BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The rich not giving away money is acceptable.

I do not think that the rich should have to give away thier money to be socially acceptable. It is thier money and in most cases, they have earned it. I reilize thier are some people who have inherited it. Why should they have hand it out to every unproductive homeless person on the street or to charities to be considered a good person? By with holding money the rich would be doing a service by elimantating the people on welfare, by forcing them to get a job and contribute to society.
Those Rescued From Abortion Should be Killed if They Grow up to Become Pro-Choice

why are you saying that they should be killed if they are for pro choice. It is their decision not yours. you have no idea what the circumstances may be. You are saying that abortion should be illegal and that it should not be allowed to happen, because its killing a human being and then you are saying because of someones beliefs they should be killed. I hope you have been snorting cocaine to have these thoughts because you are obviously not thinking straight.
Those Rescued From Abortion Should be Killed if They Grow up to Become Pro-Choice

This debate is about a hypothetical scenario. It considers the possibility of mothers seeking abortion being kidnapped, having their children raised to term, and then having the babies taken from them such that the mothers are never depended on to raise the children. Perhaps the mothers encounter their preborns later in life or not. After the fact, it's possible for some of these preborns to grow up to become pro-choice nonetheless. In turn, in order to uphold these people's values, they should be killed because their interpretation of rights contradicts the very method behind which they are able to live. That is if pro-choice values are indeed valid, then the mothers of these people should have had the right to prevent them from coming into the world. In turn, to correct how that right was violated, these people must not be allowed to exist. To be clear, this debate is not about killing these people for being unappreciative of their kidnappers, nor is it about punishment for deviating from ideological conformity. For example, it's feasible for the kidnappers to not believe those they rescued and became pro-choice should not be killed, but someone else might kill them instead. On the other hand, it's also feasible for the kidnappers to kill those they rescued, but not out of spite. Instead, they just realize multiple responsibilities exist at hand. Lastly, this debate is not about arguing whether pro-life or pro-choice positions are intrinsically correct.
"the Bible does not teach masturbation is a sin"

Again, my opponent drops many of my arguments. I will still respond accordingly. Yes, both of us provide our own interpretations of the verse, however I already refuted your interpretation with my argument on prior Jewish law, and you haven’t really contended to my own interpretation at all. “God was mad at Onan, because he disobeyed God, not just because he happened to spill his seed.” You see, this argument would actually seem sound just by hearing the story, but look at the verse itself. “And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.” Look at the wording, specifically “thing which he did”. This implied that it was the action that displeased the Lord through the word “did”. Specifically, this applied to the action of spilling the seed on the ground. I trust that if the story did mean that God killed Onan for disobeying him, it would have specifically been worded like so. Instead, it is worded in a way that points God’s punishment towards the actual action of what Onan did. I already explained and supported that the action that he was punished for was spilling semen onto the ground. “also, masturbation is natural, as observed by nature and backed up by health experts world wide.” As explained earlier, animals are not equal to humans and natural law simply doesn’t apply to them. Masturbation is also a choice, not something that comes natural to all people. During a certain age humans tend to experiment with their body more and this many times leads to accidental discovery of masturbation, but this does not mean masturbation is natural for all humans. Conclusion My argument on Natural Law is completely sound and is a message constantly supported by the Bible. Even if my argument on the story of Onan was flawed in any way, the Bible still condemns any use of sexual pleasure and sexual intercourse outside of a married man and woman. Logically, masturbation would also be considered sinful because not only does this not fulfill these criteria, but it is also a direct abuse of sexual pleasure, which is condemned in the Bible (lust). Thank you for initiating this debate, it was interesting.
"the Bible does not teach masturbation is a sin"

my interpretation of the verse is all i need to back up my argument, as that's all you've provided, and based on the context, all that can be provided. i still say my argument is most straight forward.... God was mad at Onan, because he disobeyed God, not just because he happened to spill his seed. also, masturbation is natural, as observed by nature and backed up by health experts world wide. the only reason you have to go against experts, is your own interptation of an obscure bible verse. we are to assume the experts are wrong, the most reasonable interpretation of the verse is wrong, and your obscure interptation of this obscure verse should dictate what should be done on this issue?
"the Bible does not teach masturbation is a sin"

Now then, you basically dropped my entire argument and instead just gave an opinion with nothing backing it up. My argument is very logical. Onan did X and Y. Onan didn’t get in trouble for X by God. Therefore Onan got in trouble for Y by God. Obviously an incident where a brother did not conceive a son for his deceased brother has happened before, or else it wouldn’t have already been prior Jewish law. In addition, God wouldn’t have killed every man who didn’t fulfill this law or else there would have been no reason for the law to exist and for the punishment to be public humiliation if God just killed every man who did not fulfill this law. So obviously God didn’t kill him for not fulfilling this law, he killed him for his violation of the natural law of sex God has created. In fact, it’s basically a slap in the face to God to abuse the blessing (sexual pleasure) God made for sexual intercourse. You then go on to look at possible variables that could have been the reason for Onan’s death, but even the reasons you gave (wanted all his goods to go to his sons…? ) would not warrant death under the Bible. The story is set up to provide a moral teaching, just as most stories in the Bible are set up for. My opponent states, “masturbation seems natural enough to me, even animals do it. ” Yeah, and animals also kill each other and practice homosexuality which have both been condemned in the Bible. Animals are not humans. They do not have a conscience and they were not made to be the people of God. They are simply living creatures whose only goal is to reproduce and survive. They exist for humans. Humans exist for God. “i wouldnt trust merely one interpretation of a single story, out of hte whole bible, to make one think it is a sin. ” As explained last round, once a moral teaching has been set up in the Bible there is no need to have it repeated. What matters is that the message exists in the Bible, not how many times it was repeated. My opponent argues against my argument on natural law because nature itself goes against. Simply, natural law only applies to humans. Natural law is only supposed to humans because only humans have a conscience, live to do more than reproduce and survive, and have a plan set out by God to fulfill. This plan involves us having to understand the laws of morality God has set up and act upon them. You see, God has set up sex for humans to add in the factor of love and commitment, unlike animals who have sex only for the sake of procreation (while very few other species just do it for the heck of it and I hear dolphins do it for pleasure sometimes) but they still cannot add in the factor of love into the equation. Therefore, the natural law of sex still very much applies in this situation and the Bible strictly teaches to use sexual intercourse between man and woman for the sake of love to bring them closer and have a natural link to procreation.
"the Bible does not teach masturbation is a sin"

at best con has provided merely his own interpretation of the Onan story. at worst, he is overlooking the prevailing interpretation, and most staightforward. Onan disobeyed God... it's pretty straightforward why God is displeased here. it didnt have specifically anything to do with spilling his seed and being contraceptive about it, aside from not wanting her impregnanted. Onan probably wanted all his goods to go to his sons, did not want another to come steal away etc. masturbation seems natural enough to me, even animals do it. i wouldnt trust merely one interpretation of a single story, out of hte whole bible, to make one think it is a sin. when there's another better interpretation, lack of mention in the rest of the bible, and natural law observed in nature/
"the Bible does not teach masturbation is a sin"

Thank you for instigating this debate, I hope this will be fun. My opponent cites two possible instances where the Bible condemns masturbation then responds accordingly to them. I won’t be using the story of Matthew for my case because the sin of lusting in thought does not equate to masturbation itself. I will however, be using the story of Onan to present my case. My opponent brings up the point that God killed Onan not because he spilled his semen upon the ground instead of in his wife, but because he did not fulfill his duty to have a child for his brother. This is in fact, a common misconception about God’s intent when he killed Onan. You see, back during that time under Jewish law a man who did not bear a child for his dead brother was punished by public humiliation (See Deut. 25: 7-10). This means that God must have killed Onan for another reason. God killed Onan because he violated the natural law in which God has set out for sexual intercourse. Let me explain this natural law now. Contraception/Masturbation (They both involve the abuse of sexual pleasure and deem procreation impossible) is wrong because it is a deliberate violation of the design that God built into the human race. The Natural Law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children. Sexual pleasure can become unnatural, and even spiritually harmful, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God's gift of the sex act, along with pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end: Procreation. (1) Now that we have clarified that God didn’t kill Onan for not conceiving a child for his brother, we can easily see that God did kill him Onan for violating the natural law of sex. This would actually mean that the abuse of sexual pleasure in any form where procreation becomes impossible is actually deemed as mortally sinful according to the Bible, for God killed Onan for his violation of the natural law God has set out. Masturbation, is one of these forms of an abuse of sexual pleasure while excluding procreation, therefore it violates the natural law God has set out. Once a moral principle has been established in the Bible, it need not be repeated again. God built the act of sex to be between man and woman, to strengthen the bond and intimacy between them, and to have a natural means of procreation through their loving relationship. The Bible has condemned any other use of the sexual act besides this, and has again and again condemned the abuse of sexual pleasure (lust). Therefore, under my arguments masturbation has indeed been identified as immoral and sinful according to the teachings and messages of the Bible. (1) The Essential Catholic Survival Guide: Answers to Tough Questions About the Faith
"the Bible does not teach masturbation is a sin"

the two passages that are often used as proof that masturbation is wrong, are usually misinterpreted. one is onan. God said to onan, to impregnate his deceased brother's wife. instead, onan pull out, and spilled his seed on the ground. many argue that what was wrong here is that he spilled his seed, it went to unproductive use etc, that masturbation is likewise a sin. however, it's pretty clear that God was mad because he didnt follow his command to impregnate her. the other is in Matthew. Jesus says something to the effect of 'whoever looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart". this makes some argue that if you even lust after a woman, which is usually the case with masturbation, you sin. the problem, is that the original word for "lust" is the same word, teated the same, as the word "covet". no one can really take the ten commandment bans on coveting your neighbor's wife or things, in too literal a sense. covet means something indordinate, not something like just wanting or admiring your neighbor's wife and things. covet means "best understood as forbidding fixing one"s desire upon obtaining something that is not rightfully one"s own". here is more on the use of covet and lust. http://www.jasonstaples.com... this fits my original interpetation of the verse "you would if you could". would you sleep with a man's wife if you could? then youve done the sin in your heart, even if you didnt actually do it. it also highlights that what's wrong here is unlawful marriage coveting. notice he didn't say the person commits fornication, or "unlawful sex". Jesus is probably stressing coveting a man's wife, not just lustful thoughts in general, and not even necessarily unmarried women.
The Color Red

Right, well, let's get started...with the middle. Here are my reasons for my argument. I got them all in an email from Aviators when I asked him about the song. He stated that the reason he chose red is because it's a bright color that stands out. It's the color of blood, which keeps us alive. It's the color of roses, lips, and so much more. It fits the theme of love better than any other color he knows. For quite a while, the media has portrayed red as a violent color, but neither I nor Aviators thinks it deserves that association. It's the color of human essence, and he believes there is more good in that essence than bad. Now, I have to confess that it may or may not be me that sees all this in red, but Aviators most certainly does, and I just choose to agree with him because it's very inspiring. And I guess after a while of thinking about what he said to me (this was actually a few months ago), I've come to realize that not only do I agree with him, but I too have a great positive vision of the color red, much similar to his, but still inspiring either way. If you're just tuning in here and have no idea what my point is, here, viewers: https://soundcloud.com... (Hmm, the music store link has been removed...) Anyway, you get the picture. Why should I trust this man, you ask? Because Aviators is truly the most inspiring artist I know. In fact, Red is actually part of a whole message with his newest album, and that message is, well, I can't quite reveal now, but I probably should, because this is probably the time in the debate to do so. I don't really wanna reveal the theme here, because this time is probably considered the calm before the storm of the album release, but I believe I can give you this: Well, I guess there's nothing left to say except...(*snicker* we'll paint the whole world red...) I will be patiently waiting for my opponent's argument.
The Color Red

Just thought I'd get a little warm-up before GITC comes out and I'll be able to do my comeback AvITBA debate. This one's pretty simple, I will simply explain why the color red is a good color and why it should NOT be portrayed in the bad ways, and my opponent will try (but most likely not succeed) to prove me wrong. I will begin by introducing whatever I feel like I should. My introduction is obviously that red is a good color and shouldn't have any sort of portrayal as a violent or bad color. Here's one of the sources for my inspiration: I also have a good ton of other good sources that I will use. Rules: Time to argue: 3 days Rounds: 3 Max ch. 6,000 I will be waiting patiently for someone to dare challenge me. Previous opponents (and therefore may not accept): Blade-Of-Truth numberwang Mastery Paint the whole world...:)
One should read a book before watching the movie it's based off of.

I see the point you have made. However you have to look at the other sides. The movie could end up horrible. Perfect example, in my opinion, Eat Pray Love. Wonderful story of a woman finding herself on three major adventures. When you watch the movie, you see a lot of the main character's situations and a lot of loose ends are not tied up. Kind of like deleted scenes that never made it. In some cases, the movie is enjoyable to watch the movie first, but nothing is more enchanting than where a story can take you. A story can exercise your imagination further, whereas a movie hand feeds someone elses visuals and imaginations. Not that that is a bad thing, but wouldn't it be nice to have read a book, transition what you've read to your your perceptions, and then compare based off of your knowledge? I dare you to read "The Fault in Our Stars" by John Green and then go watch the 2 hour movie coming out this year.
One should read a book before watching the movie it's based off of.

Have you seen the movies lately? 10 years ago, I probably would have agreed with you. Some things, I might still agree with on. But have you seen the movies lately?Harry potter 1,2,3 were really awesome, so I read the books. Every Harry Potter afterward was a disapointment. I haven't read Twilight, and I rejoice everytime Dakota Fanning's character dies at the end. My wife always seems confused during the scene because, "that's not what happened in the book." I read Ender's Game long before they ever thought of making a movie, and took my mother-in-law with me to watch it. She felt excited the whole time she was watching it. I was just waiting for the end.I'm really not sure why they even kept the same name on the Percy Jackson movies. I can't tell if the movies suck because they're stupid and have bad acting, or if they suck because I expected them to be as exciting as the books.Apearently, it not only problematic for filmmakers to portrey thoughts, it's problematic for them to not make horrible movies that ruin books.
One should read a book before watching the movie it's based off of.

I will begin this debate by stating that while a movie is given the supremacy of visual stimulation, it is however limited in relations of needing to convey a story mainly through dialogue. Constructing that change from words to a visual in addition to dialogue is not as simple as it appears, above all when you are dealing with a book that has a great deal of internal dialogue, or that gives the reader understanding of a character"s mind. It is problematic for filmmakers to portray the central works of a character"s thoughts.
Abortion is Morally Right

My opponent says, "Human beings are sentient."That is the truest thing I have ever heard. What sets us apart from computers is the fact that we have emotions and feelings. We have individuality and personality. I will not disagree with my opponent on this. This is what makes humans human.Moving on, I have no doubt that the fetus is living. In fact, last year in biology, we got a list of 6 things that make something living: It has DNA. (Obviously, the fetus has DNA) It reproduces. (It will later have the capability to reproduce, as it couldn't reproduce then. Calling them "not living" because they couldn't would be like saying a child isn't living.) It responds to the environment. (Fetus's respond to the environment.) It has cells (You'd be an idiot to think that was untrue.) It obtains energy. (It gets energy from its mother) It grows and develops. (Obviously...) But as my opponent said so himself, humans are sentient. What makes humans "human" is the fact that they have emotion and color. Many, if not all of our emotions, including stress, pleasure, anger, and fear, are caused by hormones. (Check out http://www.testcountry.org....) And in order for hormones to be secreted, one must have an endocrine system. However, the fetus hasn't even developed an endocrine system yet; it can't secrete hormones. No hormones, no emotion.Therefore, regardless of the fact the fetus is living, it isn't human nor does it deserve the rights of a person. And consider this: In my last argument, I talked about stem-cell research (which my opponent completely ignored...). With that, we can save the lives of those who are people, not those who aren't.In my opponent's last argument, he said, "killing ~40 million people was worth it because it saved ~1802 people." However, my opponent completely factors out the stem cell research argument, which has been proven to cure cancer. Like I said, if we could one cancer patient for every abortion, we'd be saving more lives, factoring in my other arguments.So, instead of killing 40 million people, (and as I mentioned before, fetuses are not people...) to save 1802 people as my opponent claims, it would be more like aborting 40,000,000 fetuses to save 40,001,802 people.Sources:http://www.testcountry.org...
is Mexican Food better than American Food

I get your point, but the debate topic was if Mexican food is better. To which I say yes, it is better. And there are many people who prefer food like Pizza over Burgers, and Pizza is Italian.Burgers are popular because they are cheap and adaptable. But so are Nachos and Tacos are very popular too. Anyways, what matters according to me is that the food should be tasty plus healthy. And Mexican food might be better here.
is Mexican Food better than American Food

America Has a lot more restaurants than Mexico, but that is not my point. my point is that if Mexican food would become more organized, but your right about it being healthy. but american food is a food that has been here for many generations. since of 1945, the burger has been here for many generations, over thirty-million McDonalds restaurants have been made all over america. so america has claimed to be home of the hamburger, though it was originally from hamburg. Mexican food is still pretty good, But Burger's are one of Americas favorites. Post your opinion below. Thanks :)
is Mexican Food better than American Food

HI!Thanks for the challenge! Okay, so, I am not even from the North American continent and haven't eaten any Mexican or American food much often or recently, but I will like to debate nevertheless. I searched a bit about the foods of both countries (Yes, I searched it up, and I prefer not being called stupid for it) and what I basically found out from an overall perspective is that Mexican food (Not from your nearby mexican fast food restaurant, but the everyday food people eat in Mexico) is that it is quite healthy.American food, does it even exist? Most of the stuff people in eat there is the 'Americanised' version of some other place's food. Okay I am not saying that America don't have indigenous foods but the modified food is much more. And a lot of it is probably unhealthy... Maybe thats why the obesity rate in America is so high! :pSources - http://www.askmen.com...I will be waiting for my opponents argument! Again, thanks for the challenge :D