BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
christians should reject that stoning so much, was ever ordained by God

I will also take this moment to assure the reader that I am an atheist and one that rejects the vile and disgusting Laws of Moses. Pro claims that stoning as punishment for a myriad of sins has never been ordained by the Judeo-Christian god, Yahweh. She also uses 'God' and 'Jesus' interchangeably, which implies that she accepts the somewhat controversial doctrine of the Trinity. I feel obligated to point out the many 'crimes' in the Bible that are punishable by death and explicitly call for the method of execution to be stoning. Breaking Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36), failing to scream loud enough while being raped (Deuteronomy 22:23-24), cursing God (Leviticus 24:10-16) and rebelling against your parents (Deutoronmy 21:18-21); just to name a few. [1] [2] [3] [4] To defend her position, Pro refers to the story of Jesus and the adulterer in John 8. Jesus is confronted with a woman who has been accused of adultery. The Pharisees say to Jesus that Mosaic Law-Leviticus 20:10 to be specific-dictate that she be put to death by stoning and ask of him his opinion. Jesus famously says that "He that is without sin among [them], let him first cast a stone at her. " The crowd dissipates without stoning the woman. " [5] This passage has been mistaken by many as a display of mercy on the part of Jesus. This is not the case; he is merely following Leviticus 20:10 which says that: ""If there is a man who commits adultery with another man"s wife, one who commits adultery with his friend"s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. " According the Leviticus 20:10, both the man and the woman are to be put to death without partiality. Note that in John 8, there is no male adulterer present, only a female one. To carry out the execution would be against the Mosaic Law. [6] Furthermore, John 7:53-8:11 isn't even present in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts of the Gospels. [7] Jesus was an ardent supporter of Mosaic Law. In Matthew 15:1-4, Jesus chastises the Pharisees for failing to keep the Mosaic Law by not stoning children who curse their parents. Exodus 21:15-17 demands death. So much for gentle Jesus, meek and mild. [8] [9] [1] . http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org... [2] . http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org... [3] . http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org... [4] . http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org... [5] . http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...= [6] . http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org... [7]. http://www.oxfordreference.com... [8] . http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...= [9] . http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...=
Gun control

Well to answer the question of proof that every store that gets .22 ammunition is sold within an hour, is that i have experience, i have went on every box store and little owned gun stores and gun shows and rarely do you find .22 ammunition. people walk out of store wit thousands of rounds and if you are not the first 10 people at the door before opening your in bad luck. Here are some more of my back ups. I also own a gun so does my whole family, sorry to say but you cant expect to live for a while one day you will get robbed and shot. You have a less chance surviving without a gun than with. Criminals are not normal in their head that's why they are criminals. I had a best friend once that said she will never get shot and she didn't own a gun, well about a week later i found out that her whole family including her was shot by a criminal, and the police couldn't get there in time. Generally speaking, gun control is recognized as the effort to restrict or limit the production, shipment and ownership of certain guns. Over time, the issue of gun ownership has become a staple of controversy and one of the most hotly contested social issues facing Americans. More often than not, where one falls on gun control depends largely on their political affiliation, their moral standards and their past experiences with firearms. According to some estimates, approximately 80 million homes in the U.S. own 223 million guns. As is the case with most issues, gun control comes with a list of pros and cons. The people who staunchly support gun control believe their argument would protect society and save lives, while those opposing gun control believe the opposite. Potential for more crime " It"s long been suggested that having a gun allows would-be victims to protect themselves against crimes. Proponents of gun control often point to crime statistics as a sign that gun control would be a positive for society. However, people against gun control firmly believe that by having a gun, people could prevent many of those crimes from happening in the first place. Second amendment " The second amendment from The Bill of Rights grants private citizens the right to bear arms. Thus, people who stand firmly against gun control insist that no legislation, technically, should have the right to take away a citizen's guns without first repealing the amendment in question. Bad history " History appears to support the pro-gun crowd. Throughout various political regimes, the one constant of a tyrannical government has been the disarming of citizens. Thomas Jefferson once famously said: "No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government." The government has no right taking our rights away. My evidence of other countries with gun bans, I'm from Russia, i have experienced it, i have seen so many innocent people being killed and they can;t do anything about it.
Gun control

It says in the constitution in the second amendment that we have the right to own guns. Gun control does not protect the citizens from being shot, the government wont step in to help. You don't have a gun to protect your self you won't live long. Look at Washington D.C, they banned guns. The crime rate is really high. But this is only one of the cities. Why United States right now has less crime rate than other communist countries is because we can defend ourselves. You can't really fight a criminal with your fist, you won't win against a gun. The government wants to be in control, it wants people to rely on them for everything, protection and other stuff. The guns are also not the problem. It's the person who pulls the trigger. The government is storing lots of ammunition so that people cant get to it. An example is that every time every store gets 22 rifle/pistol ammunition it is all gone in about an hour of arrival. There has been many protests, the government is starting to get scared so they decided if they take away the ammunition nobody will be able to threaten them. The government can care less about the people. The way the founding fathers wanted this country to run is that the states should have the power and the government is there just to make sure nothing gets out of control. But right now it's totally opposite. the states depend on the government, and they feel if the government goes down they will be in despair and wouldn't know what to do. Every year the government take more power than what it was intended to have. This government we have now should back down and give the states control.
THW deny health care to the people who engaged in illegal organ trading

Only Wytled can accept this debateRules1. No forfeiting2. 10k, select winner3. Only Wytled can accept.4. I can do both sides so say in comments if you like my side5. No kritiks. 6. Have to be over 3000 Elo unless over 100 wins. 75 debates min. 7. 2500 ELO to vote8. Not follow rules, automatic loss.Structure1. Acceptance2. Arguments3. Rebuttals, Counter Arguments4. Rebuttals, Defending Case5. Defending Case, Rebuttals, ConclusionDefinitions1. Healthcare: Treatment of any kind of doctors, to overcome diseases, to make better health.2. Organ Trading: Trade of human organs. Thank you.
THW deny health care to the people who engaged in illegal organ trading

Thank you for your arguments. I will go on my rebuttals.FrameworkOkay, my opponent has not put any framework. BOP is shared equally, and the one who fills the BOP will be the winner.Organ Trading is a very serious matter. It is first of illegal, and also very bad for people. There is no reason to do this. My team will show you why we should not let these illegal doing things people have the not equivalent rights as us. Why should we make things equal for us who did nothing illegal or someone who did illegal things. Are we able to get the same rights? Our team is here to explain why we should not have equal rights.Rebuttals1. Okay, let's go with the Ashley Harris-Moore first. Why she got this effect? Becuase she did illegal things, which made harm to her family. It is not the governments fault that she did this illegal organ trading. It is her fault she did this. If no one did this illegal organ trading, then everyone can give healthcare to people around the world. It is depending to the parents choice, not the government. If this is the best they want to do to their child, this is the way they do it. Basically, it is their fault that they did illegal organ trading to defend themselves. This person had done this to defend herself however, she made a bad choice. Right now, our government side wants to help the citizens unless they ban this illegal organ trading. If that person did not do illegal organ trading, she could have got healthcare. This depended on this person's actions, not the government.2. Now let's go with Pro's second argument which was about system failure. Con tried to say, let's not deny healthcare to this illegal crime people, and legalize the purchase of organs. First of all, that will become more of a failure. It is illegal to do so. It will just make the citizens to more illegal acts. I think denying healthcare is better because it is not illegal, however, legalizing the purchase, is going to be hard to manage. Also, only the poor people will sell these organs to get money, when they harm their own body, and it is useless.ContentionsI will go to some more arguments, then finish this round.1. We should not do illegal things.This one is obvious. We should not do illegal things. Okay, as the resolution says, this organ trading, is illegal. The meaning of illegal is not allowed by law. That is why we should ban organ trading. However the problem is that the government cannot do this. That is why we need to make something happen to never do that again. This is one reason why need to deny healthcare for them. The second reason is that there is no reason to treat these illegal organ traders. They should not get the benefits we do. This is another reason we need to deny healthcare.ConclusionOur team believes that organ trading is very bad thing because it is illegal. As I said in the framework, Pro side had filled to explain why we should not get the equal rights as these people who did illegal things. Rebutted all of Con's mistakes also. Please Vote for Pro!Sourceshttp://www.merriam-webster.com...Thank you!
THW deny health care to the people who engaged in illegal organ trading

I'm on a phone right now and can't really post any pictures, but I encourage the readers and my opponent to click on the following link to look at the beautiful Ashley Harris Moore. http://www.mirror.co.uk... Ashley is indeed a very attractive woman, but also a wonderful mother to a very adorable baby boy, as can be seen in the same pictures. She has a husband (Alistair). Her only wish is to be able to be a mother to her adorable baby boy, but she'll probably die before this debate is even out of the voting period. You see she is waiting for a double lung transplant. People in this condition are very desperate. My opponent would have this beautiful and fragile mother condemned to death if she were to take an illegal organ transplant to save herself. That's exactly what denying healthcare to people does, especially those in an already fragile position, it's a death sentence. Because this woman did something anybody would do in her situation, my opponent would rob her little baby, that innocent child of a mother. This could literally happen to any of us. I could give my friend a kidney who is on his deathbed under the condition that he buys me a Pepsi. My opponent would deny my friend his right to healthcare over a Pepsi. (That exchange is technically illegal in many places). I get it though, firewing. Fvck Ashley Moore, who will die any second without a transplant. If she does something illegal to save her life she should get the death penalty, her child should be punished by growing up without a mother, her husband will suffer. I don't understand your sick mentality, but I'm aware of it. System Failure If illegal organ trade is going on it's a system failure. The fault is in the system. Instead of literally murdering desperate people who are just doing what's necessary to survive, perhaps we should take steps to legalize the purchase of organs, so that it can be regulated and safer.
THW deny health care to the people who engaged in illegal organ trading

My opponent is taking the pro side on this debate. I'd also ask that rule number 8 be ignored. Also, I'm not running any K's. However I'd like to point out that, a K would challenge the rules or presumptions of the debate, so it's kind of pointless to bring it up. I have further demands for my opponent. My opponent has basically said I suck worse than 16K in a thread. I'd like my opponent to challenge 16K to the same debate, so he can judge who has harder arguments to defeat. Also I am not a homosexual, so my opponent should stop sending me the messages he's sending me in an attempt to psyche me out. Please just debate me straight up, instead of trying to psyche me out! Further more I'd like my opponent to answer the following three questions in his next round, so we can focus on debating. 1. Can liberals be pro life? 2. What do you think of the erotic poetry of Colin Lesley Dean? 3.Vi-Spex=God among men? Also let's throw in a fourth. 4. Better moderator Lars or Airmax?
Purchasing a hamburger endorses animal cruelty.

I think we are stuck on the implication that one is endorsing the meat industry by purchasing a burger. Let me use just one example to prove this is incorrect. If I am a researcher and I'm working on creating synthetic meat, I'm going to need real meat to study alongside it. To assume my purchase is just for consumption is wrong. There is no way to know intent based on purchase alone. "what Con is stating is that animals on most small local farms are not mistreated." I never said anything about small local farms. What I said is that it is not true that every single animal to have ever been bred, fed and slaughtered were mistreated or abused. Cows can be impregnated, well fed, given free room to graze and slaughtered humanely and quickly. It is certainly a very rare occurrence and the treatment standards will raise the price of the end product, but it is not a given that every burger ever made was the product of cruelty. Another scenario: I'm a meat inspector. I buy a burger because I dislike the meat industry and I'm convinced a certain company has infected meat. I inspect the meat and get proof, leading to a full shut down of a factory farming company. Is my purchase of the burger ultimately encouraging animal cruelty? Of course not. Quite literally the opposite in this scenario. My problem with your statement is not that it is unlikely. I agree that it is very likely that purchasing a hamburger will stimulate the meat industries that abuse animals the most. My problem is that you leave no room at all for doubt and assume that every purchase of meat is meant by the consumer to grow the meat industry. Many consumers buy guns but hate the arms industry. You cannot know the intent of a customer just by their purchases. You are adding your own interpretation of why every purchase of hamburgers takes place. "how is intent relevant?" Because the definition of endorse is to publicly declare support. If I buy meat and don't tell anyone about it, then I'm not endorsing animal cruelty. You are making a jump in logic here. I might be indirectly endorsing meat, in the economic sense of voting with my dollar, but this still does not automatically lead to my approval of animal cruelty. You are making a universal assumption without any facts to support your case. "About the only situation that makes any sense would be" By admitting there are exceptions, you yourself are providing a contrary argument to your entire premise. You did not argue that one is "probably" or "most of the time" endorsing animal cruelty. You argued that purchasing a burger is endorsing animal cruelty, period. It seems quite obvious that you've already contradicted your argument.
Purchasing a hamburger endorses animal cruelty.

I will argue against the argument that purchasing a burger endorses animal cruelty. I thank Stupidape for creating this debate. I believe it is inaccurate to jump to "endorsing cruelty" when one purchases a burger, or to a greater extent any animal product. The first problem is with the word cruelty. Animals around the world are mistreated on farms and in factory-style environments. Animals around the world are treated with care and compassion throughout the harvesting process of their needed parts. One cannot automatically assume that the product they have purchased was a result of mistreatment. I believe buying a burger is no more endorsing cruelty than stepping on a bug is endorsing genocide of ants. One can counterbalance their unnecessary consumption of animal products by doing so infrequently and minimizing their carbon footprint in other areas of their life. By using less energy, the world economy has surplus energy that can be directed towards synthetic animal products that remove the element of cruelty. One who currently studies synthetic animal products may already be subjecting themselves to cruelty, debt, poor sleep etc and may therefore occasionally indulge in animal products. It is too assuming to posit that the purchase of animal products is accompanied by the desire for animals to be harmed. One cannot know the situation or motivation of the consumer based on their purchase choice alone. One cannot know the frequency of the purchases, nor the quantity, nor the necessity involved. It may, in many cases, perhaps even most, be fair to say that one endorses animal cruelty (or the mechanisms that purport such things) by way of their purchases. However, it is not a given.
Purchasing a hamburger endorses animal cruelty.

I don't think providing concrete definitions and sources is needed to argue against your motion. You provided an exception to the motion that "Purchasing a hamburger endorses animal cruelty." The next time you propose a debate, I strongly encourage you include the parameters, conditions and exceptions beforehand. I think this was a poorly prepared stance that was casting too wide a net to be argued sensibly. I maintain that there is no way you can prove that purchasing a hamburger endorses animal cruelty 100% of the time as your title implies. We are not arguing over technicalities or various degrees of interpretation, we are arguing over the literal message in your title based on the limited information it provides. Thank you for participating in this debate with me. It was interesting and informative and I value the time you gave.
It is better to believe in the God of the Bible than to be an Atheist

The problem with my opponent's argument is that he is starting with a completely arbitrary idea and concluding that since things would turn out best for him if he believed in it and was correct, he should believe in the idea. To counter this, I invite you to consider the God of Islam. Islam's Hell is arguably scarier than Christianity's hell: "Those who deny the Book (the Quran) and that with which We sent Our messengers [are] going to know, when the shackles are around their necks and the chains; they will be dragged in boiling water; then in the Fire they will be filled (with flame)." (Quran 40:70-72) Christians go to hell if Islam is true: "Whoso seeketh as religion other than the Surrender (to Allah) it will not be accepted from him, and he will be a loser in the Hereafter." (3:85) So if the God of Islam exists, then Pro will go to a hell that is arguably worse than Christianity's hell. A Muslim could pose exactly the same wager to Pro that he poses to atheists. In addition, a Muslim could reason exactly as he does and conclude that it is best to believe in Islam, even though Pro thinks the Muslim would nevertheless go to hell for doing so, which means that this must be a very unreliable way of reasoning. Moreover, since both the God of Christianity and the God of Islam are completely arbitrary inventions, I can just invent a God and be on equal footing with either of them. Therefore, I hereby introduce "anti-God." Anti-God sends you to heaven if you are an atheist, but he sends you to Hell if you accept any religion. And, by stipulation, anti-God's version of hell is worse than either the Christian or Muslim hell (throw in another flamethrower or something). Therefore, by reasoning parallel with my opponent's, it is best to be an atheist. Hopefully by now you're thinking: "But isn't this all ridiculous? Why not just go by the evidence and accept the conclusion that it points to, instead of believing whatever arbitrary claim has the scariest hell?" If so, that's my point. Thank you.
It is better to believe in the God of the Bible than to be an Atheist

My position is as follows: If I believe in God and it turns out God did not exist then I don"t have to face any accountability for my disbelief. If I am right that the Christian God does exist then eternal awards awaits me when I die and still do not have to face any accountability and do not have to face any judgment. If the atheist is right he or she will not have to face any accountability for not believing in God. But should the atheist be wrong he/she will be held accountable and will have to face judgment accordingly. It is therefore my resolution that that it is better to believe in the Christian God than not to believe in Him. Rebuttals and arguments can be done from the first round. Thanks.
The media should have more restraints on what kind of pictures they take.

main reason why i didn't respond to that was because of that knowledge of that it basically nulls out this debate. But the statement about stripping you of some rights at the school gates was actually a really bad example, but I was just trying to get my point across. Nipple slips are not forced. Although believe it or not, most upskirt shots taken are forced by taking a different angle. If you don't believe me, look it up on google and you tell me how they get those pictures. I believe honestly that, whether or not its in public, its a form of invasion of privacy. Having taken a picture by moving an angle (ex. up or down left or right).
The media should have more restraints on what kind of pictures they take.

Actually, when you enter school gates you do lose rights. Schools get the right to act as somewhat of a proxy parent if you're a minor, removing freedom of speech (including dress) and many other rights as well. You have done a fine job of restating what you believe, but I brought up some good points which you ignore. I pointed out that celebs can sue photographers for overly intrusive photos and I point out that "public figure" status exists to stop a torrent of lawsuits. You failed to respond to either of these arguments, so I suppose I should assume that you have no objection until I'm told otherwise. Either point alone shuts down your argument. Look, upskirt, or "nip slip" shots only exist when celebs cause this event to happen in public (it may be an accident, but point is no one forces it to happen) then, people take pictures. I see nothing wrong with this. If you don't want your naked body seen, don't create situations where it might reveal itself. Other photos where celebs are exercising privacy and it's violated are subject to lawsuits just like they are for everyone else.