BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There exists historically accurate evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed

Just because I didn't put the link on my last argument: https://www.google.com... Now we know that Tacitus actually wrote that. I couldn't find the link that I got the quote from before, which had quotes about Jesus that all use the name "Christus" from other ancient writers. Now, "Christus", like I said, was a common error made by pagan writers. You may say that it could mean other things, but because it says suffered extreme penalties by Pontius Pilate[us], it's undeniable that he was referring to Jesus. The four gospels are also undeniable evidence for Jesus because they were written in different years at different times and have the same story. So it couldn't have been made up. So, on Round 2: You said that the New Testament isn't historically reliable because scholars said it isn't. And for Paul's books you said his documents weren't reliable because he wasn't a "eyewitness", but he saw Jesus. You also said that Josephus and Tacitus's writings weren't reliable, because, basically scholars said they weren't. Round 3: You Basically supported round 2. Round 4: You Gave rebuttals, and said in your first that the scholars were Christians even though it said virtually ALL modern scholars. You said that more Christ-ian scolars, reject Christ's existence than not. And, round 5, gave rebuttals. LET THE VOTING BEGIN!
There exists historically accurate evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed

Look what I found: "Virtually all MODERN SCHOLARS agree that Jesus existed".[1] (Wikipedia) Look what I found: "Some MODERN SCOLARS agree this is the place Jesus was buried"[2] Do you still deny it? "the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity." ([1]) You know he existed! But you"re not sure yet if he is God. If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.([1]) -Robin Lane Fox All your evidence against my use of most of the books of The New Testament is all rubbish! [3] [4] [5] [6] (be sure to click these links and find out for yourself if the writers were Jesus' disciples) [1]https://www.google.com... [2]https://www.google.com... [3]https://www.google.com... [4]https://www.google.com... [5]https://www.google.com... [6]https://www.google.com...
There exists historically accurate evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed

You say that I am not allowed to use Paul's books, because he wasn't an eyewitness. Well, technically, he was, even though it was Jesus' spirit. Jesus, The Holy Spirit, and God are all God. So if you see Jesus, you see the same thing as The Holy Spirit or God; if you see God, you see the same thing as Jesus or The Holy Spirit; and if you see The Holy Spirit, you see the same thing as Jesus or God. Therefore, I am allowed to use those seven books for evidence. As for the other "forged" books, I think I can still use those, because you say "modern scholars agree this book is forged", but you aren't a one of them. If you can try and prove to me why they're forged and I can't prove why they aren't, that evidence doesn't count. "You can't use the three of four gospels because they're written in third-person view. Only 9 of 27 left!" Foolish! The four writers of the gospels were either a disciple of Christ, or a close associate of a disciple. So Jesus probably told them the story (because his parents told him). If there are any other books you find fault in, you find the fault in them and show it to me. Where Pilate lived, recently people found "The Pilate Stone".[1] On it it says (translated to English) "To the Divine Augusti [this] Tiberieum ...Pontius Pilate ...prefect of Judea ...has dedicated [this] So...if Pontius Pilate was real, Jesus was--there"s no denying it! Now, the Pilate Stone is in a biblical museum (I forgot where). [could you maybe make your next argument a bit...shorter?] [1]https://www.google.com...
The only things with intrinsic value in this world are pleasure and pain.

There are a series of things wrong with both the assertions Pro is making and the methods they are using to reach the conclusions. In any situation, whether it be rape, murder, child abuse or theft someone or a group of people benefit from it and a person or group get hurt by it. Hard work is good for society but bad for the individual who is working harder than the rest due to stress and exhaustion. To help someone, in and of itself, is a concept of causing pain to the self and pleasure to the other. To be selfish is the opposite. Ultimately there is no pain or pleasure correlation to morality, rather the positivity or negativity of the consequences of each action weighed against the opposite form of consequences. All thieves and the people their stolen goods help to get wealthy get immense pleasure from it. It's all relative. Why is helping others 'good' if it hurts you? Should you give all your money to others the moment you get it? Communism is viewed as evil by most societies.
The only things with intrinsic value in this world are pleasure and pain.

A thing is only considered morally wrong by society if it causes pain, or some other negative emotion. For example, theft is considered bad because loss of property would result in negative emotions. If you felt equally good with or without these things, and this was true in all instances of theft, it would no longer be against the law. Something cannot be seen as negative for no reason, that wouldn't make sense.
The only things with intrinsic value in this world are pleasure and pain.

Pleasure is only 'good' and good is only linked to 'pleasure' as long as both together is seen as 'positive'. Many ethical codes and moral laws outlaw pleasurable acts, even ones that don't cause anyone direct pain, because they are not seen as good since they are 'negative'. In the same way, some codes of ethics and moral laws encourage a 'painful' act as it is seen as 'good' since it is 'positive'. The core intrinsic values of anything, whether in physics or in morality is 'positive' and 'negative'. Unlike pleasure and pain, positivity and negativity can only ever be defined as an absence or opposition of the other.
The only things with intrinsic value in this world are pleasure and pain.

When one thinks of things that are good, or desirable, where does one derive this sense of "goodness?" The answer is actually fairly simple; these activities or items illicit a positive response from us and result in our long term happiness or contentment. The opposite is also true, as things that are undesirable, or sad, are universally things that either result in our longterm discontentment, or that illicit some other negative emotion. Things that society view as good, such as financial stability, family, and friends, are only considered good because there is a biological incentive to prioritize these aspects of life, as they increase the likelihood of reproduction. If one did not feel positive emotions regarding these things, and instead felt discontent when around, say, family and friends, solely because they were their family/friends, they would cease to do these things, as they were no longer valuable to them. Unless you can prove that these actions are good without relying on positive and negative emotions, than there is nothing else to these things, value wise.
Destroying the naturalistic creation myth of evolution.

I accept with the understanding that burden of proof is on pro. Analogy Although you're analogy is quite interesting, it simply falls at a fundamental level. The issue comes from the origin of automobiles vs humans. Although it is true that scientists have the theory based solely on observational science, it is justifiable and reasonable and rational to do so. You're analogy shows the theory is based off of what we can see but it does not account for the fact that the conclusion is based off of the ability of science to predict. We know that people can reproduce sexually harnessing genetics. Cars on the other hand have no such ability. It makes logical sense that genes could mutate on a macro scale, one reason is that it is proven micro evolution exists. But mainly just because we know for a fact that creatures reproduce and cars do not.
Destroying the naturalistic creation myth of evolution.

Mutations cannot add new DNA and increase genetic complexity. Predicted coming back : Gene duplication you idiot ! My response : Subfunctionalization and degeneration has been observed. But how about neofunctionalization ? There is no empirical evidence supporting it. And please don't start that story-telling about a fish with similar genes containing different functions that supposedly have the same origins...that's pure circular reasoning. "They have genes with a common origin because neofunctionalization is true because they have genes with a common origin...(the loop goes on ! ) ". With no scientific data supporting the evolutionary theory,all you have is those circular-reasoning-based "evidences" like genetic similarity,comparative anatomy,fossil record (composed mostly of misinterpretations and a few hoaxes ). With "evidences" like that,even I could make my own "scientific theory" about the evolution of motorcycles into cars ! Wanna hear that ? Cars evolved from motorcycles ! You don't believe that ? Well,there are plenty of evidences for it ! Comparative engineering shows us that cars and motorcycles share many similar parts like headlights,tires,velocimeters,motor...in fact,many parts found in a car seems to be more complex versions of their motorcycle counterparts ! Which shows us that cars indeed evolved from motorcycles ! Also,we have a transitional form that supports the motorcycle-car evolution. It's the quad bike ! Yes,a motorcycle with 4 wheels ! It has characteristics from both motorcycles and cars,showing us that this is a motorcycle in the middle of the evolutionary process of becoming a car ! And if all of this is not enough,I can present you an example of evolution happening ! Scientists observed a motorcycle on a highway losing it's exhaust ! This mutation shows us how the motorcycle gained the complexity that is required in order to evolve into a car ! But wait,are you telling me that motorcycles and cars are designed and a motorcycle can't just become a car by itself ? So,you are telling me that,despite all this evidence,the single fact that there are no empirical evidences that can prove that motorcycles can evolve into complex cars invalidates my entire theory ?? Non-sense ! Automobile evolution is a FACT !
rap battle/ random

Look at this silly girl, saying that she owns me, somone needs to slap her back to reality, So step back, step off, dont try and talk down to me, got you in a deadlock, too late for apology, I said it before, ill say it again, my rhymes are slick and thats why i win ;] this girlie thinks she "owned" me but thats not reality, Open your eyes and then youll see, im the one holding the leash ;] peace.
rap battle/ random

Lets keep the music bumpin, bass thumpin, gotta waste the night away, Dont stop, hit the floor, down a drink, grab four more, Jhonny Christ and Zacky V. rockin out right next to me, Tearin up the dance floor, all these girls come back for more, its cuz im hot, its cuzz im fly, but hey im just a random guy ;] no name, no number to get from me, just a hangover and a bad memory. Thats my story, thats my game, now tell me katies raps are lame!
rap battle/ random

my names Katy Ross, but you can call me the boss I like captain crunch and I always floss I like quoting movies and strawberry smoothies Pikachu I choose you the thug life can get pretty rough, but don't worry cuz I'm pretty tough I use proper English and I pray pretty often I go on chaperone dates with my boyfriend Carlton I'm pretty legit, I'm basically it I mean come his rhymes are pretty much......lame ;)
rap battle/ random

What, check check it, This is my world thats where its at, anyone who says diffrently's totally wack! My rhymes are cool and my moves are slick, takes an army to keep all these chicks off my....................... bike... I got all the money, got plenty of friends, all these other kids just like to pretend, Fresh till death is my motto for life, and keepin it reals what i like, As i roll into the sunset with a bottle of jack, keep wishin you were me cuz I aint ever lookin back. FIN.
This house would give amnesty to the death eaters if they abandon Voldemort.

This house shouldn't forgive the death eaters if they abandon Voldemort because then Voldemort himself will become weak. The number of death eaters working for Voldemort will drastically decrease. Besides not all the heists were pulled by him only but also by the death eaters. If one is not punished after abandoning Voldemort, then the others will not as well have the fear of getting punished, but if one is punished then the others will also learn a lesson and thus try to to keep away from troubles that might land them in danger. Other than that during times when Voldemort had to station guards in a place, when different murders were committed, people were trailed, houses were being broken into, chaos was being spread, how would Voldemort do all these if the number of death eaters were less? Lastly if the death eaters are punished for abandoning Voldemort, then he can exercise better control over them since they will have the fear of being killed.
Islam is a religion of peace

"I have shown that Rape in Islam is forbidden, they do not follow the Qur'an, they follow their wishful thinking, you cannot take one random Muslim minorty and represent him as a true Muslim, and again you have provided no evidence for Muhammad pbuh raping anyone, because obviously he did not, and there was no documented evidence for that."Like I've said before, if rape is "forbidden" within the islam religon, then why is it so common? Why are girls and young women constantly being sold into sexual slavery within the muslim community? There may not be documented evidence of Muhammed molesting little girls. But just think about it, this guy is looked up upon. Which leads to the vast amout of pedophilia and child marriages. Sadly, in these countries in Africa child marrige is the norm. Why? Because of the Quran! Look, it's just common sense, Muhammed who raped many women and sold them, is looked up upon. He is an inpiration. And these people are so entitled to their religon, they will do anything and follow anything that it written in that Quran. As far as rape goes, maybe my sources were wrong but I still feel in a way rape is condoned. I have stated in my previous rounds on how this religon degrades women, and that being said is what leads to rapes. We've see it on the news, heard it on the radio, read it on the internet, newpapers, prior to the violence that happens within these muslim countries. I really hate to bash on a religon like this. But nothing upsets me more than people doing bad things just being of their relgion. Nothing. ~Sources:http://www.unfpa.org...http://www.thereligionofpeace.com...http://themuslimissue.wordpress.com...
We should Revert to medieval Trials and Punishments

You have certainly given me a new view on things and i thank you for the debate. I completely agree that certain people may not be fit for society and that perhaps death is the best solution, but i still have trust in our current justice and punishment system and i will always value human life over money. You make extremely valid arguments and i respect each and every one of them. With that, i will leave this up to the voters. I believe Pro had better formality, support of arguments and greatly argued his belief in harsh punishment for the good of others. But i believe, from a moral standpoint, that i have the advantage, as i value human life over money and believe in second chances. Thank you for a great debate and i hope the viewers were enlightened and enjoyed themselves, as i hope you have as well.
We should Revert to medieval Trials and Punishments

Counter Rebbutals: Enconomical Benefits Con tries to defend thieves and murders by saying that they are just misunderstood people. We have to ask ourselves one question though, is it worth it that 72Billion dollars of potential money for our children go to these Misunderstood people, who take advantage of the law and the soft justice system. Futhermore I'd like to state that con has not properly refuted this point. he simply says its worth the money however. it is undeniable that with the application of my Trial and Punishment system we will be saving huge masses of money. So my point still stands. Deterrence While i agree that some punishments should be made more extreme for certain people like child rapists and serial killers some people with mental illnesses cannot help the way they are without outside intervention. With my implication of the medieval trials and punishments, We can be spending the 72 billion dollars we use on prisons to help treat the mentally Ill, Including Schizophrenics and anyone likely to be a danger to society. With this giant budget increase we can get rid of child rapists and serial killers. and treat those mentally ill. I would like to hear Cons opinion on this rebbutal. PrisonsI appreciate Con's personal testiment to this argument, however I still believe with my implication of medieval trials and punishments we could decrease crime rates exponentially and put more money into education about commiting crimes and being a good person. Also we would have more money to treat certain persons with I. e schizophrenia. as I mentioned in my last rebuttal Why you should vote for me:I appreciate anyone who votes on this debate, and think that you should vote for Pro because Con has failed to properly refute my points directly. Simply stating that it's necessary or we need to tolerate it etc. etc. I hope that anyone will view this and vote with an unbiased opinion. I know it is drastic and sounds cruel however if you consider my points it does not sound completely outlandish and has been proven to work.
We should Revert to medieval Trials and Punishments

[I would like to say straight up that i won't be using links to sites or altered text as it keeps it simple for me so i can think better. you're welcome to though] Also i just had personal family issues to attend to and i apologize for the absence. Medieval trials and punishments are gone for a reason. They are inhumane, unfair and usually ineffective. Also, with our modern society, the repercussions could be apocalyptic. People all over the world would turn on their respective governments causing a fall of society. Since we can never be 100% sure if someone is guilty of the crime they are accused of we shouldn't kill someone who might be innocent. These laws, trials and punishments take human life too lightly. Children as young as 6 could be jailed or even mutilated when they aren't even old enough to drive. Everyone makes mistakes and the laws/punishments we have today may not be perfect but they are much fairer and efficient than medieval ones. Those punishments and such were extreme because times were extreme. We didn't have massive scale prisons or psychologists like we do today which is why crimes were punished much harsher. Which also brings me to the next point; we now know much more about psychological illnesses and have better methods to treat them with. Back then; people believed that "Mad" individuals were incurable and deserved to die rather than get treatment. Today we can rehabilitate mentally ill people in hopes they can live a full and happy life. I will end my argument by saying that medieval trials, punishments and laws worked effectively only in that time period. With wars, diseases and less understanding of the world, medieval times had laws and such suiting their own problems and needs for that point in time. Just as society has evolved so has the justice system. Concepts evolve with society and that is why everything works out for the best. The world isn't perfect but it's a much better place to live in since a long time ago.
We should Revert to medieval Trials and Punishments

Good luck and have fun! In this round I will be arguing that with the application of my suggested Trials and Punishments, It would Deter Criminals from commiting unlawful acts. And also with this application we would save a lot more money on Adult Correctional Facilities (AKA: prison are full of hardened psychopaths who are just serving jailtime, getting free food and fighting eachother) Contentions:Deterrence With the application of Medieval Trial and Punishments in our modernday society it would decrease the crime rate on exponential levels. In the medieval ages there were severe punishments even for petty crimes. You could easily be sentenced to death for the following:Attempted murder, sex offenses, arson, and political and religious offenses also carried the death penalty. Murders committed during robberies and so on resulted in breaking on the wheel. Your hands could be cut off for stealing, your tongue might be cut out for lying, or heresey. With severe punishments like these, and our modern day surveillence and investigative capabilities the crime rates would be lowered on huge scales due to the fear of possible punishments for petty crimes. . http://medievalnews.blogspot.com...The above website states that murder rates in Medieval England were quite low. Also stating the following: the homicide rate averaged only about 15 murders a year, which he finds low, especially compared with other English counties. For example, Essex averaged 25 murders a year between 1272 and 1285, while Devon had close to 37 homicides on average between 1268 and 1281. The modern annual(every year) murder rate in the UK is about United Kingdom 722As provided by wikipedia. America's annual murder rate is United States 14,612 If we applied execution as a punishment for murder, it is safe to assume that the murder rates in america would dramatically decrease. Economical Benefits. http://www.cnbc.com...http://www.michaelmoore.com...The above website has stated the following: The costs of our incarceration binge fly in the face of economic sense. From 1982 to 2006, the amount spent on corrections rose by 660 percent. The 2009 bill for jails and prisons was over $60 billionBy doing a bit of research I have read that most websites state that we are spending about 60-70 Billion a year on the prison system. With the annual expense for each prisoner being around $22K-$33K Not only is this a gigantic waste of money but also completely unnessecary, With the application of medieval punishments most of the criminals would be hung, or have their hands or noses lopped off. We would be saving billions of dollars per year, and therefor enabling us to spend more money on our childrens education, and college tuition. Therefor eradicating the law breakers, and enabling the next generation to have a succesful and non- threatening enviroment. Notes:Once again I'd like to thank Con for accepting this debate and look forward to his arguments in the next round. In this round I have made 2 points, about deterence and economical benefits. I have cited 3 websites which support what I was stating. -Dennis