BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Lust is not a sin in The Bible but Advocated

You say that we have the originals. NO WE DON'T. What we have are copies of copies of copies. According to Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, an expert in New Testament studies, the oldest New Testament manuscript we have was written 50 years after the original. Imagine how many copies have been made since then. Otherwise the oldest document we have was written only 300 years before Jesus was born, when the original was written over 1000 years earlier. So, when you say we have the original, you are just wrong. You say that "I don't care what you call it, lustful desire, lust or looking with sexual desire is not a sin". The Bible, God's Word, the Supreme Authority, says that lasciviousness is a sin. In saying this it also condemns lust. You arguing that the Bible is advocating lust is not biblical. I agree with you that God's Word is the final authority. And his final authority says that lust is a sin. Voters, listen to reason. Vote with the person defending the truth.
Lust is not a sin in The Bible but Advocated

When you say that the Greek verses you post are what Jesus Christ said, you are putting faith in the same thing that you have to so that you can believe an English translation. The so-called "original text" that you post are just copies of copies of copies of copies. To believe that what you are reading is accurate takes just as much faith as believing that and English text is accurate. Now, you say that I did not bring up any of your points. I did. So, I am not being a coward. I am also not stooping so low as to resort to calling my opponent names such as coward, liar, and Pharisee. You also attempt to say that I have the same philosophy as an atheist. You said that the definition of the word "lasciviousness" is outrageous conduct, conduct shocking to public decency, a wanton violence, wantonness, lewdness. However, according to dictionary. com, Merriam-Webster, and Macmillan Dictionary the word lasciviousness is defined as either lustful or a desire for sexual activity. So, this defiantly defeats that point of your argument. So, I ask the voters to vote for someone who has presented facts, has not insulted his opponent, and has refuted his opponents points.
Lust is not a sin in The Bible but Advocated

You often use the original Greek text. Which, although it makes you sound impressive is only your attempt to confuse your opponent with something the average person cannot understand. But, in spite of that, I will still point out fallacies. First, the majority of the verses you brought up were irrelevant to the topic. You use completely random verses that did not help your cause at all. Second, the literal translation of Matt. 5:28 reads like this, "but I -- I say to you, that every one who is looking on a woman to desire her, did already commit adultery with her in his heart. "So, all it takes to make it a sin is to look at her and have any slight desire. That is the straight definition of lust. Because my opponent is not defending his point and I have successfully defeated his points. You should give me the conduct point because of my opponents attempt to confuse by using a resource that is not readily available to all involved.
Lust is not a sin in The Bible but Advocated

It should be interesting. First, let's define the term lust. As defined by dictionary. com, lust is -uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite. Synonyms include lasciviousness and adultery. So, here are some Scripture verses regarding the topic. Matthew 5:28But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. I Peter 4:3For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatriesII Corinthians 12:21And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed. Jude 1:4For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. These are a few verses regarding the topic. Now, my opponent will try to say that these are just translations, but any copy you will look at is just that, a copy. As with any copy, whether Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, or English, you must trust that God has preserved His Word.
Gaara vs Toph: Loosely based on ScrewAttack

Sorry I failed to post in the second arguments. I was rather busy. A video cannot just prove that Toph would be stronger than Gaara. You have to stack their differences and similarity against each other. I mean seriously ScrewAttack have been known to be biased. Gaara would clearly win, especially against Young Toph which she haven't developed Metal bending and etc. I think it's rather lazy that you used a video to try to prove this argument. Honestly Gaara will win. We all know that Toph can't see well in sand. So what makes you think she can beat someone that uses sand? It's rather tacky to believe she can beat someone who is a sand master. I mean come on. Kaze Gaara will wipe Toph out in seconds. Also speed.... Toph cannot move fast, and one thing people should know about Gaara is his sand moves at a extremely fast rate. Rock Lee who successfully hit Gaara actually hit him due to his speed. He had to move at the speed of sound to inflict damage upon Gaara. So how can Toph (who can only move so fast) hit Gaara? Which points out ScrewAttack intended Toph to win. Gaara uses his sand for everything, he never used psychical attacks he always use sand. So how will Toph get close enough if sand is coming from every direction? Throw some rocks that he can easily break with one glare? Some of Gaara's attack would end the fight between them. Sand Flood - http://naruto.wikia.com... Sand Burial - http://naruto.wikia.com... Quicksand Waterfall: Posion - http://naruto.wikia.com...
Gaara vs Toph: Loosely based on ScrewAttack

Apology accepted, but the funny thing is that's not my argument. Thanks for wasting half your response on an acceptance; a declaration of who I think will win and a video showing what inspired your debate. Also the burden of proof lies with you to sufficiently prove that Gaara will beat Toph. In addition I hope you will only rely on canon instead of non-canon events like the naruto video games. And are you seriously afraid Gaara will be beaten by a blind girl that you have to argue that she's in her pre-earth bending master years while Gaaras already kazekage? Here's how Toph will beat the living crap out of Gaara. 1. Acute hearing and sense of touch that bolsters her formidable Seismic Sense. Seismic Sense is akin to echolocation where she feels the earth to see. She is also able to see Earth (sand/dirt/metal) even when it is not connected to the Earth. Plus her heightened sense of hearing will allow her to evade aerial attacks. Another bonus that counteracts Toph"s blindness is her invulnerability to genjutsu because she does not rely on her eyesight. Genjutsus are illusions that affect the eyes first before they affect the other senses. 2. Toph"s affinity to the Earth and ability to use the Earth"s chi to Earthbend whereas Gaara relies solely on his own chakra to manipulate sand. 3. Mastery of all Earth based attacks (dirt, sand, mud, metal {not platinum}). My opponent argues that she is unable to sand bend but by the events of ember island she is able to create an extremely detailed replica of Ba Sing Se from sand. 4. Her earth bending is also unconventional, unpredictable, and not limited to hand gestures, movements, and facial expressions, much like King Bumi"s Earth bending. 5 she can redirect the flow of an opponents earth/sand based attacks. http://avatar.wikia.com... http://avatar.wikia.com...
My DNA is of original god or i am original son of god ? lets debate

Watch my DNA closely (its dna with which my kids will be born and are born) Do you think i am original god or i am original son of god because my DNA shines with which my kids will be born and are born. Take a closer look at all videos of my DNA wet and dry on this youtube playlist lets debate what do you think i am ? because a human will not have DNA like my DNA.
Gay marriage should be legalized.

My opponent has forfeited this round. So I will proceed to defend premise 4 above. Premise 4 basically just says that the union of two men or two women does not need to be recognized by the gvt. Given that the default should be minimized gvt and the standard, what we do now, it seems as though it is pro's job to give good reasons to say two men/women need recognition from gvt....still I will say why they don't: 1) Personal relationships are key to society however they don't involve securing human rights. The ppl involved have a right to be in the relationship and not be discriminated against, but the gvt shouldn't get involved in that 2) Personal relationships are important for social order but they develop fine without the gvt. 3) If the gvt gets involved in the relationship between 2 men/women, does this mean they should get involved in platonic friendships as well? what of 3 ppl? Most would say that's over the top. But what's the difference just cuz theyre gay?
Gay marriage should be legalized.

We have only 1000 characters, not a lot of space. I will be brief. But first, I do not dislike or judge gays 1) The government should stay out of people's lives as much as possible unless there is sufficiently good reason to become involved 2) Recognizing the union of two people and granting it legal benefits is government involvement From 1 and 2: 3) The government should stay out of recognizing the union of two people and granting it legal benefits unless there is sufficiently good reason otherwise 4) There is not sufficiently good reason to get involved in the union of two men or two women From 3 and 4: 5) It follows that the gvt. should not recognize the union of two men or women with title or benefits 1 Seems to be the principal of our gvt and a good reasonable rule of thumb 2 is self evident 4 is the big thing to prove. I think that unless pro provides a good reason to recognize the union of 2men/women my argument stands I say there is not b/c romance is not enough
Gay marriage should be legalized.

Even though my opponent was the one that started this debate, it seems as though they have nothing to offer in the form of an argument. For the sake of all who might read this, I will just defend premise 4 a little more by saying why some reasons to justify gvt involvement are not really good. Romance- Are feelings really good enough justification to get the gvt involved in people's lives? Why stop at romance? There are other feelings out there. .. Equality- All ppl r equal. Not all relationships are (obvious). Lets for the sake of argument say that they are though. It still does not follow that they are all deserving of the same benefits from the gvt. Happiness- Happiness is good but it isn't the gvt's job to just make ppl happy. Lots of ppl would be happy with tax breaks, doesn't mean everyone is getting them. Stability- Stable relationships are good. Only in the case of necessity should the gvt get involved tho. Stability should remain personal. That's all.
NATO Must Pull Back Troops From Eastern Europe

The statement ‘yet to be annexed’ is not just by me, any rational political observer can see the Russian occupation and support given will come at an eventual cost. South Ossetia is already trying to join Russia as previously noted, and Abkhezia is slowing being absorbed as well [11]. Just because these two regions were not as hastily annexed as Crimea does not mean their eventual annexation was fated the very moment Russia declared these nations - that are entirely dependent on Russia - “independent”. This strategy, take a small chunk of strategically important land that’s not worth an all out war will be successful so long as Russia does not attack an official NATO ally. This is why Putin doesn’t like NATO. As he pushes further west or south, he finds his bully tactics won’t work. Pro again admits that Russia was the aggressor, fearing further NATO influence along its borders. I’ll repeat again, Georgia is a recognized country, and has every right to join NATO. Russia did not have the right to attack Georgia even to prevent Georgia from joining NATO. NATO does not threaten the territorial sovereignty of its neighbors unlike Russia. Pro also calls the buildup “non-provocative” by definition non-provocative means it does not provoke. By Putin’s own agenda Georgia and Ukraine were attacked and portions of their land seized under Russian authority. I repeat again, the Eastern European nations that have joined NATO have every right to resist Russian influence. For NATO to abandon the eastern theater would be a betrayal of its members and out of the question. My opponent says major troop buildup ended in 2005, how does this justify attacking Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014? Putin doesn’t need justification to attack his neighbors, that’s why they seek NATO deterrence. What Pro says about Ukraine’s treatment of Crimea is false. Under Ukraine Crimea was an autonomous region, it was not allowed to break away of its own accord (even in the US we don’t recognize that states having a choice to leave the Union), but as an autonomous region it had many more freedoms in local matters than the rest of Ukraine. The source he cites does not talk about Ukraine’s treatment of Crimea, but about the election of current President. Any perceived injustice in the Crimea affair is because Russia violated its agreement with Ukraine to respect its territorial sovereignty. This has been a fun debate, thank you. Sources: [11] http://www.dw.com...
NATO Must Pull Back Troops From Eastern Europe

Thank you for taking the time to reply to the debate. Your statement of 'yet to annex' is based on Georgia's words, and no other nation's words provided by your own sources. The break-away regions are only supported by Russia and a handful of other nations although Russian backing of these 'states' comes at the reasoning that NATO's attempt to recruit Georgia came before the wars. You cannot expect a nation to not respond with at least some sort of military response when a major military organization is attempting to manifest forces at your backdoor. Again, your own source of the Georgia profile admits of NATO's attempt at recruiting Georgia before the conflicts and intervention of Russian forces. Russia has only been labeled a military aggressive nation after build-up of NATO troops. A nation as powerful and rebellious to western ideologies and conformists statutes would expect one of their organizations to attempt to subdue the 'Russian Bear' as much as possible, even if it is under the pretense of defense. Your statement of the referendum in South Ossetia is illegal and that I admit. Although if you check my arguments, I haven't said that their is a legality of actions on any sides in Georgia. I instead have attempted to make the argument that these actions made were all a response of NATO build-up in the Russian sphere of influence. "It's very obvious annexation was the plan from the start." is a VERY personalized opinion, I believe on your part. If Russia wanted to, they would have annexed these regions since 2008. Instead Russia has not because as stated before by me and by news agencies, Russian or not, Russia's support for these areas are in a response to non-provocative NATO build-ups in the region. The support for Abkhazia and South Ossetia isn't to expand Russian influence, necessarily, but to counter Western influence which has been expanding on the Ex-Soviet front since before Russian violations of international law were NATO's reasoning for build-up [3]. Crimea was not a total response to NATO in Ukraine. The annexation in Crimea was also from injustice by the Ukrainian government and further justified by Ukraine denying Crimea (even before annexation) of voting rights, parliamentarian, district, or republic for having their own referendum which was later reviewed and accepted as 'un-tampered' by the UN [4]. In your argument, you continue to refer to the term of 'eventually annex' which has not been proven by Russia as their intentions only with the exception of Crimea which was due to a denial of Ukraine to recognize a UN sanctioned referendum. Regions like Transnistria, Donbass, and Novorossiyan Confederation have had their own non-UN sanctioned referendums which were denied by the Ukrainian government but was not met with Russian military response. As for military defence, those missile systems can be re-programmed for offence by any nation. Just like the Cuban Missile Crisis claimed as defencive. (Sources in comments)
NATO Must Pull Back Troops From Eastern Europe

I notice on his profile he’s new to DDO, I hope he has many entertaining debates in the future. On word usage referring to the matter of “independence” of South Ossetia and Abkhazia - my apologies … I meant to say ‘yet to annex’ [5][6]. Even Pro’s own source says the breakaway regions are “unrecognized governments” only through Russia do South Ossetia and Abkhazia remain ‘independent’. But anyways – the reason we’re talking about the Caucasus Mountains (and not Eastern Europe) is to establish Russia is a militarily aggressive nation. Pro confirms this when he says “Russia got involved realizing that this would prove a serious damage to national interests if the Western World was right on Russia's southern border. ” My opponent admits the aggression was in ‘self defense’ but against whom? Georgia as an Independent Recognized Nation and had every right to join NATO; Georgia needed to end its internal conflicts which I wouldn’t be surprised if they were fueled by Russian meddling in the first place. Today Russia still occupies and controls the borders with Georgia on behalf of the rebel states. And South Ossetia appears to be holding an illegal referendum on joining Russia [7]. It’s very obvious annexation was the plan from the start. Pro brings up that NATO’s highest rise in troops was from 1991-2005, this is eleven years ago. This does not excuse Georgia (2008) or Crimea (2014). Besides of course NATO presence would increase in 2005, 7 Eastern European nations like Estonia and Latvia joined NATO in 2004 [8]. Russia isn’t going to engage in a full scale war with the West, Russia is going to continue doing what is has been: Quickly seize strategically important land to eventually annex. It makes sense, controlling the southern front through the Caucuses, controlling the warm water port of Crimea, generally trying to influence Ukraine and other Baltic states to side with itself over NATO, it all makes sense. But doing those things like destabilizing peaceful neighbors is not acceptable and gives NATO cause to gather more troops on the Eastern Front to deter future aggression. I think I’ve already established the criteria for saying NATO is justified in assembling forces in Eastern Europe. Russia is not “nervous” - Russia under Putin is ambitious. NATO is not plotting to destroy Russia - so it has always amused me when I read NATO building anti-missile defense systems is interpreted as hostile by Russia [9]. Defense systems as hostile, funny right? Russia isn’t looking after self defense, Putin is angry because he lost the ability to threaten his neighbors with missiles. . NATO is a defense pact and has no intentions to violate Russia’s national sovereignty with either invasion or nuclear weapon. PS: I didn’t want to address Assad/Middle East because of space and was off topic, but Assad started the Civil War when he started killing peaceful protesters [10]. **DUE TO CHARACTER LIMITS SOURCES ARE IN COMMENT SECTION**
NATO Must Pull Back Troops From Eastern Europe

I acknowledge your well-enforced argument and here is my counter. NATO's response to the Russian annexation of Crimea was legally justified, that is correct, but one thing that is largely overlooked by Western powers is that a UN sanctioned referendum of a split in Crimea was held federally in Ukraine and even when the referendum won to split and join Russia by 70 %, the Ukrainian government went back on their word and was shamed but not sanctioned by referendum officials of the UN. The Crimean argument is my weakest argument, I submit, although it is the only violation that NATO responded to. As for South Ossetia and Abkhazia, they were NOT annexed (so please choose your vocabulary more carefully), they are separatist states funded and once occupied by the Russian government. Russia attacked Georgia for 2 reasons. Before 2008, there was a war in Ossetia and Abkhazia that pushed Georgia out. Georgia signed a peace treaty and recognized them as autonomous regions. When a hard liner party came to power, Georgia attacked both nations against advice of the UN. NATO supported the invasion through financing and even stationing troops in Georgia to help in the war hoping Georgia would be a new NATO member state. Russia got involved realizing that this would prove a serious damage to national interests if the Western World was right on Russia's southern border. Putin would not start a war because he isn't stupid as many biased analysts claim. Putin has never made any comment whatsoever that he would plan on starting a war, nor would any person with any sort of realistic tendencies believe that Russia is dedicated to destroying the Western World. They are, however, very interested in pushing their agenda. Syria is currently in a civil war that is claimed as fault by the US. The United States started funding small terrorist cells in Syria to oust Assad. Assad is brutal but he is secular. The terrorist groups/rebels that the US funds defect to ISIS as their Wahhabist values are nearly equal towards each other. The US doesn't have a back-up plan for Syria. The 50 groups fighting to end Assad will move to a second phase in the war fighting each other and turning Syria into an even more fractured Libya where the nation is controlled by Wahhabist war-lords. Assad is brutal, but he is the only thing currently preventing a second power vacuum after Iraq. Russia has admitted to the US they will attempt to push Assad out of power but only after the war ends and they defeat the common enemy of ISIS. Otherwise, instability will only grow. The only neighbors that Putin has directly gotten involved in is Ukraine and Georgia. NATO's highest rise in troops stationed in Europe was between 1991-2005, before the conflicts. I believe NATO pushes a nervous Russia to show they wouldn't bend backwards for them Sources: http://www.cnn.com... http://www.newsweek.com...