BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Modern Day Christians Oppose The Bible.

First I welcome whomever accepts this proposal and wish them well in this debate. My argument will be based upon the Old Testament as well as the New Testament coupled with the actions of the modern day Church, I would ask my opponent to stay within these bounds and avoid side step the propositions put forward. I would like to take this moment to also say that this debate is not about the existence of the Christian Deity, in fact I want my opponent to act as if the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity are proved, for the sake of argument. Pro Argument By looking at the scripture it is fairly easy to see that many of the modern day Christians do not conform to the Biblical Christianity, and in fact many would reject various verses, I am yet to see a denomination of Christianity where they adhere to one hundred percent of the Biblical Passages. I will highlight a few of the following issues to show examples. 1."Don't fail to correct your children. They won't die if you spank them. Physical discipline may well save them from death" – Proverbs 23:13 – 14 (See also 13:24, 22:15 and 20:30) Under this verse it tells us that we should not hesitate to spank, and in some versions of the bible Spank is replaced with "Beat". This issue is made worse by the fact that Romans 13:1 – 7 tells Christians to Submit to the government, but that government should not contradict god's word, Biblical speaking we can find in many other placed in the Bible places where Physical Discipline is in the best interest of the child. Most modern day Christians Campaign against the very thing the Bible states is good for the child. The most likely rebuttal by my opponent will be that either "The Old Testament is outdated" At which point I would point to Matthew 5:17 – 19 in which Jesus states he did not come to change the laws set by Moses and the Jews. 2.Slavery is believed by the majority of Christians to be wrong in the eyes of God. However all over the Old Testament and the New Testament we find evidence that slavery is generally accepted in the eyes of God, but disliked, God at no point states that it is a Sin to own a slave but in fact lays down the laws for them! Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:2-6, Exodus 21:20-21, Ephesians 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, The bible even goes on to a place where Jesus clearly approves the beating of slaves. Luke 12:47-48 3.Many Christians will tell you that there is never a reason to Murder anyone and in fact will claim that any Murder is against god and a Sin. Again this is a statement where they destroy the fundamental beliefs of the bible, and oppose the very teachings put to them by god! Exodus 22:17 (Kill the Sorceress's) Leviticus 20:10 (Adultery) 2 Chronicles 15:12-13 (Kill Non-Believers) Leviticus 24:10-16 (Blasphemy) Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:24-32 (Kill the Homosexuals and Infidels) The list goes on and on. This is but a small look at the way in which the Christians directly defy the teachings of the Bible and if my Opponent so wish's I will list more.
Modern Day Christians Oppose The Bible.

Dispite the fact my opponent has directly attacked me with a lie and tried to make this debate personal, let alone ruin it altogether. I will not lower myself to that standing, so I will conclude my argument and urge the readers to vote pro. Number one – This Troll Buissness Q - "Please vote Con because all you need is read the first round to refute every word that guy says. Thank you" You have failed to do this, others would have failed. Number two – Q – "I suspect you're a troll, believe it or not. " Thanks for the support on joining the site, perhaps what you could do is be more civil to new members rather than try every attempt to run them out of town. Number Two – Q – "You refuted your own points? Swell" Point was to prove to the rest of us that Christians follow these points, you failed. Vote Pro Q – "This is my chief proof that my opponent is a troll. I have stated previously that the law does not change but the way we apply it changes due to changing times. " The fact that he is opposed to Physical Discipline proves this debate he opposes the Bible. Thank you. Number Three : - Q - "Point 3 – Murder My opponent ignores this one ? !? " You refuse to debate this point. Now readers I was going to continue my argument but my opponent has fallen into disarray because he has realised the truth of my words and the only way for him to win is to spiral and spread vicious beliefs about me. So without further a do, I conclude my argument.
The Bible does not need the Old Testament besides the book of Genesis

It would seem just by reading the argument that the Pro has provided, that he/she has not fully read and understood the entire Bible. Without the Old Testament, the New Testament is nothing; leaving out many major prospects that Christianity lives by. Just a few, we have the 10 commandments, which the New Testament does not restate in itself, but REFERENCES from the Old Testament. Another example from the Old Testament is the prophecies that we get from the Major Prophets: Which gave us the signs of the soon coming (then) of the Messiah, and the visions of Daniel, which showed us a timeline of the Europe's national powers. All of these prophecies have been fulfilled, all from the Holy Word of God, and with our current knowledge of the past, these prophecies are what proves the entire Bible's validity. Just reading the New Testament without the Old Testament, is like trying to make a peanut butter sandwich without the bread. It can be eaten by itself, but it defeats the purpose. The Bible is a gift from God to humanity as a guidebook; to help us understand the purpose, steps and gift of salvation through Jesus. Everything in the Bible was meant to be there. Otherwise God would not have let it been printed in millions of copies everyday. Hebrews 4:12 speaks of the Bible being sharper than any two edged sword, and it "penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow". This means that the Word of God tells us whats wrong in our lives. Acting as divider between us and our sinful lives. Without the Old Testament, the Bible is only a sword and no handle. Without the New Testament, the Bible is only a handle. Both render useless. With trust in an all mighty, all knowing God, we can know for sure that the entire Bible has been selected though out all the lost scrolls to be put into one book, that the New and Old testament are cooperative as one. Source(s): http://www.christianitytoday.com...
The xbox 360 v.s. the playstation3

Of course the X-Box 360 has Kinect but Sony is working on a new thing called Sony-Play.The PlayStation, Pureisutēshon Surī?, officially abbreviated as PS3 is the third home video game console produced by Sony Computer Entertainment and the successor to the PlayStation 2 as part of the PlayStation series. The PlayStation 3 competes with Microsoft's Xbox 360 and Nintendo's Wii as part of the seventh generation of video game consoles. A major feature that distinguishes the PlayStation 3 from its predecessors is its unified online gaming service, the PlayStation Network, which contrasts with Sony's former policy of relying on video game developers for online play.Other major features of the console include its robust multimedia capabilities, connectivity with the PlayStation Portable,and its use of the Blu-ray Disc as its primary storage medium. The PS3 was also the first Blu-ray 2.0-compliant Blu-ray player on the market The PlayStation 3 was first released on November 11, 2006 in Japan, November 17, 2006 in North America,March 16, 2007 in the United Kingdom and Ireland, and March 23, 2007 in mainland Europe and Oceania. Two stock-keeping units were available at launch: a basic model with a 20 GB hard disk drive (which was not released in Europe or Oceania) and a premium model with a 60 GB hard drive and several additional features. Since then several revisions have been made to the console's available models, most notably with the release of a new slim model in September 2009 to coincide with rebranding of the console and its logo. In March 2011 the European Court of Justice sitting at The Hague issued an order, applying only to the Netherlands, for European customs officers to seize all shipments of the PlayStation 3 as part of an ongoing patent dispute between Sony and LG Corp., the latter claiming that Sony had infringed a number of patents relating to the playback of Blu-Ray discs. LG Corp. also filed a complaint with the US International Trade Commission. The injunction was lifted on March 10, 2011, and LG was fined for its actions
The xbox 360 v.s. the playstation3

The PS3 is stronger. The RSX Graphical Processing Unit has been clocked at 1.8TFLOPS, a very powerful figure. It features the Cell processor which has seven cores running at 3.2GHz. In comparison, the 360 has only three cores running at 3.2GHz, and its overall performance is clocked at 1TFLOP. The PS3's GPU tops an entire 360 by itself, without bringing in its processor. The PS3 is cheaper. Yes, cheaper. For $300, you could get a 360 with 60GB disk space, or you could get a 80GB PS3 for $400, paying only $100 extra for all those things the 360 lacks: More powerful hardware, Bluray player, integrated WiFi, free online gaming, rechargeable gamepads (thus saving batteries), and media center capabilities. With its powerful hardware, the PS3 is much more future-proof than the 360, which still works on DVDs. The PS3 is more reliable. The machine has an integrated AC adapter, the fans are perfectly silent, it has extremely rare hardware failure issues while the 360 fails over and over with the infamous Red Ring of Death issue, and many other heating issues. Concerning games, the PS3 has had many exclusive blockbusters. Little Big Planet, Resistance 1/2, KillZone 2, Heavenly Sword, Metal Gear Solid 4, Valkyria Chronicles, Uncharted, and many more. I do agree on the point that the 360 also has many great games, so I'll just say that it depends on which system you feel has games that you would personally enjoy playing more. The PS3 does more stuff. It also functions as a Bluray player, what with Bluray winning the HD format war, this fact has its importance rising with time, as BD slowly overpowers DVD as the leading format for movies (and games!). It works as a media center, allows you to share music and videos between your HDTV and your computer. only because it was released a while after the 360. In the last two years, the PS3 has sold more units than the 360 did in its first two years of release.
The xbox 360 v.s. the playstation3

My first argument is that the xbox360 has better upgrades. Well the xbox360 has the xbox 360 elite and the xbox kinect. The Elite has a more extended . The kinect is a virtually powered games where you are the controller. Price: This is obvious; the XBOX 360 core is only $299. The PS3 is around $499 for the 20GB version. It comes with a hard drive, but you don't need a hard drive to enjoy a lot of great games on the 360 so I think it's fair to compare both core systems. Performance: On paper, the PS3 is more powerful. In reality, it's quite inferior to the 360. Without getting into too many details, the three general-purpose CPU's the xbox360 has are currently FAR easier to take advantage of than the SPU's on the PS3. I suspect a few years down the road some high budget, first party PS3 exclusive titles will come out that really take advantage of the SPU's and do things the XBOX 360 can't, but I don't think the console is worth buying based on this speculation (for some it will be though, we'll have to wait and see how these games turn out).
The xbox 360 v.s. the playstation3

The question of whether the X-box or the PS3 is "better" than the other is a matter of opinion. Determining which one is "better" depends on the person using the game console, because each console offers a wide variety of differentiating features - some will love one console, and others will hate it. To figure out which console is better for you, you can easily go to each platforms website and compare specs. Get the one that offers you what you need, and has the games you want to play! Look at what you need to buy seperately from the console for it to work as well. Be sure to check out the controllers for each. Having a controller you enjoy is important! Here are some general aspects - Merits for the PS3 Plays Blu-ray disks Superior movie player Better processor More reliable Ability to stream movies from Netflix (From the PS website for the 250gig) 250GB HDD for storing games, music, videos and photos High Definition Blu-ray™ player Internet ready with built-in Wi-Fi Two USB ports HDMI output for 1080p resolution (cable sold separately) Cell Broadband Engine advanced microprocessor PlayStationï¿½Network membership Hard Drive 2.5' Serial ATA (250GB) Communication Ethernet (10BASE-T, 100BASE-TX, 1000BASE-T) IEEE 802.11 b/g Wi-Fi* Bluetooth 2.0 (EDR) Wireless Controller Bluetooth (up to 7) A/V Output Screen size: 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p HDMI**: HDMI + Bravia Sync Analog: AV MULTI OUT x 1 Digital audio: DIGITAL OUT (OPTICAL) x 1 Blu-ray™/DVD/CD DRIVE "read only" I/O USB 2.0 X 2 Dimensions Approximately 290mm (W) x 65mm (H) x 290mm (D) Weight Approximately 3.2 kg CPU Cell Broadband Engine™ GPU RSX Memory 256MB XDR Main RAM 256MB GDDR3 VRAM Removable Media Slots None Optical Drive CD DVD BD Power 250W This is why the PS3 is better then a X-Box 360.
the bible teaches masturbation is a sin

i would like to help you out on one point. that is, lust can be used similarly to 'covet'. as i said in previous debates where i took your position. one does not covet they neighbors goods or wife, simply by desiring them, or wanting them, it has to be something inordinate. i do not wish people to use this lust point for or against me or con. as to the other points, the other definitions are not as srong and id wish for others to not hold him or hopefully me to them. but they to some degree, and particularly lasciviousness as the definiition is defined, is broad enough to include masturbation. whence, masturbation is a sin.
the bible teaches masturbation is a sin

Very well then, I've underestimated you. All I need to do is prove that a single act of masturbation is not a sin because claiming it as a sin is claiming that all masturbation is a sin. Conversation: you don't need to have a dirty conversation to masturbate. You can masturbate in complete silence. This is why this argument of conversation doesn't hold. Lasciviousness: this argument doesn't hold, because masturbating once in a year would not be regularly indulging, and if you had no lustful thoughts while manually stimulating yourself, then it is not lustful. Lust/imagination are not required to masturbate. Therefore masturbating without lust/dirty imagination is not a sin. Trust me it helps, but it is not required. Vanity is the love of worldy pleasures. We regularly indulge in pleasures, a hot cup of coffee in the morning for instance. If I do not have a love of masturbation for the sake of pleasure, but to give a sperm sample, then it is not a sin. Therefore masturbation can be, but is not always a sin. Therefore the argument that it is a sin is false.
Adolf Hitler was a Hero to Germany

I would really appreciate that you actually take part in this debate. Because this was primarily going to be rebuttal, this will seem, short, to say the least. Hitler, made Germany the respected nation it is today. After WW1, as I stated earlier the sanctions imposed were insane, but not only that, Germany was seen as weak, poor and truly hated! As Hitler lifted Germany back to its feet, the rest of the world, although battled with Germany, began to respect it. This is shown today, Germany, well, is normal. They have survived the ordeal because of Hitler, and although our modern views are clouded by hatred and controversy, Hitler was a hero.
Adolf Hitler was a Hero to Germany

Thank you for accepting Adolf Hitler was, although now demonised, a hero to the people of 1940"s Germany. This is due to his ability to unite a nation, bring Germany out of crippling economy and ultimately make Germany the respected nation it is today. A bit of history for you, Germany was devastated by insane sanctions imposed by the victors of World War One, the initial demands were, 50 billion gold marks (equivalent of 50 billion US dollars), as Germany had placed a massive investment into the war effort they became bankrupt almost immediately, furthermore, the German army was to be limited to 100,000 men. This caused numerous redundancies, throwing the recession even further into the red. People were starving, medicine was scarce accessible only by the super-rich, it was temporarily a third-world slum. Then Adolf Hitler, a soldier that fought in world war one steps up, forms the Nazi party who took power very quickly. They started to default on their reparations and building Germany"s economy once more, they built a strong military force that began the infamous conquest of Europe. In the blink of an eye, Hitler had united Germany and pulled them out of the hole the rest of the world had thrown them in. For the Germans, this man was admired for his fierce determination, thus showing how he demonstrated the characteristics of a hero in the definition at the start "a person, typically a man, who is admired for their courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities."
voulentary euthanisa should be legal

my opponent claims that , doctors are bound by oath and are forbidden to kill. However I remember watching a video on doctors in Holland who do euthanizes patients. The doctor said , " If I treat a patient with a broken arm , I will give him something to ease the pain first. Then I will give him a cast to help it heal the arm ". This doctor is implying that , this is not just killing , it is an act of mercy . People are born with the right to be protected from suffering and pain , terminal diseases cause suffering and pain. Therefore if a person is suffering and in pain that person has the right to stop this suffering and pain. The mental impact is nothing , my opponent claims what about the thought off having to end someone's life is to much mental trauma , however the system I want in place requires nobody to kill the patient , a suicide machine , If you want to commit suicide you must travel to Switzerland or elsewhere and must drink and toxic cocktail and lift it by yourself in order for this to be a legal suicide. We must not allow "pen pushers " and judges to decide how the last moments off the terminally ill are carried out.
voulentary euthanisa should be legal

heres what i think however my proposal is simple , i had this idea suicide machines if you like , were the person requests help to die becaus he or she is just not capable of doing this himself for medical reasons. the " suicide machine " is prepared and all the patient might even need to do is blow into a straw or something that they can do to activate this machine ,however if there is any hesisation a all the procedure is stopped. this is roughly what happens in the netherlands the now were assiated suicide is legal and if a patenitent reuquests this , two docotes will look at the case and come to an agreement. the pateninet has to wait a perooid of time so he or she can chnage their mind , if they dont then everything goes ahead . i would also like to point out to my opponent once you are diagnoised with a terminal disease , you are guaranted to die , there may have been sevral cases were they havent died but i have yet to see about them. my belife is something called being human being kind. Ask anybody with a terminal disease they will tell you the pain and suffering , i watched realtives go through terminal diseaes and let me tell you that was the only time i wished death upon a loved one , for only one reason i couldnt bare to watch them die in constant pain over sometimes months. you have to remember one thing about my idea of this system i want in place , it has to be full proof nothing stupid like docters running around killing patentins infact the docter doesnt have to even take part in the procedure. i just think its inhumane how a court can decide to tell people that they cant be put put out of their pain in a humane way , which may lead to people commiting sucide by themselves before they are unabe to. we all have to remember one thing , we all have our own lifes and may choose to lie these lifes as we please as long as we do not affect others , we all have he right to die when we please , this may sound stupid but i think each person should be in control of their own life. i would like to apologise for my poor spellign and lack of a great arguement i am not feeling well and just wish to post it quickly but try be as convincing as possible.
voulentary euthanisa should be legal

My point is simple and i will get straight to the point If i person wants to die and has a terminal illness and they have made this decsion then let them give them time to wait and decided but if they are certain they want this let them its that simple. how would you like it if you live in extreme mental and physical health and want to die but some judge who doesnt give a s**t about you says no you cant jsut because he feels like it? i leave you with one message pretty straightforward and apbrupt THERE LIFE LET THEM DO WHAT THEY WANT, THEY HAVE TO LIFE THEIR LIFE NOT YOU THEY DO .
The Second Amendment should not end where the workplace begins

If you wanted to debate the Wells Fargo or Walgreens situations you should have made a debate outlining the rules of said debate. Your debate outlines "Should we allow Second Amendment Rights in the Workplace". And so the Stance I am taking is no. Time and time again you will hear "Don't be a hero", "Let the police do their job". So essentially because a Bank COULD be robbed or a store WAS robbed. That we we must support vigilantism. and that our employers must "by law" support vigilantism. This is not a case of protecting one's home. this is a case of protecting another persons home and you want to have the right to do that, and that is really up to the "home owner" (or business owner in this case) to make that decision if that is OK or not. Again, What happen with Wells Fargo and Walgreens is unfortunate, but this isn't a debate about what we think the outcome of this incident should be or whether or not I think it is "wrong or right". it is whether or not we should have to allow or force businesses to extend the 2nd Amendment Rights in their establishment and that has already been established as a Right given to the employers to make that decision. Businesses have to abide by civil rights laws and allowing and hiring everyone based on merit and not based on Gender, Race, Religion or Age. all of those things are civil liberties protected within law. Guns are not protected under civil rights. the Bill of Rights however, as much as I am for them, the employer can put stipulations on those normal rights we have legally as they already have with the 1st and 4th amendments, it is not a stretch of the imagination to add the 2nd amendment to those policies as the employer absolutely has that right not to allow weapons in their establishment. http://en.wikipedia.org...