BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay marriage

You ruined, your own argument with your first point. Christianity, nor any religion should have no say in this matter at all.Well you forgot the secong part of my argument, legal documents. Those who support defining marriage in such a way as to include same-sex partnerships deny that marriage has any intrinsic relation to procreation. [1]Goodridge v. Department of Public HealthThe states argued marriage was about procreation and a gay couple could not do this. [2]The judge ruled that the primary purpose of marriage, under Massachusetts law, was in fact procreation. [2]The covenant of love between a man and a woman will fill them both with happiness and be open to the gift of life and bringing up children. Marriage must be a community of life. [3](c/p'd from source)"You admit the institution has lost most of its meaning and yet you still see fit to deny it to some people?"False it has little meaning. But, I argue letting gays marry would make the problem worse. Me saying there is a problem needn't point to me giving up that point, rather saying there is a problem don't let it get worse. Allowing gays to marry wold make the problem worse. My sources prove that allowingthem to marry would raise the amount of divorce. "I very much doubt the marriage between that man and his dog was recognized by the government of Australia. "have any sources saying no?either way the argument stands:he Missouri man and homosexual "marriage" proponents categorically reject the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Instead, the sole criterion for marriage becomes the presence of "love" and "mutual commitment." But once marriage is no longer confined to a man and a woman, it is impossible to exclude virtually any relationship between two or more partners of either sex--even non-human "partners." [4](word for word from my 4th source)Make sense as polygamy and the right to marry animals have similar arguements. So sooner or later the source says allowing gay marriage would lead to polymgamy and the right to marry a dog, eventually. "in the end the bible really should have nothing to do with this situation. This is a secular nation not a Christian one."So why did you press this argument? Also most of the religeons you menoned are against polygamy, except athiest."Vote con."Thank you we agree. (lol typo your pro)==conclusion to rebbutals==I have destroyed his argments, I urge you to vote con. My arguemnts still stand. sources:http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com... [1]http://www.profam.org... [2]http://www.repchret.ca... [3]http://www.frc.org... [4]
Gay marriage

1. ) You ruined, your own argument with your first point. Christianity, nor any religion should have no say in this matter at all. However, as I have already explained this is about civil marriage not religious marriage. Do you really think all this controversy is about churches being able to refuse to marry people? It's always been like that and it still like that in this country. If a church, for whatever reason, does not want to marry someone they can refuse. And as for infertile couples and old people; yes, sometimes people get married knowing they are not fit to reproduce and I certainly think the elderly know when they can no longer get pregnant. But, as for what you said about invitro-fertilization why can't gay people do that if children are necessary for marriage? There is no law to stop two gay men from paying a women to have their baby or two lesbians from going to s sperm bank and having one of them get pregnant. So, if they did that would you be fine with them marrying then? 2. ) You admit the institution has lost most of its meaning and yet you still see fit to deny it to some people? Marriage very much is a right and the supreme court ruled as such. You are correct when you say that specific case was about race, however, the fact that back then interracial marriage is as taboo as gay marriage is today I believe the point made at the heart of that case still rings true. 3. ) I very much doubt the marriage between that man and his dog was recognized by the government of Australia. The slippery slope argument is inherently fallacious as it tries to connect to subjects completely unrelated. I fail to see at all how two men or women marrying each other will even open up the door for the government to recognize the 'marriage' between people and their pets. The two situations are very, very different. 4. ) Lastly, I concede to you the bible does not endorse polygamy, however, in the end the bible really should have nothing to do with this situation. This is a secular nation not a Christian one. The Christian definition of marriage should not define it for everyone else. Otherwise, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, atheist, etc would not be able to marry. About gay people breaking up more. I think that same argument could be used for something like this as well "Since the majority of illegal immigrants are Latinos all Latinos are illegal immigrants. " This is obviously false. You seem to be saying that since gays have higher divorce rates all gays if allowed to marry will divorce so why even bother giving them the chance. That argument is inherently fallacious.
Why Minions are stupid.

Here's why I think minions are dumb. They act all immature, just because the think they're funny, and they will just yell and scream. I don't know why all of this is the 'back-bone' of children's movies, atleast they're not like Stuart Little, who is just in the movie, when viewers just have the entertainment of watching something cute. They're just like Homer, who is just weak and dumb. I don't mean to be a Grumpy-Gru on tihs, but this is true.
The Xbox One is better than the Playstaion 4

I think the Xbox is better. It is about even with how many people have the devices. Most have an Xbox and a PlayStation is more of a 'I wish I had' kind of system. I believe the PlayStation is more expensive. The controls are about even. The Xbox One sucks. It is leggy and most of the new things added to it needs another item attached to it. Most YouTube videos are on the Xbox more than the PlayStation. Either get an Xbox360 or get a PlayStation 3 or 4.
The Xbox One is better than the Playstaion 4

The Xbox in its year on the market has rose from the hole it dug itself in and has taken the spot as the best console as of now. The Xbox has a superb lineup of exclusive titles outnumbering the slim pickings of the PlayStation. Soon you will be able to play your own Xbox games not only on your personal computer, but on mobile devices as well. Xbox Live is superior to PSN and that has been showcased in the past few months. When both were taken down on Christmas Xbox was back up within a day, while PSN for some took weeks. Also with the massive hack of Sony last year, can you trust them with your private data when they cant even keep their employees safe?
The Orthodox Church and The Catholic Church are based on two different religions

1) The Bible is a poorly written document with huge flaws regarding morality and a lot of contradictions[1]Because our moral standards changed in the last 2000 years, apologists started claiming the Bible can't be taken literally. It is now widely believed the Bible is not meant to be taken literally[2] Given that these churches have been separated for about 1000 years their interpretation of the Bible are very different. If the Bible was a document that could have been taken literally, the interpretations of both the Orthodox and the Catholic churches would have been the same. but considering the nature of the Bible, their interpretations differ a lot. 2)It is true they both practice the same 7 sacraments, but in a different way. In the orthodox view, one can receive the Eucharist only after fasting and after confession. Confession is also different: Catholics believe priests can forgive their sins "Since he would not always be with the Church visibly, Christ gave this power to other men so the Church, which is the continuation of his presence throughout time (Matt. 28:20), would be able to offer forgiveness to future generations. He gave his power to the apostles, and it was a power that could be passed on to their successors and agents, since the apostles wouldn"t always be on earth either, but people would still be sinning. "[3] on the other hand, an orthodox priest can only listen to one's sins, as god himself directly forgives the sins.[4] Baptism is also different both in practice (in orthodox baptism the person receiving it is dipped entirely in the water 3 times[5]) and belief, as the orthodox don't believe in the original sin, but they believe that human nature is meant to make every human sin in his life.[6] These practices might be similar, but they are not identical and they serve a very different moral purpose. 3) The 7 councils were mostly about heresies. The one thing they agree on is the trinity and the nature of Jesus. Nobody can deny they worship the same god, but a religion is not determined by a god. Islam worships the same god as christianity, but the beliefs and practices differ a lot, so there can be 2 religions worshiping the same god in a different way. A basic doctrine isn't enough to consider them the same religion. 4) Actually, there are very few saints that are accepted by both churches.[7] The Orthodox Church claims every person in heaven in a saint[8] and even is someone is not considered a saint on earth, he is a saint if he is in heaven. Again, these are serious differences in beliefs about the afterlife. [1]http://www.evilbible.com... [2]http://www.christianbiblereference.org... [3]http://www.catholic.com... [4]http://www.stgeorgecathedral.net...] [5]http://orthodoxwiki.org... [6]http://vivificat1.blogspot.ro... [7]http://en.wikipedia.org... [8]http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Orthodox Church and The Catholic Church are based on two different religions

My argument is that Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not substantially different enough in fundamental beliefs to be called different religions. First of all, both religions accept the same documents as scripture. Both churches recognize the 66 books of the main biblical canon as well as at least seven books of the deuterocanon (or apocrypha, a set of books accepted by some Christians as scripture but not by Jews) as scripture [1]. Orthodoxy accepts three more books than Catholicism, but that is not a significant difference. Secondly, both denominations practice the Eucharist/Lord's Supper (one of the seven sacraments) with a literal interpretation of Jesus saying "This is my body and my blood [2]." While talking about sacraments, both churches have the same sacraments, or a fundamental religious ceremony. These sacraments are the Eucharist (Lord's supper), baptism, chrismation, confession (or reconciliation), marriage, unction (or healing of the sick), and holy orders (ordination) [3], [4]. Thirdly, both denominations have the same basic doctrines [5], [6]. Both denominations are centered around the teachings of Jesus. Both use the Nicene creed as a basic summary of their beliefs. Both believe in a God who exists as a trinity of three beings with one essence. Both practice baptism. Both teach that there is a stage between earth and heaven, which is an unpopular belief to many protestant Christians [2]. In Christian history, there were seven original ecumenical (or universal) councils. These councils laid down the basic accepted interpretations of scriptures and also lay down some of the most significant heresies. Both Orthodoxy and Catholicism accept all seven of the councils, and therefore both of them believe in the same basic doctrines and reject the same basic heresies [7]. Fourthly, both Orthodoxy and Catholicism have a list of saints, or highly respected Christians who lived noteworthy lives. Both denominations teach that saints can pray for you in heaven, and both churches highly venerate the saints in their worship and ceremonies. In conclusion, the basic beliefs and practices of Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism are identical to one another. They have the same scripture, the same view of saints, the same tenants, the same sacraments, and very similar views on the afterlife. Most religious differences between the two denominations are so small that an average follow of the two religions would not notice unless they were looking for differences. The main thing separating Catholics from Orthodox is the belief that the Pope (Bishop of Rome) is the leader of the church, which is more of a political issue than a religious one. Therefore it is my belief that Roman Catholicism and orthodoxy are no more separate religions than American and British English are separate languages. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://christianityinview.com... 3. http://www.americancatholic.org... 4. http://www.goarch.org... 5. http://www.goarch.org... 6. http://www.beginningcatholic.com... 7. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Orthodox Church and The Catholic Church are based on two different religions

I will argue that the differences betweenThe Orthodox Church and The Catholic Church are big enough to consider they are based on two different religions, and not a single one.The reason for this debate is that Christianity is considered the largest religion in the world[1][2] only because these churches claim to share the same religiondespite the fact that they are very different. religion = a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. Round 1- accept Round 2- arguments(3-4) Round 3 - debunk your opponent's arguments Round 4 - additional arguments [1]http://www.thecountriesof.com... [2]http://www.infoplease.com... [3]http://dictionary.reference.com...
The Kalam Cosmological Argument proves the existence of a Personal Creator

Thank you for a superb (and speedy) reply. As I only have 7 hours left, I may not be able to respond to everything. I. Whatever begins to exist has a cause To this, my partner agrees that we have not seen anything come from nothing. Moreover, he argues that it is an argument from ignorance. However, I believe I have demonstrated that to be false.II. The universe began to exist A. Phiisophical My partner argument shows a lack of understanding of the argument by arguing that infinite numbers do not behave as finite numbers. This paradox does not begin with a finite number and then proceed to reason that there is something problematic. Indeed, they stipulate that actual infinites are possible in reality and then proceed to show that inverse operation of mathematics cannot apply, as they would lead to contradictions. As such, actual infinites cannot exist in reality. This is argumentum ad absurdum. [1] B. Scientific My partner argues in favor of the Big Bang. However, the BBT has came under serious damage lately with the revelation of the particle that travels faster than light. [2] Moreover, there are also many other problems with the BBT. It is not as sound as one may think (even if we resolve that precedent problem). Thank you. I am sorry if I failed to respond to everything (been very busy)!References 1. http://www.debate.org...2. http://www.nytimes.com...;
The Kalam Cosmological Argument proves the existence of a Personal Creator

I would like to issue an open challenge on a debate regarding the Kalam Cosmological Argument as supported by William Lane Craig and whether it in fact proves the existence of a personal creator- ie, god. I will take the opposing position, ie that it lacks evidential support and thus cannot prove its conclusion. The KCA: A.Whatever begins to exist has cause B. The universe began to exit C. .'. the universe has a cause.NOTE: The creation of the universe does not simply denote what arises from a cosmic expansion, but an actual creation of its materia- energy.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument proves the existence of a Personal Creator

I would like to summarize my points: Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Although I have not explicitly denied this premise, I have nonetheless pointed out several flaws and assumptions that the argument and defendants of the aid argument make regading "causality" and "beginning". The argument states that the universe- ie all that exists as outlined in the opening post has a beginning of existence and thus must've been caused. However, we do not have any evidence of things beginning to exist in the creation ex nihilo sense that the argument requires nor have we observed a timeless causation and hence the premise cannot function in conjunction with the next premise. Premise 2: The universe began to exist. My opponent has laid two arguments for the beginning of universe's existence- scientifc argument and the philosophical argument against actual infinity. His scientific argument was flawed in that his citing of the second law of thermodynamics was based on incorrect assumptions rearding thermodynamics in general (as well as ignoring the first law) which is refuted by the simple fact that the said expansion began a finite while ago but does not posit a creation at that time. His philosophical argument is much better handled but I believe it has issues in how it deals with infinity as well as the fact that if his contentions were true, calculating with infinity itself would be impossible. Nonetheless even granting his philosophical argument one simply needs to posit an alternative pre-planck viable cosmology such as Vilenkin's paper to at least provide an alternate possibility that avoids the issue altogether. Premise 3: Therefore, the universe has a cause of existence. This premise is where I argue the argument falls apart, since a "timeless personal being" is an incoherent concept which denies the passage of time (which is essential for mental activity) all the while affirming a mind creating thought to form a new substance- namely the universe.
phones are allowed in school

For this debate I assume that we are talking about students using cellphones, smartphones, and the like during school hours. In his opening statement Pro provided the two central reasons why phones should not be allowed in schools. First, phones are "fun." They are a distraction from the purpose of school. While school can be enjoyable, the primary goal of school is education. The fact that phones are "fun" means that they would distract students from their school work and that they would cause a distraction for other students who are trying to learn. The National Education Association rightly points out how cell phones a distraction that makes education more difficult: http://www.nea.org... Second, phone store information quickly. Phones make cheating infinitely easier for students to do and infinitely more difficult for teachers to notice and prevent. If the central goal of school were entertainment then allowing students to have phones would make perfect sense. However, since the central goal of school is education allowing students to have phones is a terrible idea.
does the idea that god knows everything was/is/will be compromise free will

============= C1 - Foreknowledge does not prima facie negate free will ============= Pro claims "you are not god, there for will now know if I will choose the cake or rotten fish. If you were god (in your manner) you would know that I am an Indian and am trying to grow a crop of corn. So that fish is the number one thing I need to place this corn seen in. You can't know what I will or will not do, you are not omniscient." This completely misses the point of the exercise. I don't have to be omniscient; we are assuming for the sake of argument that I have sufficient knowledge of the relevant factors to make a correct prediction. Pro still has not explained how this compromises free will. Pro still hasn't addressed the Frankfurt counterexample I gave, so this point should clearly go to Con. ============= C2 - Molinism ============= I've already explained how God might have free will and I don't feel the need to do so again. My explanation comes directly from Thomas Aquinas.[1] This is a ridiculous objection and I don't know of any philosopher who takes it seriously. ============= C3 - Open theism ============= Pro claims "if gods omniscience does not include even the slightest detail, then by definition god is not omniscient." I've already explained why a dictionary definition is insufficient in a philosophical debate. The definition of omniscience I gave (knowledge of all true propositions) is the one agreed on by virtually all modern theologians.[2] Most Christians who reject Open Theism do so on doctrinal rather than philosophical grounds. Pro has yet to show that the idea of "might" counterfactuals is somehow logically incoherent. :: Conclusion :: While Pro's blatant misunderstandings (misrepresentations?) of my position are somewhat irksome, I think I've authoritatively demonstrated that they are without substance. The resolution is negated. References: 1. http://plato.stanford.edu... 2. http://www.newadvent.org...
does the idea that god knows everything was/is/will be compromise free will

Does the idea that god knows everything was/is/will be compromise free will. Yes it does. You are not god, there for will now know if I will choose the cake or rotten fish. If you were god (in your manner) you would know that I am an Indian and am trying to grow a crop of corn. So that fish is the number one thing I need to place this corn seen in. You can't know what I will or will not do, you are not omniscient. Physically necessary or not (what ever that means, if you have an answer for that), when god created the world in your time line of logical truth+counterfactuals (creation of word) free knowledge. He chose every possible decision I could ever make. I cannot choose any other path as I do not exist in any other world he "might" have created. I exist here, here alone. you dropped your argument on Mathew 11:21 except for the part were you agreed that there was indeed a divine intervention (needed or not) is still divine intervention where god changed the course of history to bring about the specific future he intended. This is my whole argument which is "does the idea that god knows everything (omniscient) was/is/will be compromise free will?" not "whether or not it is *physically necessary*" if god intervenes then free will is compromised. If gods omniscience does not include even the slightest detail, then by definition god is not omniscient. If you don't like what the word means then you need to start writing letters to Webster and every other dictionary out there. Get your PHD and rewrite it, until then I'll go with what they say and not your hear say. If the future is undetermined then we are not living in a "created" or "by design" world. Besides saying that I'm wrong, show me your argument where god has free will. You have no distinction between your "inert actualities" and your "physical necessities" other than when it serves you. (crater on the dark side of the moon) Ask any astrophysicist and they will tell you that 1 degree, 1 pound, 1 inch, 1 anything can mean the difference in life/death/catastrophe/survival/the world as we know it. Any change and our lives would be different even if the only change was that one thing, there for not inert. Gods free will. His choice was not voluntary if he used a formula to create the world. By your above statements he created only what would fit together. This is in conflict with god being omnipotent. If god had free will (being omnipotent) he wouldn't have to use a formula to create the best possible world, but simply create with no boundaries to his power. If he is stricken to the formula and perfection, then he is not omniscient or omnipotent. "Might knowledge" again is not omniscience. It is the knowledge of everyone. (by your logic) "I know that anyone might do anything, I also know that they might not do it. There for I am god, bow down before me and worship me in the kingdom of Wisconsin." (bring your own beer) (64 characters remaining)