BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Incest should not be considered in the legality of abortion.

Incest should not be considered in the legality of abortion. I often hear moderate arguments about abortion to include something along the lines of "Abortion should only be legal in cases of rape or incest." While the condition of rape has at least some logical and clear reasoning as to why it should be considered in the legality of abortion, nothing I have read beyond the dangers of inbreeding seems to support that being conceived in incest should be handled any differently that one not conceived in incest.
Judaism and Christianity once were Islam, But people changed them.

1) Judaism, Christianity and Islam tell same stories (Creation, Noah's Ark, Abraham Son Sacrifice, Lot Sodom. Etc) 2) Moses claims there is one God, Claims he is the messenger. Jesus claims there is only the Father and that he is only the word, Path to Him. Muhammad claims there is only one God, That he is only a messenger. 3) Jews put their hands to their chest and recite Torah. Muslims put their hands to their chest and recite Quran. They do it when they pray. 4) Jews fast, Christians fast, Muslims fast 5) Jews are not allowed to drink alcohol, Eat pork, Christians are not allowed to drink alcohol, Eat pork. Muslims are not allowed to drink alcohol, Eat pork. 6) Jews circumcize, Jesus was circumcized, Muslims circumsize 7) Moses came to sons of Israel (as he clims), Jesus came to sons of Israel (as he claims)(lost sheep of Israel), Muhammad came to whole world as a last prophet (as he claims).
The U.S should militarily intervene in Syria.

Well its been a little while since i debated so this should be a great debate. I will contend your USA and Syria definiton.USA- The United States of America, in North America, current president Barack Hussein Obama.Syria- Syria,civil war is taking place, current rule is Asad (You said it was a country in the middle east which is experiencing a civil war but that is also taking place in a lesser effect in Iraq as well)I will also make my own plan for the invasion since my opponent hasnt specified a specific plan and depending on the type of invasion my opionon will change since a long term slow approach would, like my opponent probably have in mind, not work economically and militarily. I will be favoring the BlitzThe BlitzThe Blitz was first developed by the Nazis in order to conquer Europe and they succeded in doing that. In fact they had conquered all of Europe except for the Russians the British in only 9 months. The tactic was basically this: Massive air support followed by a quick, but large, sweep on tank and infantry forces in the country. To supplement the air support we would use drone strikes or like the Russians, carpet bomb. It doesnt matter. With these quick captures of key cities ISIS would lose not only vital postions in their land but also lose supply routes which will destroy their supply to Iraq and throughout different parts of Syria. Civilian loss would be high but that doesnt matter because morality isnt aded unto the arguementEconomyThe blitz technique would be very succesful because ISIS has 200,000 troops [2] and all of Europe has are in the millions. Yet Germany still defeated all of them. But what would you do after you destroy the ISIS threat? Democracy? No! You replace Syria with a fascist dictatorship that will act as the satelitte state of the USA. Because of this relationship the fascist government will give us trade such as oil and annual income so they stay in power.So coupled with the fact the war would take less than a few months and the fact the governments would be supplying the USA money for decades to come the economic problems arent that big.Free HealthcareThis isnt part of my arguement but my opponent seemed to take an interest in this for some reason in his opening statement. If a person dies on the street whats the problem? Less money to put him in the ground then give him free healthcare so he can mooch off the system. If healthcare is free people wont be desperate enough to buy it which means there will be more moochersSources:[1]:https://www.ushmm.org...[2]:http://www.independent.co.uk...
The U.S should militarily intervene in Syria.

Burden of proof is shared. United States of America-The country that wastes billions-trillions of dollars in military and tanks and ships that nobody wants, while people die on the streets because they can't afford healthcare. Is a rigged democracy/oligarchy, where the economy and legislation passed is almost completely controlled by corporations. Current president is Obama, whom is a great orator and has some intelligent progressive policies, but is an overall center right establishment president. Is in North America, and borders Central American and Canada. militarily- in a military manner. Syria- A country in the Middle East where a civil war is taking place currently.
Theories against the Resurrection of Jesus Christ are incorrect

Thank you Con for your final arguments. Josephus. Again, his above cited website only concerns itself with disproving the "Testimonium Flavianum", not the text that I presented. In fact, it states that Origen, a church father, referenced the text from Josephus that I presented. Tacitus Again, historians regard Tacitus as one of the greatest historians and it is considered highly uncharacteristic of him to get information from non-reputable sources. Con obviously neglects to realize just how well renowned Tacitus was as a historian. I stated that Tacitus probably DID NOT get his information from "hearsay or gossip. " Obviously Con thought I did. Many "Messiahs" Con's argument is completely unfounded and the source he provides talks nothing about said "Messiahs. " His source talks about "Jerusalem syndrome" which has nothing to do with Messiahs or Jesus. Do a quick Ctrl-F search for the word "Messiah" or "Jesus" in his source and you will find nothing. Con fails to cite the Gospels as a source. Con also fails to realize that the point of this debate was to disprove the disproof of the Resurrection that he presented. Thanks Con for a thoughtful debate.
Theories against the Resurrection of Jesus Christ are incorrect

Josephus No this works for both mentions of Yahshua, early Christian scholars scanned the works of Josephus many times, they tended to use his works for debates against pagans and would have loved a mention of Yahshua to use against the pagans, however vague. Tacitus Pro claims that Tacitus probably sourced his work from previous documents. Obviously this is possible but we still do not have the original documents, just because someone is held in high regard does not mean they do not have to cite sources. Also saying that Tacitus could have got his information from "hearsay or gossip" doesn't help you in any way, decades old gossip will have moved far from the truth (a bit like a game of telephone). Many "Messiah's" Many "Messiah's" existed now and then, many people come to Jerusalem to proclaim themselves the Messiah, this is called the Jerusalem syndrome [1]. Lack of Eyewitnesses It would also be reasonable to assume Tacitus had mint condition documents but still failed to mention them. Overall Arguments A person who never existed cannot be resurrected. The only evidence of the existence of Yahshua comes from (at least) second hand accounts that don't cite any source. This means we have no primary sources for the existence of Yahshua and conclude that evidence of his existence is lacking and therefore a negative is assumed. Furthermore there is absolutely no evidence for the resurrection of Yahshua and we can conclude it didn't happen. I urge you to vote Con. [1] http://www.psychiatriapolska.pl...
Theories against the Resurrection of Jesus Christ are incorrect

Thank you Con for posting this new debate. Let's analyze your fist claim, that Jesus never existed, therefore his resurrection was impossible. You claim that there was no historical evidence of the life of Jesus until the writings of Tacitus, in his work Annals, which was written in around AD 116. However, around AD 93, Josephus, a Roman historian, in his work Antiquities of the Jews, mentions Jesus saying, "Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned... (1)." Also, you seem to claim that although Tacitus mentions Jesus, "Iesus" is only thought to be the Latin for Jesus and therefore he could be referring to a different person. Let's assume that "Iesus" was not actually Jesus but a different person. How, then, can you explain Tacitus's reference to Jesus in his Annals that says: "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus..."(2)? This goes hand in hand with the biblical narrative of Jesus being sentenced to death ("extreme penalty") by Pontius Pilate. These two documents alone refute your argument that Jesus never existed. You must also realize that Tacitus was considered one of the greatest Roman historians ever! (3). Your claim also discounts the validity of early Christian sources that talked about Jesus. Regarding your claim about people who recorded all cults in the area at the time: you have not provided me with any source for which you can validate your statement. As for your second argument that states that the Romans burnt victims of crucifixion and therefore he could not have been placed in the tomb, you must realize that the Biblical narrative has it that Pontius Pilate handed over Jesus to the Jews to be crucified (4). The Roman government was involved in the sentencing of Jesus and not the execution of him. But let's assume that the Roman government was indeed involved in the actual execution process of Jesus. Your source, which I believe to be legitimate, does indeed say that crucified Christians are to be burned. However, we must realize that the Jesus was a Jewish man and the Christian religion had not yet been founded. Your source claims that the Romans allowed crucified bodies to be given to those who requested it for burial, EXCEPT for those who were followers of the Christian RELIGION (5). The Christian religion had not yet gained widespread notoriety considering that the fundamental beliefs of the religion had not yet taken place! I firmly believe that my above arguments are sufficient in refuting both of Con's arguments and I challenge him/her to come up with more. (1) http://en.wikisource.org... (2) http://en.wikisource.org...(Tacitus)/Book_15#44 (3) http://en.wikipedia.org... (4) John 19:16 (5) http://infidels.org...
Theories against the Resurrection of Jesus Christ are incorrect

I accept your terms (so long as I can check the sources of any article presented). Here is my argument against the resurrection of Yeshua*. 1. Yeshua never existed and so resurrection is impossible. There is no historical evidence of the life of Yeshua until the writings of Tacitus who mentions a person who he refers to as Iesus (though to be the Latin of Jesus). There were people who recorded all the cults practicing in the area at the time and none have any mention of Yeshua. Certainly the riot in the temple recorded in Mark 11:15"19 would not have gone down unrecorded (as it has). 2. The Romans would have been unlikely to allow the burial of Yeshua. In fact the roman's burnt the bodies of those crucified [1], this invalidates the story of the resurrection of Yeshua as he never would have been placed in a tomb. * I use the Hebrew because I see it as authentic (I also think it sounds better). [1] . http://infidels.org... "The bodies of the crucified Christians were displayed for six days and then burned so that the ashes might be scattered in the Rhone. Christian fellow-disciples complained, "We could not bury the bodies in the earth. .. neither did money or prayers move them, for in every possible way they kept guard as if the prevention of burial would give them great gain. ""
Gay People are Conspiring to Take Over the United States

This is a troll debate. Neither pro or con should take this debate seriously. Trolls are welcome, provided they're willing to post on every round and not forfeit. Rules: No personal attacks, no profanity or slurs against various races, genders, religions, political ideologies, or "sexual orientations." No sexually explcit language or material, and no violent threats. I ask voters not to vote on Spelling and Grammar, as I may intentionally misspell a lot of words in the spirit of this troll debate. First round is for acceptance. Burden of proof is shared. I await a worthy challenger who knows how to debate effectively without the use of reason or such trifling things such as rationality.
Are Zoos right in religions like Islam or Christianity

Hi!!! When you say "Zoos" I'm going to assume you mean all zoos as you did not specify. In some Third World country's the conditions for animals are horrible. They are mistreated and have very small areas to roam in. From an Islamic view: Allah Almighty created animals to live in communities like us. This means that He created means of communication and understanding for them. This simply raises the animals to a level which prohibits us to imprison them and to lock them up for life in zoos A question: Just those two religions?
There is no such thing as a virus

In order to survive the environment living things need to be strong and tough. Viruses are weak and have no cell wall to protect them. Thus, They wouldn't last 5 seconds in a harsh and hostile world. Thus, Because they have no cell wall they wouldn't last more than 5 seconds in the air before the sunlight would disintergrate them with light and heat energy. Plants create seeds which are tough and strong to survive in a hostile world. The concept of viruses is just a total illogical nonsense. Its just a money making scam. Don't be fooled.
There is no such thing as a virus

I haven't seen any virsues with flagella. Thus, My opponent is just making things up. Viruses don't have a nervous system so there would be no mechanism to operate a flagella anyway. The picture below shows that a flagella is very complex and doesn't fit an entity which doesn't have a cell wall or a nervous system. https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Flagellum#/media/File:Flagellum_base_diagram-en. Svg
There is no such thing as a virus

Al you are really doing is calling viruses illogical, Foggy nonsense and making possible but very very unlikely excuses probably from some random conspiracy theory site. And no flagella aren't just concerned with sperm they are in certain viruses and bacteria too. And yes you can't see viruses with a microscope. But, People have invented a nanoscope that you can see viruses with. And some people are honest because if they aren't then you are WRONG. P. S. I'm not a sucker
There is no such thing as a virus

1. The theory of bacterial viruses is foggy nonsense. Something can either be a bacteria or a virus it can't be both. This is illogical and has no evidence. Flagella are associated with sperm and bacteria and not viruses. In order to have a flagella you first need a brain and muscle tissue with joints. Viruses don't have any of these. Thus, The whole concept is flawed nonsense at best. Nobody has ever seen a virus. I know because I used to work in an electron micronscope laboratory. The electon microscope is incapable of finding or seeing something as small as a virus. Note - You can't photograph what you can't find. 2. The human race relies on conspiracy as a means of doing most things. Nothing has ever occurred in human history that was honest and straight forward. That's not how humans operate. They are deceptive and devious and use what ever means they can to make a buck out of suckers such as yourself.
There is no such thing as a virus

You're just going off of conspiracy theories. Also, What do you mean by there is one human disease. There are lots of them. To name a few the black plague, Ebola, Diphtheria, The flu, And malaria. Those are not all caused by vitamin deficiency. Viruses find your cell to invade by 1. They have flagella which are almost legs. 2. A nucleus which is almost a brain. They get into your body because they are so light and can float around in the air land on your food or in your water or in your nose, Eye, Mouth or ear.
There is no such thing as a virus

1. You say that they "invade your cells" Yet, They have no brains, Legs, Eyes or ears. So how can they find your cells to invade them? This is not logical. 2. There is only one human disease which is called vitamin deficiency disease. If somebody presents with sores around their mouth or genital area it means that they are eating an inappropriate diet and or abusing their body in ways that it was never mean't to be used. The human digestive system can't tolerate grain, Sugar, Alcolol and dairy products. The more of these items you eat or drink, Then, The sicker you will get. Viruses are just a money making scams which keeps people in the dark about the real cause of disease and makes doctors and pharmaceutical companies rich. Don't be fooled.
God exists and is a real being

Hello internet.Warm welcomes to both Pro and the audience. Anyways, I'll start off as Pro requested. Contention 1: We have no need for one.This argument goes as following:1. In order to prove there is a god, there must be a need for one in order to explain the mechanics of our universe.2. There is no need for a god to explain the mechanics of our universe.3. Therefore, there is probably no god. In order to support premise two, I'll show two ways the universe could have come to be and I'll show one way it could have turned out in order to support life. (On earth that is. Obviously we can't survive in space...) Simultaneous causation:LA Mitchels theory of Simultanious Causation: Atoms a b and c, all having casual explanation, simultaniously cause each other. A causes B, B causes C, and C causes A, the idea is that the cause and effect are simultanious.Why accept god over simultanious causation?Retro-Causality: This is the idea that the effect can happen before the cause. Such theory is seen here: Why accept God over retro-causality? Multiverse: The multiverse is the idea that we had so many different universes, with so many different combinations, that it made the perfect conditions for us to live in. Why accept god over the multiverse? Contention 2: Pointless evils disprove god. 1. God is supposedly omnipotent, pure, and omniscient. 2. If god was pure, he would want to destroy all evil. 3. If god was omniscient, he could find evil. 4. If god was omnipotent, god could destroy all evil. 5. Evil exists 6. Therefor, a being with all of these traits cannot exist, C. In extension, neither can god. For evil, we can substitute pain and suffering. I'll make more arguments next round, when it can get more of a feel to his arguments. BoP is mainly on him I suppose. Thank you!
God exists and is a real being

Ok yes yes. Conduct goes to Con. Heres my responses"So he concedes that the universe could have come without god..."NONONO! I did not. I said the set must be caused. It still needs a causer."No evidence given to suggest it's wrong... I hope Pro is still going to debate me. R"No evidence given. what ? Con is making a positve claim that the universe can come from retrocaused aspect. The eidence is on him. And yes i did give proof it was wrong. Its self contradictory. the universe would have to already exist to cause itself to exist. What? Then it didn't begin."multiverse""Simultaneous causation and retro causality. Not a "who"Then your multiverse section is not relevant. It is base on your other arguments and than it doesnt even matter."A greater good for who? The tortured victims? The raped children? The millions if not more of sick and or dying children around the world? You don't think god could think of a better way to achieve this "Greater good"?"Just because we don't know what the good is right now doesn't mean it doesnt exist. Con would have to be god to make the claim no greater good come about. But then Con would be concdedeing god exists. His atheism is self contradictory.I didnt say evil didnt exist. I said it didnt exist in and of itself!! Not that it had no existence. Cold doesn't exist in and of itself but it still exists. Con didnt understood this"Dobut? I don't know how it came to be, but saying that it is proof of god is an argument of ignorance. [1]"No it contradicts a core assumption of atheism. that mind is just because of evolution and no god involved. If dulism is true God would exist. It would only be good for atheism if we saw many other immateral things. Con has to take the position that the mind just happened to come into being. What?"Why not assume fine tuning is the evidence for a multiverse instead of evidence of a God? Also notice he didn't out a shred of evidence to support this."I never made the fine tuning argument. So i dont have to respond to this.Con didnt understand my stuffvote me
God exists and is a real being

Folks this is the madness that is atheism. I hope all can see. He first argument has to do with possible ideals of a universe with no being. But think bout it. First explaning the universe doesn't disprove God. Let look at his first ideal Simultaneous causation: The set of what is simultaneiously caused must needs be caused. You only explain three things on their own but the set would need to be caused. How did this act of causation come to be with no God? Sure yeah maybe three things on their own taking nuttin else can be explained but looking out from a holistic view all parts it is saying it came from nowhere. Retro-Causality: NO offense, but look at the madness. Come on, the universe wouldn't exist to bring itself into being. It would have to of already existed.....Dudestop and look at it. Multiverse: Who created this multiverse? Cant be infinite because than it would take an infinite amount of time to get to "now". Must be finite Con2: Evils This was duely refuted by Christian albert Einstien. "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love, that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light." You see God will make the evil count for the greater good. Like the bible says it will. Only a temp suffering but for longer term goodness. This brings me to my argument bc evil proves God. Self reflection By self reflection you can come to the conclusion not only does God exist but hes a real being. We know evil is real. My opponent said so. We do bad things. Yes its true there is not one that does good. we have all had evil moments and thought bad thoughts stole something lied ect. Its human nature. But it only takes one lie to make you a lair. We would all be highly immoral the soceity would be an evil ruthless society without some counter balance. The counterbalance cant come from the world because this world is corrupted. It must come from a highly moral world from a moral being into this world. There must have been a perfect man to do away with our evils. This man cant have been all man because man is corrupt. It must be a man not of this universe that is perfectly moral. This being is clearly God. Not only God, but Jesus. Self reflection of the mind Consider mind. Its a tough subject. We exist. Because we think. Our minds must exist. Alvin Plantenga said if whats true for my mind is true for my body then we should be able to doubt the mind. We can dobut the body but not the mind. The mind is not of the body but the mind began. From an atheistic perective its impossible. How did the mind itself begin and become correlated with the body? God must have been in play.