BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Resurrection of Jesus is a historically probable event.

Sorry for such a delayed response. I have been out all day and have just gotten home. Please bare with me as I defend what I couldn’t defend in the previous round. LOW STATUS OF WOMEN A. Women were trusted My partner hasn’t refuted my claim and attempts at a straw man and asks why aren’t there more evidences outside of the example I gave? In fact, there are. One of which comes from John 4: 39 Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me everything I ever did.” 40 So when the Samaritans came to him, they urged him to stay with them, and he stayed two days. 41 And because of his words many more became believers. 42 They said to the woman, “We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.” Here, we see that an entire town believed in Jesus just because of one woman. If women were not considered reliable, would this story be scoffed at or what? Sure, there are many more examples I can give other than this one; though I shall leave it at that. B. Women were the targets of the early church Unanswered objection. In fact, Carrier is not the first to make those objections. Let’s take a look at others who came to the same conclusion: 1. Gillian Cloke, in "Women, Worship, and Mission: The Church in the Household," The Early Christian World, ed. Philip Esler, vol. 1 (2000): pp. 422-51 notes: “[M]any more females than males were converting to Christianity in its first centuries. "Christianity's appeal to women as an important factor in its success." Indeed, "in the first Christian centuries the new belief system used women and their position in the family/household environment to transmit and reproduce itself” C. Fallacies This is the fallacy as he is arguing that women were an embarrassment (to which there is NO evidence in the scripture); and therefore the resurrection is plausible. Out of time. Good luck
The Resurrection of Jesus is a historically probable event.

Microsuck has offered to debate this, so I will issue the challenge. As he has already expressed his desire to debate this, rather than using four rounds for debate with the first being for acceptance, I will go ahead and lead off with my argument and the debate will last for three rounds.I will briefly give my opening argument here. I will wait until Microsucks rebuttal before going more into detail.The resurrection of Jesus is historically probable for at least six reasons. In fact, most of these reasons are pretty uncontroversial and accepted by the majority of scholars and historians. 1. Jesus was actually dead. Jesus was crucified on the cross.2. The empty tomb. The tomb that Jesus was laid in was empty on the third day.3. Appearances. Post-resurrection Jesus appeared to many people. He appeared to the women at the tomb, to the aforementioned pair of men on the road to Emmaus, to the ten disciples (sans Thomas and Judas, who hanged himself after Jesus' crucifixion), to the eleven disciples (Thomas included), and even to 500 people all at once.4. Testimonies. The disciples were cowards. Peter denied Jesus three times. They hid when he was captured. They were uneducated and had low social standing. Yet after Jesus rose, they were suddenly bold and empowered. They were willing to die for what they believed (and most of them did). This dramatic change in their character is only explained by the Resurrection.5. Low status of women. If the disciples had wanted to make up the resurrection event, they wouldn't have used women (Mary, Mary Magdalen, Salome, and the other women with them) as the primary witnesses as the event due to the fact that women were not considered reliable witnesses. The best explanation is that they were actually the primary witnesses to this actual event.6. Immediate proclamation. The Jews started proclaiming Jesus immediately, in the city in which He was said to have risen. They would not have done this if Jesus hadn't actually risen. If Jesus didn't actually rise from the dead, the body could have been produced and the new movement of believers would have been crushed right then and there.There have been several alternate accounts suggested to account for many of these claims. However, I believe that all of them have been found wanting. But before respond to any of those accounts, I will wait until Microsuck gives his rebuttal to see how I should respond. I look forward to our next round.
Narcotics in the U.S. should be legalized

Keeping with the debate structure, I will now present my rebuttals. Rebuttal 1 - Medical narcoticsMy opponent argues that one reason for the legalization of narcotics is their potential for medical use. May I remind my opponent, however, that medical marijuana and the like are an entirely other issue. Medical cannabis, for example, has been used for thousands of years [1], and I do not doubt its medical potential. However, medical narcotics would be an entirely separate category than the legalization of narcotics in general, given that several states have fought for the right to medical marijuana [2], but not the complete legalization of the narcotic. Therefore, my opponent's argument would be an entire debate in itself. Rebuttal 2 - Economic benefits of narcoticsMy opponent goes on to argue that in the event of narcotic legalization in the U. S. , there would be enough economic benefits to justify that legalization. I do not contest to the fact that the U. S. economy would benefit from narcotic legalization, but are the substantial negative effects worth it? After all, with my opponent's logic, the same economic "shove in the right direction" could be achieved from the latest electronics, video game, clothing line, etc. Those same "cycles" can be achieved with standard inventions and publications without the harsh negative effects of narcotics. Rebuttal 3 - Narcotics can cause a decrease in crime ratesFinally, my opponent argues that with the legalization of narcotics, crime rates would drop due to drug dealers and the like losing their primary source of income. However, my opponent even goes on to point out that gangs would find another large cash flow; meaning that not only would gangs continue to thrive, but all of the previous dealers in that gang would most likely end up finding a new position in that gang. As for independent dealers, the circle of crime goes on for most of them, meaning that as with most criminals, if an obstacle comes in their way of one crime, they find another to replace it. I excitedly await my opponent's rebuttals as we advance into the fourth and final round of this debate. Sources[1] . http://www.doctordeluca.com...[2] . http://www.csdp.org...
Narcotics in the U.S. should be legalized

My key statements for this round will be A) The use of certain narcotics (pot, various types of marijuana, etc. ) can be used for the medicinal treatments to help ease the effects of radiation from patients who receive such treatments. B) SOME forms of currently illegal narcotics (if made legal) have a large chance of pumping the economy. With the ability to legally sell Pot for example many businesses that sold it would boom and that would give money to people who would then spend it and then the money would go through many cycles and eventually end up giving the economy a shove in the right direction. C) Decrease in crime rates, and for those of you who are curious as to what i mean the amount of drug-dealers would decrease greatly due to the soul fact that many gangs dealers and independent dealers would make less money due to the plain fact that there would be such little point for them because not only are they less convenient but the gangs would find another large cash flow
Narcotics in the U.S. should be legalized

Argument 1 – Narcotics have several negative effects Narcotics in general have very negative effects that can harm not only the narcotic user but also society as a whole. Narcotics can dull a user’s senses, making him/her less aware of their environment [1] and thus less able to avoid accidents (such as automotive crashes). Narcotics can also cause AIDS, cancer, and other diseases which lead to severe personal injury or even death [1]. Argument 2 – Narcotics are a threat to society Narcotics are also commonly used to put the user into a very sleepy, drowsy state [1]. Taking into account that users’ sensory skills are already lessened, this could lead to a narcotics user operating machinery while under this drowsy state. This would obviously lead to the user putting not only him/herself in mortal danger, but also the general public that the user is available to. Argument 3 – Narcotics are generally addictive Constant or repetitive use of narcotics can lead to addiction [2], where the user has urges that can only be cured with more narcotics. This prolongs and amplifies the effects listed above, making narcotics even more dangerous. Also, in the event that addicted users do not get the narcotics they crave, they go into withdrawal, a severe physical condition [1] that can further handicap users. I have proved that not only can narcotics be severely handicapping and dangerous to the users themselves, but narcotics can also be a threat to the general public. I eagerly await my opponent’s arguments. Sources [1] . http://hubpages.com... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com...
Narcotics in the U.S. should be legalized

I challenge hawktoo to a debate in which we will argue whether or not narcotics should be legalized in the U.S.Burden of ProofCON will argue that narcotics should not be legalized in the U.S.PRO will argue that narcotics should be legalized in the U.S.Debate StructureRound 1 - AcceptanceRound 2 - ArgumentsRound 3 - RebuttalsRound 4 - ConclusionsDefinition(s)Narcotic - any of a class of substances that blunt the senses, as opium, morphine, belladonna, and alcohol, that in large quantities produce euphoria, stupor, or coma, that when used constantly can cause habituation or addiction, and that are used in medicine to relieve pain, cause sedation, and induce sleep [1].I look forward to a fun debate!Sources[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Narcotics in the U.S. should be legalized

As this is the fourth round, I will now present my conclusion.ConclusionThroughout this debate, I have proved that not only does narcotic use lead to diseases that can cause personal injury or even death, but the use of narcotics can also lead to a person doing a multitude of things while under the influence of this drowsy, dulled state brought on by the narcotics. Thus, society would also be at risk if narcotics were legalized. Not only this, but addiction can come to those who constantly use narcotics, making the above dangers even worse. I would also like to note that in my opponent's rebuttals, he conceded most of my points; he accepted the fact that the negative effects of narcotics are immense, that narcotics are a threat to society, and that narcotics are addictive. He completely accepted my third argument regarding the addictive properties of narcotics, rebutting only that other addictive things in the U.S. such as gambling and alcohol are also legal. However, this does not justify the legalization of another dangerous and threatening material in the U.S. All-in-all, my opponent failed to successfully rebut my arguments while I refuted his.I would like to again thank my opponent for his good sport, and for a fun and clean debate. I wish him the greatest amount of luck as this debate draws to a close.
Narcotics in the U.S. should be legalized

My first rebuttal would against the point of narcotics and there negative affects. I do not deny that there are negative effect and I would never try to do so because everyone deserves to know that there will be consequences and they can be fatal but for those who have stable self control would most likely be able to control how often they do these thing to the point where it becomes more difficult for such occur. My second rebuttal would be against that narcotics are a threat to society. Indeed they are a threat to society to those who are careless or have made an over-usage. But at the same time if it does cause as my opponent says "Narcotics are also commonly used to put the user into a very sleepy, drowsy state" this could also be used to help insomniacs. . http://dictionary.reference.com... My last rebuttal would be against the statement that narcotics are addictive. Yes narcotics are addictive but addiction has not only never stopped anyone from using it but also from the government for making it legal. (alcohol, gambling, nicotine all of which are legal) But I would like to say yes they are addictive and no I do not recommend the use of all narcotics and I warn all of you who use them to be careful in doing such.
The existence of Carcharodon Megalodon

"First of all you have the eyewitness accounts, which don't matter a bit. I could claim I saw a leprechaun, and it would be just as credible."While the credibility of eye witness accounts is not the highest it is still existent [1]. The evidence coming courtesy of an eyewitness is not a valid condition for the dismissal of that evidence.You have not even attempted to dismiss the photograph of an 80 or so foot shark captured on film by the Germans during WW2."And as for the shark in the Mariana Trench, yes, this video is real. But if people would stop freaking out and think about it logically they would realize it isn't at all what we're looking for. First of all, there is no reference for scale in the video. We don't know if that shark is 100ft or 10 ft. But in the video when you see the creature's eye, coupled with it's proportions, you would notice that it is in fact just a Greenland shark. At a size of 23 feet or 7 meters, it's large for a shark, but hardly even half the size of the Megalodon."Well you didn't give a source for this and every other breakdown of this I have seen has put the shark much larger. But you claim it is a Greenland Shark, may I remind you that the Greenland shark has never been known to be any were near the Mariana trench [2]. [1] http://expertpages.com...[2] http://geology.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The existence of Carcharodon Megalodon

Devil's advocate? No, I would just like for everyone to know the truth. That being said, I regret to inform you that those "sources" are not credible. First of all you have the eyewitness accounts, which don't matter a bit. I could claim I saw a leprechaun, and it would be just as credible. The scared fisherman? That was a basking shark. Those other videos and the photograph were all part of discovery's fake documentary designed to rake in views. And as for the shark in the Mariana Trench, yes, this video is real. But if people would stop freaking out and think about it logically they would realize it isn't at all what we're looking for. First of all, there is no reference for scale in the video. We don't know if that shark is 100ft or 10 ft. But in the video when you see the creature's eye, coupled with it's proportions, you would notice that it is in fact just a Greenland shark. At a size of 23 feet or 7 meters, it's large for a shark, but hardly even half the size of the Megalodon.
The existence of Carcharodon Megalodon

I should start by saying that I have accidentally entered myself into a devils advocate debate. That being said I will do what I can to defend the proposition that Megalodon still exists.Eye Witness AccountsOver the last few hundred years there have been many accounts of enormous sharks. Many of theses accounts take place on boats where the size of the shark is known to be above a certain length [1] [2] usually 30-40 feet about the size you would expect from a Megalodon. Video FootageRecently there have been many sightings of seemingly impossibly large sharks which could only be Megalodon or a very close relative [3] [4].Old PhotographPossibly the earliest and best evidence for the current existence of Megalodon is a photograph taken by the Germans during WW2 in the central atlantic [5] it clearly shows and enormous shark. [1] http://cryptid.hubpages.com...[2] http://www.incredipedia.info...[3] [4] [5] http://cdn.grindtv.com...
The existence of Carcharodon Megalodon

I'm not sure how to interpret your argument, but I'll close here. The Megalodon could only live in shallow waters to acquire the sustenance it needs. Also, scientists have learned it was a shallow water animal. Living in shallow waters means inevitable discovery, as we would notice and confirm its existence. Also, with the amount of food it would take to feed a population of these sharks, we would quickly notice the rapidly declining number of whales in the shark's diet. In this simple argument the notion of an existing megalodon population should be dispelled from anyone who reads this.
Internet access in schools should be limited

The internet is an ever expanding ecosystem of information, both true and false. With the inclusion of computers in schools, the internet is a useful place to gather information, write papers, and find educational activities for students to study from. However, there are also many non-educatonal or outright false sites out there such as flash game sites and wikipedia. My argument is that schools should whitelist what sites the students should be allowed to go on. This would allow for educational sites to stay accessible (such as school databases) and other sites to be inaccessible on school grounds (such as social media). You would need special administrative access to change the whitelist. I'm arguing this for computers, not phones because they can bypass the school's restrictions by using cellular data instead of connecting to the school's wifi. The debate will be split into four rounds: 1) Argument introduction (introduce your stance) and acceptance statement 2) Opening Statements (include the bulk of your information here, not the opening statement) 3) Rebuttal (no new arguments can be made that don't pertain to the opponent's statements) 4) Conclusion (no new arguments can be made, must summarize the information stated in the previous rounds) As a high school student, I'm looking forward to this debate :-) EDIT--> Due to the confusion, I'll elaborate on what stance con can take. Con can either argue that 1) Internet should be banned entirely 2) Internet should be whitelisted, however student input as to what can or cannot be allowed must be considered by the school administration 3) Internet should be limited, however a whitelist is not the answer 4) Internet should not be limited at all Please post in the comments if there's any stances con may take that I've forgotten to include. EDIT2--> Sorry if you don't like how I'm acting so formal about this. I find that presenting oneself in the most formal manner is the best way to make one look certifiable, as well as help keep biased emotion out of ones arguments. You don't need to be as formal as me so long as you stay serious about the topic.
Transgender people have a moral obligation to inform potential romantic relationships

My points that I would argue are as follows -Religion -Personal orientation -Honesty Honesty is what can keep a relationship healthy many secrets and lies can result in hurt feelings and tension in a relationship for both sides if brought into light in the wrong manner Personal orientation- If someone is Gay they would like to date a man they may seem like a man but underneath they are a woman then that could upset the gay man when revealed to far in the relationship. same for a straight man or woman or a lesbian. Simply because they identify as one doesn't change that they physically are another. Religion- For example I am a christian so I will not date another man because i am also straight. So if a woman "becomes" a man she could potentially still look like a woman and i might take interest thinking she is a woman. So if she did not inform me that she had a man card and we started dating imagine my surprise if he/she ever gets "aroused". Imagine how hurt he/she would be when I immediately end the date and how i feel thinking that I was dating a man. While all the hurt feelings could have been avoided very early in the relationship if not beforehand. Where then I can say well I'm not really interested in dating a woman/man/other/etc. .. but in a better and more communicative way. I will understand that they feel they may be one way but that doesnt mean that others see it that way so her/his feelings should not be prioritized over the others we are both humans with certain beliefs and feelings.
Transgender people have a moral obligation to inform potential romantic relationships

Let's imagine a scenario, Kelly and John are at a hotel bar, John goes to hit on Kelly and tells her that he wants to sleep with her and she agrees, so they go up to his room and they have sex and after Kelly leaves in the morning he searches for her Facebook and finds out that she is the daughter of his best friend, would Kelly had been obligated to tell John who her parents are, or how old she is, or her political views, or if she broke her leg as a kid once? No, and the same goes for being Transgender. Also, to this person they are no longer this gender, they believe that they are 100% the other gender so it does not matter what they born with for example, if a person was asked about their political orientation and a few years ago that person was a socialist but know is a capitalist, would that person be obligated or be morally lying or hiding something if they only disclosed their current political orientation? No, and exactly the same logic goes for being transferring gender. Cooper Lee Bombardier once said "It isn't about becoming another person I already am who I am" So anyone who sees that it is morally wrong and that a transgender person has an obligation to inform a person they are in a relationship with their birth gender is very discriminatory and transphobic. I understand that you said that this isn't about if they're actually men or women but you were the one who said that they "feel" this way so I have to respond to that. Transgender people don't only "feel" that way, their genetic makeup makes them different than their birth gender "Sex is a product of our total genetic makeup, and of the functions of these genes during development." " Dr. Charmian Quigley, Medical Advisory Board member for the Intersex Society for North America. and for example women who were born "male" were not actually male, they had much of their genetic makeup from the female genes and their brain mostly processed information and made decisions with processes more similar to females. So it's not that they "feel" that way. Furthermore, from a anatomical standpoint the hormones make the person almost indistinguishable from a person with that same birth gender. The religious argument is also invalid, because for example most religions prohibit sexual interactions with people from other religions (Islam, Christianity etc.) So if a Christian man and a Muslim woman sleep together is the man morally obligated to tell the woman that he is a christian? Again, no, and the same goes for transgender people and relationships. This is why transgender people aren't obligated to inform potential partners about their previous gender.