BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Historicity of Jesus' Resurrection

The Resurrection of Christ is More than Likely True. 1) There are 12 historical facts that secular (non-christian) critical scholars agree to. They are (1):-Jesus died by crucifixion.-He was buried.-His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.-The tomb was empty (the most contested).-The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.-The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.-The resurrection was the central message.-They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.-The Church was born and grew.-Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.-James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).-Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic). 2) There are three possible scenarios: The early disciples all had hallucinations of Christ at different times and places and were convinced that it was real; The early disciples hid Christ's body from the tomb, spread the lie that he was resurrected, and were tortured and killed to protect that lie; or Christ was resurrected by God and this is what the apostle's saw and preached. 3) The apostles directly denied that what they saw were hallucinations. (2) This either leaves the apostles lying and then dying for that lie, or the resurrection actually happened. I argue that Christ was really resurrected by God, because it is not reasonable to believe that they lied. If anyone objects to this (like my opponent), then they must give a motive for why the apostles would be tortured and killed for the lie- what was their benefit? Also, examples must be given for people who died protecting something they knew to be a lie (not examples of people dying for what they believe to be true, but what they definitely knew was false). If these two problems are not refuted, one must conclude that Christ was resurrected by God.(1) http://www3.telus.net...(2) Luke Chapter 24
Historicity of Jesus' Resurrection

Rules: Use LogicR1: AcceptanceR2: Opening Arguments (No Rebuttals)R3: RebuttalsR4: Rebuttals and ConclusionI will be arguing that, not only was Jesus an historical person, but there is evidence that makes it probable that He was resurrected by God.The burden of proof is on me.If my opponent can prove that Jesus did not even exist, then that obviously refutes that Jesus was resurrected.Good luck for the debate. Cheers!
Historicity of Jesus' Resurrection

Voters notice how PRO HAS YET TO MAKE A SINGLE ARGUMENT! Furthermore he has failed to even give a source of “the majority of historians who agree that jesus existed.” While I gave sources for the historians and scholars who know that Jesus didn’t exist. Pro states that “People will not die for a lie.” Yes they will!! And furthermore he has § ZERO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM. § § Some examples. The premise that people would never "die for a lie" is absurdly fallacious. People throughout history have, in fact, died for beliefs which turned out to be false .For example, many thousands of Germans died during World War II based on the belief that they were the "master race" and were justified in conquering other nations for "living space". Also during World War II, many Japanese civilians committed suicide rather than being captured by the Americans because of the false belief they would be mistreated. In 1993, 76 people died at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco Texas because they believed their leader, David Koresh was a prophet of god. In 1997, 39 members of Heaven's Gate committed suicide in the belief that a UFO following the comet Hale-Bopp would transport them to "Their World". This argument would imply that Heaven's Gate is just as true as Christianity because they died for it. CONCLUSION Unless my opponent makes an actual argument, He must accept that Jesus never existed. Because as of right now, he is claiming the absurd notion that since people die for something it makes it true.
animal expirimentation

Con writes that decreasing animal testing would not cause any harm. He claims that not many experiments done on animals are useful anyway, and technology could replace the utility of animal testing. It's untrue that decreasing tests on animals would not cause any harm. Scientists utilize animals in particular because of their physiology. Contrary to Con's claims, robots and other technology are not living beings that can emulate the human experience. Animals are thought to be the closest match in terms of comparing their anatomy to humans. Chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans, and mice are 98% genetically similar to humans [1]. Computer models can only be reliable if accurate information from animal research is used to build the models in the first place [2]. Moreover, even the best computers cannot accurately simulate the workings of complex living organs, let alone entire organisms. Research on living animals has been practiced since at least 500 BC [3]. It allows doctors and scientists to develop drugs and other products to help both humans and animals fight disease. Insulin, antibiotics, vaccines and other medicine improves our health and spurs medicinal innovation for the future. It also ensures drugs and other treatments are safe for consumption. While animal lives have been taken, animal and human lives have been saved thanks to animal research. The California Biomedical Research Association states that nearly every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using animals [4]. A 2011 poll of nearly 1,000 biomedical scientists conducted by the science journal Nature found that more than 90% "agreed the use of animals in research is essential" [5]. If animals were not used, we would either have to forfeit medical advances, or risk human life instead. Humans have a recognized right to life, whereas animal rights are not universally or even majorly recognized. Only a fraction of the population believes that animals have the right to life to begin with, as evidenced by our consumption of animals for food and retaining animals as pets. Both religious and legal tradition grant human dominion over animals. As it stands, current laws protect against animal abuse and other unnecessary mistreatment or neglect [6]. There are no better alternatives to animal experimentation at the moment. Thank you. [1] The Jane Goodall Institute of Canada, "Conservation & Threats," janegoodall.ca (accessed Oct. 15, 2013)[2] Speaking of Research, "FAQ about Animal Research," speakingofresearch.com (accessed Oct. 15, 2013)[3] http://www.scielo.br...[4] California Biomedical Research Association, "CBRA Fact Sheet: Why Are Animals Necessary in Biomedical Research?," ca-biomed.org (accessed Oct. 15, 2013)[5]Daniel Cressey, "Animal Research: Battle Scars," nature.com, Feb. 23, 2011[6] Rutgers University Laboratory Animal Services, "II. Federal, State And University Laws, Regulations, Guidelines And Policies," las.rutgers.edu (accessed Oct. 15, 2013)
Writer's Debate

Peristrixalo, from the Wanderer's Library tale "And I Was Pesent At The Death of a God" June 18, 2012 – Californian Legacy Facility: There was a storm today. As Walmajarri and I were visiting the thylacine colony, this meant that we were inside most of the day with the thylacines and comforting the pups as they quivered at the booming of the thunder and the sound of the rain bombarding the windows. It was as if someone had irritated Thor, Zeus, Thunderbird, and half a dozen other storm deities, and they had all pooled together to make the sleep of their enemies impossible—though I know quite a few who would fall asleep quite easily in a storm. It started raining at about three in the afternoon. Just drizzling, at first. I looked up as the first raindrop fell on my head. “Griffon said no rain today.” Actually, that wasn’t true, he said that there was almost certainly no rain today. But then, he wasn’t around and I wasn’t accusing him of incompetence. I dimly became aware of claws scraping against my chest, then looked down to discover that there was a thylacine pup attempting to use my shirt as a rain shelter. A few seconds later her head poked out of the neck and stared at me. I stared back. “You’re in my shirt,” I said as I gently lifted her out, held her in my arms, and started walking over to the rain shelter. The rain stopped hitting me, of course, the moment I was in motion. Or I stopped getting wet. “I’ve known you for decades, and that still creeps the hell out of me,” Walmajarri said as he trotted over to my side, leading a pack of cubs. The shelter was, in the opinion of everybody who worked at Legacy, far better suited for thylacine pups than outside, at least in terms of climate, but it was fairly small. Walmajarri went through the (enlarged) cat flap installed, and I went through the door. Twenty pups squeezed in after me. Inside, in a display of true incoherence, it was a warm sunny day. I sprawled out on a rock to enjoy myself, and the pups crawled all over me (of course). Then the power went out. Electric, arcane, everything. The sunlight vanished, the dehumidifier powered down, and the little environmental monitoring unit on the wall went out. Walmajarri growled under his breath. “That isn’t supposed to happen.” A crack of thunder sounded outside, rattling the windows, and the pups attempted to burrow under anything available, which included the both of us. It turns out that young thylacines run an uncomfortably warm body temperature. Later: Those Who Walk sometimes think they are invulnerable to the wrath of Nature. We are not. Time has no hold upon us, but when we are confined to an area, we can thirst or starve. And we can freeze. My body temperature has been steadily dropping for the past twelve hours. Examination of the spatial characteristics of my environment lead to the conclusion that some sort of disturbance in the local space-time fabric has occurred. In such a scenario, we are understandably low priority, given our distance from the main compound and our small numbers. In the morning, Walmajarri and I shall attempt to ascertain what has happened.
Writer's Debate

This debate forms part of the Official DDO Prepared Championships for Summer 2013. Please see the forums for details.This debate is a debate to test the creative writing skills of both the debaters. The format debatewise shall be as follows:1. Round 1 shall be for acceptance only.2. Each debater (or writer, as the case is) shall have up to 8,000 characters per round, and 72 hours to post for each round.3. Voting shall last for 1 week, and voters must provide comments.The rules for this debate in particular are as follows:1. Each writer shall be writing entirely separate short stories.2. Each writer shall be writing only 1 short story. This means that each round shall be a continuation of the short story, making the sum of all rounds a single short story.3. Each writer must use at least one character from a previous work of fiction written by that writer. Links to the works/the actual works NEED NOT be provided. HOWEVER, before beginning the short story, each writer MUST name the character being reused, and title of the work in which that character originally appeared.4. The new short story being written MAY NOT be a recreation of the previous work in which the character was used. Although this has no way of being enforced, the writers swear they won't break this rule, scout's honor. :)5. Although not necessary, each writer is encouraged to name their new story, for ease of description in the RFD.Other than that, I'm excited to be doing this with Citrakayah, and I accept the terms I've layed out (obviously).However, Citrakayah can raise any questions, comments, concerns, objections, additions, etc. in the comments or via PM before accepting.
Legalize dog fighting.

I find my opponent's argument arbitrary. First, the laws are important, then talks about suffering in dog fighting. Next, how factory farming is more justified than dog fighting. This doesn't make any sense, we don't need meat to survive. In fact, humans are healthier on vegetarian diets. Face it, when we eat meat we are eating for sheer pleasure, the same as dog fighting and pig wrestling. From the below link you can see that the natural killer white blood cells have twice the cytotoxicity in vegetarians compared to non-vegetarians. Meaning those white blood cells are twice as effective. You can also watch Forks over Knives and Healing Cancer from Inside out films. At least with my argument I am consistent and do not draw arbitrary distinctions between various animals. Legalize dog fighting and some of the income can be used to maintain churches and build new churches. Thanks for the debate. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Legalize dog fighting.

First, factory farming is considered cruel by many, yet allowed. [2] If factory farming is allowed so should dog fighting. There is many detrimental health affects with overcompensation of meat. Therefore, factory farming is the same as dog fighting, causing suffering to an animal for pleasure and profit. With every dollar customers vote that factory farming is moral. This action of causing suffering to animals for human benefit is reinforced as moral on a daily basis. Impact, dog fighting is moral. Second, my opponent brings up two countries United States and India. In India factory farming has already taken root. [3] As for dogs being man's best friend, I find that distinction arbitrary. We shoot pigeons for fun [4], wrestle with pigs [5], and factory farm all legally. There is no relevant difference for causing pain and suffering between a dog, a pigeon, pig, cow, and chicken. Therefore, I have show that dog fighting is moral even in the United States and India and should be legalized. 2. http://www.worldwatch.org... 3. 4. 5. https://www.change.org...
Legalize dog fighting.

I accept. Since Pro has merely offered an introduction, I'll do the same. Pro's BOP is to show that dog fighting "ought" to be legalized - in that there is an obligation to legalize dog fighting. Therefore, Pro has to affirm that dog fighting has to be legalized in all societies, regardless of context, in the modern world. As my model, I will defend two separate points, namely that (1) dog fighting is unethical, and the government legislating on it prevents it, and (2) even if dog fighting isn't unethical, there are certain social contexts where dog fighting should not be legal, to reflect the values of society as a whole (rather than the values of individuals). The former is true under most moral frameworks, in that dog fighting is inherently a form of inflicting suffering, which outweighs any satisfaction it causes to individuals, and there is government interest in preventing a condition of suffering when there is no compelling reason not to change such a condition. The latter is true in that dogs are traditionally considered "man's best friend," and society values the conscious experience of dogs more than other animals - at least certain societies (e.g. the United States, India), so dog fighting shouldn't be legal in those societies.
Republicans were responsible for the lack of progress since 2008, and will be for the next two years

This is all dependent on what definition of progress is used. If you're looking at progress from a socialist/progressive point of view then yes the Republicans are responsible for the lack of expansion in governmental powers...progress. However I will assume by progress we are talking about economic progress. point 1) You would have to show me what democrat legislation the republicans blocked, as well as prove this legislation would have generated more economic progress than we have seen.
Republicans were responsible for the lack of progress since 2008, and will be for the next two years

This should be very interesting. As my opponent's contention is not what I was expecting, I feel it will be easier than I thought to win this debate. In fact, I believe I can I win with one paragraph: While it is true that the deeply flawed political system in the United States created the conditions that allowed the Republicans to effectively cease any progress in this country, the fact remains that, given the political circumstances we have, the Republicans are to blame for the lack of progress we have made over the past year, and will intentionally prevent the Obama administration from making any progress in the next two years. I will gladly flesh this argument out if my opponent can effectively combat it.
Republicans were responsible for the lack of progress since 2008, and will be for the next two years

I take the Pro position on the resolution. Round 1 will be used to solely to establish clear contentions. My contention is as follows: The republican legislators in the house and senate are to blame for the lack of legislative progress in the past two years that is often pinned on the democratic leadership. Republican senators and representatives have almost universally opposed any legislation brought to the table by democrats for purely political reasons. Republicans will continue this procedure until the 2012 elections (and beyond, depending on the results of those elections). I look forward to a good debate and ask that my opponent simply post a clear contention in round one.
Republicans were responsible for the lack of progress since 2008, and will be for the next two years

I would still say that there is no proof the particular legislation opposed by republicans would have been led to economic progress. "partial list of legislation blocked by republicans leading up to the recent midterm elections that, if passed, would have been of great benefit to the United States." There was only one...yes only one piece of legislation from that entire list that has been "blocked by the republicans", the expansion on benefits for homeless vets. The rest of the list included misleading statements a couple downright lies. The statement about the START treaty? completely false. The statement about the immigration reform bill? extremely misleading, borderline false. As for the bill that stops tax breaks for business' going overseas,your statement "it seems absolutely foolish to attempt to argue that rewarding companies for killing American jobs is a productive measure" is incorrect, there is obviously something else to this bill. I haven't read the bill to know, however I can say if 11 democrats, including the democratic chairman of the Senate Finance Committee voted against it, there isn't unanimous consent amongst the democrats the bill would be helpful. So how can the rest of us be sure it was helpful? -The infamous stimulus bill and bailouts. The claim that the stimulus did and is continuing to work I would say is false. Obama claimed the stimulus bill would curve unemployment at 8%, it didn't. I don't see how anyone can say this bill worked, the 3 million jobs CREATED? I guess I'm not intelligent enough to comprehend how a bill can create jobs and help the economy grow, all while unemployment reaches near 10%. As for the bailouts, I don't see how rewarding failure is helpful to the progress of our country. For the last point, all I can see is regurgitation of Obama talking points and not a look at the real issues. The argument put forward assumes expansion in government powers is helpful. If proof existed the federal government knew what was best for the country this would all be a non issue. However we can't simply assume Keynesian economics and an ever expanding list of Federal Government powers and responsibilities contribute to economic progress. I'll end with a vaguely theoretical quotation "Just tell me where in the world you find these angels who are going to organize society for us." Milton Friedman Thanks to my opponent.
Resolved: Harry Potter is better than Twilight

Your definition of "better" is irrelevant to my argument. You cannot define a word for both of us as part of your argument. Since definitions often vary, it was essential to agree on potentially contentious definitions BEFORE the debate began, not after. As it is, we have each defined this word differently, and there is no reason to accept one definition over the other. It is merely my word against yours. It is also irrelevant that my definition took place in my 2nd constructive and not my first, as you never made any such requirement in the debate guidelines. The order in which our definitions appear does not dictate which is valid. You are attempting to make up rules after the fact, and I am refusing to agree to them. If I were to take your tact, I could as easily claim that YOUR argument is the one that supports mine, but it matters little as it was NOT the argument we set out to debate. What we were debating was which of these two movie series was better, that's all. There was no specificity as to what either movie was better at, therefore we each had to make this clarification in our arguments. It is coincidental that we both chose the same clarification, and the fact that such an occurence was possible speaks poorly of the initial guidelines. In the end, voters will not be deciding between arguments, since we are both arguing the same point. If they are to favor one side over the other, it should be on the basis of who is the better debator.
Resolved: Harry Potter is better than Twilight

When I stated the definition of better, I said that it "will be defined as all of the three. .. " therefore, my claiming the guidelines in my first constructive, I did indeed set the ground for both sides. As in Cons first constructive they did not propose their counter definition, and thereby concede to using mine. However, even if they did propose one, they have to meet both mine and theirs. Therefore, you may throw out all of Con's last argument, as it has no relevance. Note that definitions and counter definitions cannot be brought up AFTER an argument which uses them, unless conceding to the previous definition.
Resolved: Harry Potter is better than Twilight

Your definition of "better" is part of your argument, not part of the debate guidelines, therefore I disagree with your definition. You needed to define the parameters of your debate more thoroughly before it began, as in 'better at what?' Since you did'n't clarify that before I accepted the debate, I jumped to my own conclusion. For the sake of my argument, I am defining better as "superior," and so my argument remains that the Twilight series is better at gargling donkey sac than the Harry Potter series. Thus, we are making the same argument and there is no real debate. I'm not trying to be a jerk; I'm just trying to show you how easy it is to slip up in debates. Like the proverbial evil genie who grants wishes in a way that ends up biting his master in the butt, many people will take advantage of a lack of specificity. It's a fairly painless lesson to learn in this setting, and while I am loathe to be so irritating, if it frustrated you enough to ensure that you are more cautious in the future, then I will not have wasted your time. Voters, you can ensure that it does so by casting your vote for me. This topic in particular may be trivial, but an individual's debating skills are paramount to his or her success in life, so please do this person a favor by siding with me. I thank you for your time.
Resolved: Harry Potter is better than Twilight

As stated simply above, the resolution will be: Harry Potter is better than Twilight. I will be arguing Pro (Harry Potter is better). First round acceptance, thank you for considering my challenge. 1st Round: Acceptance 2nd Round: Constructive (Arguments) 3rd Round: 2nd Constructive (More Arguments can be brought up) 4th Round: Cross Examination (Pro will ask 10 questions, and Con will answer them and add their own in their argument.) 5th Round: Rebuttals (Pro will answer Con's questions and both sides will not be able to pose new arguments, just a rebuttal and voters). Any questions can be posted in the comments section.