and is already extremely busy with the largest amount of inmates in the developed world, according to the Prison Policy Initiative, but the job of the Federal Bureau of Prisons is not to protect the US from illegal immigration, that responsibility goes to the Department of Homeland Security, which I have already proven to be corrupt. Remember, we are still talking about Trump’s plan anyway, and he has not specified what government program will take over the operation, so we can only make the logical decision and realize that the only government program that deals with the border is the Department of Homeland Security. Which, again, is corrupt. R2: Economy My opponent has claimed that not trading with Mexico will keep American jobs from going overseas. This is false. True, jobs will not go to Mexico, but jobs will still go to other countries such as India at a larger rate because Mexico is no longer available for offshoring. Businesses look for cheap labor, when it is not available in Mexico, it will simply go elsewhere, such as India. Also, remember that trading with Mexico produces a mutual benefit as goods are being exchanged meaning we would reap revenue. Finally, we need to look at the amount of people who will become impoverished, or more impoverished in Mexico if we were to stop providing goods and trading with Mexico. Thanks, I await your response ViceRegent. http://www.prisonpolicy.org...
Resolved: Donald Trump's border wall policy is a bad idea

On to my points. R1: Will not decrease illegal immigration If you would look toward my second argument in my constructive speech, you would see that the maintaining of the border wall is actually going to be difficult due to the corruption of the Department of Homeland Security. I have shown some examples of why the department is inherently corrupt, however, allow me to give you more. According to the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs as well as Senator Coburn's report on the Department of Homeland Security, The Department of Homeland Security spent $50 billion over the past eleven years on counterterrorism programs, including homeland security grants and other anti-terror initiatives, but the department cannot demonstrate if the nation is more secure as a result. As of 2014, 700 miles of the Southern border remain unsecured. DHS is not effectively administering or enforcing the nation’s immigration laws, and only 3 in 100 illegal immigrants will ever face deportation. . https://www.hsgac.senate.gov... The plan lacks proper oversight which Trump has not provided, thus, the flood of immigrants will continue. R2: Will not protect American jobs My opponent’s logic follows as such: because the border wall will go up, Mexico will stop trading with us causing American companies to offshore to Mexico. While I will concede Mexico will not be offshored to that will simply mean jobs being offshored to other countries. Remember, Mexico is not the only country we offshore jobs to, and since the American workforce is lacking in availability for these companies, they will go overseas regardless. A company will always use the availability of cheap labor, so if you want to save American jobs, then you have to put limits on offshoring. Besides, there are other solutions to the American workforce being undervalued which can be solved with a different policy or resolution, not the one we see today. R3: State of the debate My opponent has not responded to my third argument yet. Thanks and Good Luck!
Resolved: Donald Trump's border wall policy is a bad idea

R1: Another government organization First, I would like to apologize if I misunderstood the point you were trying to make. However, what I say still stands. If Trump did not specify what government program is going to build the wall, then we can only assume the logical, that the Department of Homeland Security is going to take over the building of the wall. Remember as well that the majority of drugs travel under the border already, (through tunnels), and over, (through drones), so we can’t assume that a wall will work. Again, legalizing and then heavily regulating drugs is a good alternative for the drug problem and attacking the drug trade routes is also a good idea. R2: Economy pt. 2 I will concede that I have no way to guarantee that everyone who outsourced to Mexico will simply outsource to other countries. However, this problem can be solved with an alternate plan. We could, for example, put heavy restrictions on offshoring if necessary. Also, I have already shown the problem of stopping trade with Mexico, as we lose a mutual benefit of traded goods raising revenues for our already decrepit economy. Thanks and good luck as we approach the end!
Resolved: Grace Requires that We Strive for Obedience.

Thank you. To respond to his problem with grace by faith alone, please refer to round 1. He quotes Bonhoeffer "Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock. Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of his Son: "ye were bought at a price," and what has cost God much cannot be cheap for us. Above all, it is grace because God did not reckon his Son too dear a price to pay for our life, but delivered him up for us. Costly grace is the Incarnation of God. " Here's my theory. Indeed grace is costly and it cost Jesus his life to pay our sin debt. Recall what I said in the previous round that God requires a willingness for us to turn from our sins and turn to God. Let me give you an example that Ray Comfort gave. If you claim to believe that a parachute will save you from a death from a crashing airplane and you don't put it on before you jump, you will still die. If you really believe the parachute will save you, you will put it on before you jump and pull the chute before too long. If you believe that Jesus will save you, you will conform your life to his teachings. Luke chapter 13 basically says that you will know true faith vs false faith by the fruit it produces. In conclusion, if you want to experience the hope that you can only find in Christ go to . http://blazeofhope.weebly.com.... If you want me to be a guest speaker go to . http://blazeofhope.weebly.com.... If you want to debate me on another format other than debate. org, go to . http://blazeofhope.weebly.com....
Ban islam

if the law is not to interfere with religion sure.. Thats not a counter-argument bud. not banning islam is government tyranny How can the government not being tyrannical somehow be tyrannical? if you are for freedom of choice you are for banning islam How can you believe people have the right to their own beliefs but then want the government to decide which beliefs should be allowed? religion is only a problem when it imposes on peoples free choices People from many religions have used their religions as an excuse to take away the rights of others. Look at the Spanish Inquisition. And sometimes they used non-religious reasons to take away people's rights. For example Hitler and Stalin. All muslims are terrorists A terrorist is someone who uses unlawful violence against civilians for religious or political aims often with the intent to strike fear, get attention, or make a statement. The vast majority of Muslims haven't done anything like this. Are you saying little Muslim girls have committed violence? in our countries the reason why we dont see full blown muslims is because they are limited by our laws Really? When have laws stopped terrorists? Laws alone only limit your actions when you want to obey them. and need for money, which is a higher power than allah.. money is pretty much the same as allah Do you have any evidence that Muslims worship money over their religion? I thought the west was the materialistic one. Looking forward to the next one...
Ban islam

"Civil Law limits religious interference with government but it also limits government interference in religion. " if the law is not to interfere with religion sure.. Islam should be banned, as its been proven since the first human read it not banning islam is government tyranny.. if you are for freedom of choice you are for banning islam, religion is only a problem when it imposes on peoples free choices All muslims are terrorists, in our countries the reason why we dont see full blown muslims is because they are limited by our laws, and need for money, which is a higher power than allah.. money is pretty much the same as allah you have a tiny brain, educate yourself or keep up the asss jam you hippo
Ban islam

Civil Law limits religious interference with government but it also limits government interference in religion. At numerous times in history it has been proven that the government has always abused its power when it has decided which religions are good and which ones are "bad" and should be persecuted. In fact our country was founded by people the English Government decided were from "bad" religions. Banning Islam is government tyranny and if they ban Islam who knows what the government in power in the future will ban next? Islam says nothing about allowing pedophilia. In fact pedophilia is a very big problem in the west. Only a tiny percent of Muslims are terrorist and the most are more moderate.
Obama will win the election of 2012 for president of the United States of America

seems I would have lost this debate......and i am very sad right now because of it.people are going to lose there jobs for sure nowthe debt is going to go upmuslims will take over the middle east making a calphite superpower stronger than americaIsreal will get nucked in the next few years.America is possibly going to just become another state in the UNRussia's going to get more 'leniency' from americaand basically everything else is going to remain the same mess we have had for 4 years for 4 more years.The Dow has already dropped over 200 points because obama was realectedIts going to be hard for us who know these bad concequences are going to come to move on, but we must. I urge all of you do not leave the country for canada. Canada is not better its worse. and we still need your resistance to becoming like canada here in america in the coming years. and we need your support to help grow the conservative movement back into power in not just 4 more years, but next year in the house and senet seats that go up for grabs, and all the govener seats going through elections.I saw a facebook pitcher you can share today that said no matter who is presedent, Jesus is King. and I believe deep in my heart that this is true.
Obama will win the election of 2012 for president of the United States of America

This election and everything, is BIG. But let's make it bigger... Let us make something hang in the balance personally for us. If I Obama wins, I win the debate. If Obama loses, you win the debate. There are two rounds, so the voters cannot vote for a winner before the votes are made, collected, counted, AND ALL RECOUNTS are finish. If a recount is called this debate must wait for the recount to finish.
Why there is no problem with gucci bags and the cost

I simply think that the cost of gucci is normal and here are my reasons why. Quality, yes quality is a bery importsnt thing in real life you get what you pay for so there is no problem savinv some extra money to treat yourself and have a little fun with what you have got. If you think that its to much then you can go to other cheaper stores and you dont need to worry about the high ebd stuff because at the end of the day there are still people who wiuld want that high end things.