BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
jesus is the christ

And this is the part where I start to piss people off :) My opponent makes the case the Jesus of Nazareth is the ONLY messiah. My opponent then goes on to say that Jesus is obviously the only messiah because he meets all the credentials to be one. But let's think. Who were these credentials written by? Christians and (a few) jews. But does everybody subscribe to this same list of credentials to be messiah? No. IF every single person on the entire planet agreed that these are the things you have to be to become the messiah, then yes, Jesus would be the SOLE messiah. But everybody has not agreed to these credentials and thus he is not. Islam is a faith that subscribes to different credentials and thus has a different messiah. The resolution is JESUS IS THE CHRIST (messiah), if the resolution was "jesus is A christ", then my opponent's case would be valid. But because Jesus is not the sole messiah of the world, which I have proven, I must therefore win this debate. ---Thanks for this great debate!
jesus is the christ

"The Old Testament, written over a 1,000 year period, contains over 300 references to the coming Messiah. All of these were fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and they established a solid confirmation of His credentials as the Messiah; the Anointed One (King; Priest; Saint); Intercessor (to release or deliver; help; meet; seek; accompany). Many of the prophecies concerning the messiah were totally beyond human control: Birth: Place, time, manner of. Death: Peoples reactions, piercing of side, burial Resurrection: Where did His body go? By using the modern science of probability in reference to just eight of these prophecies --- the chance that any man might have lived to fulfill all eight prophecies is one in one hundred trillion! To illustrate this: If we take 100 trillion silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas, they would be two feet deep. Now we mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly --- all over the state. Now blindfold a man and let him travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick only one silver dollar. What chance would he have of picking the right one? The same chance that the prophets would have of writing just eight of these prophecies and having them all come true for any one man --- if they had written them without God's inspiration! The chance of any one man fulfilling all of 48 prophecies is one in 10 to the 157 power. The electron is about as small an object as we can imagine. if we had a cubic inch of these electrons and tried to count them, it would take us (at 250 per minute) 19,000 time 19,000 time 19,000 years to count them. Now mark one of them, and thoroughly stir it into the whole mass. What chance does our blindfolded man have of finding the right electron? --- The same chance as one man of fulfilling 48 of the prophecies about Christ, without being the Son of God! Jesus Christ fulfilled every prophecy written about the coming Messiah --- over three hundred of them! Would that have been possible had He not been the Son of God? Here is a short listing of some of the hundreds of prophecies concerning Christ: Linage Genesis 3:15; 9:26: 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; 49:10; 2 & Samual 7:12-16 Son of God Psalm 2:6-7 Virgin birth Isaiah 7:14 Birthplace Micah 5:2 Piercing of side Zechariah 12:10 Darkness Psalm 22:2 Vinegar Psalm 69:21 Mocking Psalm 22:6-8 Nakedness Psalm 22:17 Gambling for clothes Psalm 22:18 Unbroken bones Psalm 34:20 Burial Isaiah 53:9 Resurrection Psalm 16:10; Hosea 6:2; Psalm 30:3,9; Isaiah 53:10 Assention to right hand of God Psalm 110:1; 68:18; Proverbs 30:4; 24:3-10" reference http://home.surewest.net...
jesus is the christ

Im guessing I'll probably piss some people off here. I apologize in advance! RESOLUTION: Jesus is the christ. DEFINITIONS: Jesus: Jesus of Nazareth (the one from the bible). Is: Is. The: The. Christ: Savior to a religion, AKA Messiah. To start off, my opponent claims that Jesus is THE christ. This is simply not true. If you are christian he may be for your specific religion. But what about the many other religions? Is Jesus the christ (or messiah) of Islam? No. How about Judaism? No. So it is obvious then that Jesus is not THE christ. He is to one religion. But he is not the sole messiah of the world. I rest my case.
School Testing

Standardized testing costs 1.7 billion per year, this would save taxpayers a lot of money ending the madness. These tests are unreliable when measuring a student's performance. In 2011, a study found that testing does not improve student achievement. The United States has dropped in Math, Reading, and Science. The testing only measures a small portion of education. Teachers are in classes teaching a test as opposed to teaching from a book. This is only hurting education, the teachers and students should not be held accountable for poor test grades. Not all students test the same, some students test poorly, but at the same time know more than they are showing on the test. These tests do not bring a positive learning environment for the student or for the teacher, both of which are stressed. The student is stressed fearing they may not pass and can not move up to the next grade. The teacher may lose their job if some of the students do not pass this test. Testing is good to see what level students are at and what the school or teacher need to work on, but it should not be a deciding factor on anything. http://www.nap.edu... http://www.science20.com...
Shops that broadcast Christmas adverts in October must be boycotted.

I would like to point out the fact that in my opponent's last argument, he agreed with two out of my five original arguments, granted his argument about the stores' greed, which I would like to address now: The theory of the "Invisible Hand". No store, unless it is a non-profit organization, does not serve Adam Smith's theory of the "Invisible Hand". Simply stated, as a store promotes their own wealth, they also stimulate the good of their community. For a more in-depth look into Adam Smith's principle, one could refer to the article below: . http://en.wikipedia.org... I do, as well, understand my opponents reference to Mohamed Al Fayed, and I am very glad to know that the scum of the Earth is slowly but surely being washed away. As for my opponent's rebuttal to my argument about Christmas gifts, I still do not see how something, unless it is a truly festive gift, can be connected entirely to Christmas. Is this to say that turkey may only be eaten on Thanksgiving? I've had turkey casserole and numerous turkey sandwiches throughout the year, and never once have I felt like I have shamed this glorious American holiday.
Shops that broadcast Christmas adverts in October must be boycotted.

Many thanks to my opponent for accepting my challenge to support grasping, mendacious retailers' ploy to panic gullible shoppers into parting with their money months before they have to, thus cheapening the whole festive season and spoiling Halloween and Guy Fawkes' Night along the way. Well done! Whilst the run up to Christmas is when many shops take most of their money, that is not to say that I don't agree with my opponent when he wrote: "Halloween advertisements are also being broadcast earlier". This is true. These retailing reprobates may lack a sense of propriety, but they don't lack greed. If they are advertising their Christmas tat two and half months before the festivities begin, by the middle of December we can expect to see adverts on the telly for roses, chocolates, romantic short-breaks, lingerie and sex-toys. After all, they don't want us to leave our Valentine's Day shopping to the last minute, do they? The dirty, avaricious b//stards! By the way, I also agree that my reference to the Egyptian owner of Harrods, Mohamed "Phoney Pharaoh" Al Fayed, was irrelevant – I just wanted to publicise what a scumbag he is to American members who might be tempted to shop in Harrods whilst visiting London! The good news is, incidentally, that due to the credit crunch, he is in hock to his bank to the tune of ï¿½780m ($1.365m) and he's likely to go belly up any time now. Ha-ha-ha-ha! My opponent then wrote: "I was not aware that my opponent was referring to Christmas gifts. If in fact this is what my opponent has been referring to all along, then don't stores post ads for Christmas gifts year round?" Sorry if I didn't make myself explicit enough. When I referred to Christmas adverts I meant adverts advertising Christmas gifts. These could be anything from the usual bottles of aftershave through musical teddy bears to pairs of socks or bottles of amyl nitrate through vibrating rabbits to pairs of crutchless panties, although they can be used all year round, they are traditionally bought as Christmas presents. Finally, my opponent wrote: "All this being said, as you get closer to Christmas, stores become more and more crowded with people. To avoid or, at the very least, lessen the rush of people, stores need to post their Christmas advertisements." I've got a better way to avoid the crowds at Christmas. Since I boycott all the stores that put their seasonal adverts on out of season, I generally end up doing my Christmas shopping in the only place that isn't guilty of this heinous crime – my local BP filling station, which is mercifully free from Christmas shoppers, except on Christmas Eve. Now I know what you are thinking, but last year my five year-old niece was absolutely thrilled with her set of wiper blades while my sister couldn't disguise her delight when she received her can of brake fluid. Well, okay, maybe not, but it's the thought that counts, isn't it? Happy New Year!
Shops that broadcast Christmas adverts in October must be boycotted.

My opponent is arguing that shops that broadcast Christmas advertisements in October must be boycotted. "It's not even Halloween yet and already there are Christmas adverts on the telly. They get earlier and earlier every year… Halloween on 31st October and Guy Fawkes' Night on 5th November are getting increasingly overlooked…" Here my opponent has failed to realize that, while Christmas advertisements are indeed being broadcast earlier and earlier every year, Halloween advertisements are also being broadcast earlier: http://www.costco.com... "Harrods is a prime example of a grasping retailer trying to cash in on Christmas at the earliest opportunity." Due to the fact that I am from the United States, I am unfamiliar with Harrods. In the States, we have a store that (to me) seems rather similar called Nordstrom. Granted that Nordstrom has the same tradition as Harrods due to the fact that they post out Christmas ads and decorations months before the actual holiday, Nordstrom also does the same with Halloween ads and decorations. "[Harrods] is owned by that odious creep Mohamed Al Fayed…" This fact is completely irrelevant to my opponent's argument. "Other people may have to shop earlier in order to post gifts abroad in time for Christmas." This fact presents information not given in my opponent's original argument. I was not aware that my opponent was referring to Christmas gifts. If in fact this is what my opponent has been referring to all along, then don't stores post ads for Christmas gifts year round? The gift itself may have nothing to do with the Christmas holiday. Take for example an iPod-- this gift, in no way, represents Christmas festivities, so if in fact my opponent is talking about Christmas gifts, then my opponent is in essence saying that stores should not advertise, period. All this being said, as you get closer to Christmas, stores become more and more crowded with people. To avoid or, at the very least, lessen the rush of people, stores need to post their Christmas advertisements well before the holiday itself.
Shops that broadcast Christmas adverts in October must be boycotted.

It's not even Halloween yet and already there are Christmas adverts on the telly. They get earlier and earlier every year. By time Christmas finally arrives, everybody is thoroughly sick and tired of the sight of tinsel and the sound of sleigh bells. The kids are already looking forward to it and traditional celebrations such as Halloween on 31st October and Guy Fawkes' Night on 5th November are getting increasingly overlooked in the premature Yuletide excitement. Harrods is a prime example of a grasping retailer trying to cash in on Christmas at the earliest opportunity. http://www.harrods.com... There are lots of other shops equally guilty as Harrods but I chose that particular store to make an example of because it is owned by that odious creep Mohamed Al Fayed (who is currently under investigation on suspicion of sexually interfering with an underage girl, by the way). http://news.bbc.co.uk... So, I'm not shopping in Harrods, or any other shop that puts Christmas adverts on the telly before the beginning of Advent. However, this is a personal choice. Other people may have to shop earlier in order to post gifts abroad in time for Christmas. That said, though, even if your relatives live in a tree house in the wilds of Borneo or are members of an isolated tribe residing deep in the Amazonian jungle, you still don't need to go Christmas shopping in October and, therefore, shops that put adverts on before Halloween must be boycotted in order to teach them a lesson.
Gun Control

My opponent is still upset that he has tied in his last debate. Lol. If it makes you feel better then I am sorry but you did lack alot of facts. Witch is why were her e. You said that gun control does not contradict the 2nd amendment. But anytime you have to pick and poke at the 2nd amendment for gun control you are messing our rights and freedom. Today it might be limits on guns and tomorrow our rights might be gone forever because you want to tweak just a bit. You also said that freedom of religion should have limits and controls. Did you know that evolution is a religion. Hitler lived by a code and a list. Hitler loved Darwin's theory evolution book. He read it all the time and lived by it. At the top of Hitler's list was arian (blond hair and blue eyes) at the bottom was Jews and then blacks. This is not the only reason he did what he did but is was the backbone to the whole movement. He believed that he and more like him were more evolved than Jews and blacks. Look it up if you don't believe me. Nothing ever happened to evolution. Its still here in the us today. So this is really just a blind argument and not a very good one. You also said that the 2nd amendment has killed people. I don't if you have guns or not but I do and every time I walk in my house I never hear them jumping up and shooting. I am tierd of people saying that guns kill people. People kill people point blank no argument.Did you hear about the guy in china that killed all those kids with a knife? Well I have a great idea and I think we should put knife laws into effect so you can go to the store get sliced tomatoes and carrots. Or the car wrecks that kill more kids each year than guns. You said that you love kids so why don't we outlaw cars or put really striker laws on them and lets all go bye horses
Gun Control

First of all my opponent is wrong. Having gun control does not neccessarily contradict the second amendment. Putting limits on guns does not mean men cannot bear arms. For example, another law in America, and I think it is an amendment, is freedom of religion. If there was a religion of killing people, that religion should still be banned despite the amendment. Does that mean religion in general should be banned?Absolutely not it doesn't even contradict freedom of religion. Rather, it is clear that it has resulted in killing, therefore there should be limits to religion but it should not be completely removed. Same case here. Unfortunately, just like the second amendment says men is allowed to bear arms, that has resulted in a killing of children in Sandy Hook Elementary. Now, something has to be done. There needs to be limits of some sort in order to prevent this from happening. It is an undeniable FACT that it has resulted in deaths therefore, action must be taken. My opponents only argument is that gun control will be going against the second amendment. 1. I care about the lives of children more than the second amendment I hope the majority of people also do, so if saving children's lives, means taking away the second amendment I am taking that deal. (Bare in mind I already addressed that gun control doesn't contradict the second amendment I am just saying that isn't a good argument). 2. Desperate times call for desperate measures. It is clear that we are in desperate times and we need desperate measures to save citizens and if that means getting rid of the second amendment, so be it. (Once again, not suggesting that gun control contradicts the second amendment). Good luck to my opponent, I thank him for instigating the Debate and I wish him luck. I would also like to make clear that the following link is a votebomb by I opponent and as a result my debate is tied. If anyone reading this while this is still in the voting period please counter conduct, spelling, and sources in my opponents favor as I have pointed out numerous spelling mistakes and my current opponent disregarded them and gave no reason for voting for these factors. http://www.debate.org... My opponent wrote "Con had more facts and pro had more opinion than fact" This has nothing to with conduct, spelling and grammar, or sources, this is clearly a votebomb. When I confronted my opponent for this obvious votebomb. He responded "consider it a bonus" forfeiting that this was votebomb. I appologize for getting off topic.
Unmoved Mover Paradox

To respond to the comment muzebreak made: "I'd take this one, but with the way you phrased it, It's to easy. Matter's natural state is to be in motion, hence light never stopping except through our intervention. But because of gravity's effect on mass, matter is not constantly in motion. An unmoved mover is not required in a universe where motion is the natural state." I agree with what you say and yes because motion is the natural state of matter, after an initial movement by an unmoved mover futher movements by that mover are not nessessary. Perhaps I should have phrased the queston better. I was not trying to debate if a universe constantly needed an unmoved mover but rather the existence of an unmoved mover to make the initial movement. I had heard of a story of a king who was asked what holds up the earth, to which he responded, "A turtle." When people wanted to know what held up that turtle he told them, "Another turtle." When asked what held up that turtle he yelled, "Its turtles"turtles all the way down." I just wanted to see if anyone would try to debate that a series of infinite movers was plausible. To respond to alpha3030: I apologize for not making the question clear. If you look at Einstein's special relativity, you will know that matter and energy are coupled together, and it is impossible to say whether one appeared before the other. We are in need of a quantum theory of gravity, and if one exists, then gravity force (energy) can be represented by matter particles, as you have explained. It would then make no sense to think that gravity was there before or after matter existed. If gravity existed, matter existed, and if matter existed, then gravity existed. The best current physics theories suggest that three of the four known forces were fused in a single type of particle shortly after the big bang. The fourth one "gravity" probably was fused with them but we don't know for sure because we don't have a sound quantum theory of gravity. Speaking of physics before the big bang is ridiculous because all of our physics (even relativity) is bound within the space-time continuum of our universe. Talking about the concepts of space, time, forces, matter, or mechanics outside this realm counts as philosophy, or at most, "philosophical physics" like string theory, which is why I placed the debate under this category rather than science. The unmoved mover could be considered the big bang, but if was just a mover itself then what could have moved that. Just let me know whatever you think. To public: All comments welcome.
Unmoved Mover Paradox

sorry but I'll have to get in to quantum mechanics here. matter is consisted of two types of particle bosons which are constantly moving and fermions which are inertial. bosons such as photons, gluons, pions, W and Z, gravitons and the higgs boson are force carriers, while the fermions are the constituents of everyday matter. a bouncing ball for example is a exchange of gravitons and photons. when the ball falls the ball is moved by its exchanging of gravitons with the earth, this force is called gravity; when it bounces it momentarily exchanges photons and the electrons repel each other by means of EM force
Unmoved Mover Paradox

Basically if something is moved in the universe then it was moved by something else and so on, but a series of infinite movers is not possible under the laws of cosmology. So somewhere down the line there has to be a mover that moves things but is not moved by anything (including time and space). The unmoved movers, if they were anywhere, were said to fill the outer void, beyond the sphere of fixed stars: "It is clear then that there is neither place, nor void, nor time, outside the heaven. Hence whatever is there, is of such a nature as not to occupy any place, nor does time age it; nor is there any change in any of the things which lie beyond the outermost motion; they continue through their entire duration unalterable and unmodified, living the best and most self sufficient of lives" From [the fulfilment of the whole heaven] derive the being and life which other things, some more or less articulately but other feebly, enjoy."[13] " Aristotle, De Caelo Anyone wanna argue its turtles all the way down? Or just let me hear what you think is at the source of this predicament.