BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
women should preach

ROUND 2 REBUTTAL. 1) 1Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. This is easily the most devastating scripture to my opponents case and so if he can successfully show that Paul is merely conveying a personal opinion it would indeed be a knockout blow. I do not believe my opponent has done so: Paul does not say "in my opinion" in any translation I can find and I would challenge my opponent to supply one if he has it. The context of the scripture is shown in the very next two verses: 1Timothy 2:13-14 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. Paul is showing that this is a fundamental issue; if a woman can be deceived she cannot be held accountable. This is why the enemy went straight to Eve and God straight to Adam. Here's another: 1Corinthinians 11:8-9 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 2) 1Corinthians 14:34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. The New Testament clearly teaches that Christians are not under the law but under grace: Galatians 5:18 But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under law. So Paul is clearly appealing to a law rather than The Law. 3) Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. The context here is faith and unity; Paul is trying to halt divisions that arose due to race, sex or position. As he is not specifically talking about teaching then it is in no way contrary to 1 Timothy 2:12. 4) 1Corithians 11:11-12 In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. We see from the earlier Corinthians verses (11:8-9 above) that the context here is not equality but headship. Then Paul reminds us, in the Lord, that men and women are not independent of each other, this is to counter the natural desire to 'lord it over' women rather than serving them in the Lord. 5) Genesis 2:24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. It says one flesh, not one spirit.
women should preach

A Christian is a follower of Christ and someone who believes the Bible to be the inspired word of God. As a Christian (from a Pentecostal background like my opponent) I take the Bible and it's instructions as God's instructions. To do otherwise is to be my own god; the knowledge of good and evil: SIN. Regarding women preaching the Bible is crystal clear: 1Timothy2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man; she must be silent. Self explanatory. 1Corinthians11:3 Now I want you to realise that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of every woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. The head leads: God leads Christ, Christ leads men, men lead women. 1Corinthians14:34 Women should remain silent in the Churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. How can they preach if they are silent? Older women may train younger women: Titus2:3-4 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children. All Bible passages are from the New International Version.
Schools Should Allow The Owning And Usage Of Mobile Phones.

I shall prove my position by defending my arguments about how schools should allow the usage of mobile phones. Definition: A mobile phone (also known as a cellular phone, cell phone, and a hand phone) is a device that can make and receive telephone calls over a radio link while moving around a wide geographic area. It does so by connecting to a cellular network provided by a mobile phone operator, allowing access to the public telephone network. By contrast, a cordless telephone is used only within the short range of a single, private base station. Reasons: My reasons why mobile phones should be bannes will be listed below: Reason 1: Mobile Phones keep children safe. If any sign of emergency, the children may be allowed to use their mobile phones to contact 911 or their parents. If their school teaches fire drills, earthquake drills, and others, they might be in a situation in which their school is being raided, or is in the proccess of a shooting, they may also be able to contact 911 or anyone of their relatives. Reason 2: Mobile phones encourage the development of independence and interpersonal skills.Education is as much about the growth in character and dealing with risks as it is the accumulation of knowledge; mobile phones provide for children a means to converse with peers, develop friendships and resolve disputes, all within minutes of each other, night and day. For them, ‘getting a cell phone is a step towards independence and a status symbol among their friends’.[1] The confidence and self-esteem derived from having a mobile phone cannot be underappreciated, as proven by the corresponding negative impact of losing one’s phone. An Independent study in 2004 found that 55 per cent of people cited ‘keeping in touch with friends or family as the main reason for being wedded to their handsets'.[2] Furthermore, the increasing potential of smart phones facilitates the accessing of information in real-time and on the move; a determined child with a grasp of the potential of their mobile phone can illuminate themselves on matters like directions to destinations, opening times for activities and immediate weather forecasts. With such information, children can begin to reason with each other and make decisions without resort to more mature advice. Conclusion: My arguments declare all the reason why mobile phones should be allowed in public schools. I rest my case.
Schools Should Allow The Owning And Usage Of Mobile Phones.

I must apologize to my opponent and the viewers for my forfeiture of the previous round. I am truly sorry, but hope that you can understand that life must take precedence to this debate, and even this wonderful community. My opponent's only response to my arguments (which he declined to expand upon by forfeiting the rest of the round that remained), was merely an attempt at redefining the question at hand, which every observer I hope will agree is hardly a fair attempt at winning this debate. If my opponent wanted that proviso in the debate, s/he could have rephrased the resolution, and since s/he chose not to, as the pro, it is his/her burden to accept what they have set for him/herself. Furthermore, my opponent's clarification walks straight into the problem I presented to you in "Answering Reason One: Emergencies", which my opponent declined to respond to. This, plus the further disadvantages I outline for you in the remainder of my case are more than a sufficient reason to vote Con. Thank you for taking time to read through and vote on this debate, and I hope to debate all of you soon! Riani
Gay marriage and equal rights

Thank your for not bringing up that incompetent argument :) Now on to your first point. We continually are arguing about the states power, and how "no one has a choice" look even if I conceed that no one has the ability to choose who they want to marry, they still get benefits. Yes so in a heterosexual marriage situation with "no choice" they would still have all the rights that come with marriage ( those examples) you say choice is not a human right. I would beg to differ, our constitution and bill of rights grants us choices in life and that in reference to the bill of rights does outline what we as a nation believes to be human rights. The choice of religion, the choice of quartering a solider ect. you then go on to say that there are " other solutions to grant homosexuals these rights" Even if I conceed this all I have to win is that with out the choice to define their commitment as marriage their human rights are taken away. Look you go on and say there are other ways to solve the flaw within the system. The flaw is the mindset. It does not matter if you come up with a union system or a commitment system the fact is most americans are not OK with homosexuality. Lets say this union stuff passes, that does not necessarily mean hospitals or work offices will still recognize them as equal to marriage. The ONLY way to guarantee that these people have them is marriage, which ties back into the identity argument. Why do we have to identify love in different forums? Identifying the other as this object to which we minipulate and push into this bubble of how we can accept this just proves how messed up this nation is right now. When we cannot recognize another human being as equal and as free to have the same choices as we have, when we identify the differences that will only increase this sterotype and hatred towards this group of people. You cannot deny that there are hate crimes, abusive language, and dehumanization towards the gay community. Why should we separate them anymore?
Gay marriage and equal rights

sweet, i'm glad you agree, this will be an interesting and fun round ;) On your first point, you say that gay marriage is legal in such states as mas, however you then go on to say that it is a state issue. what happens in the scenario that if a gay couple were to be recognized as married in mas, but then move to Idaho. Would Idaho recognize them as married if gay marriage is illegal in Idaho? Next. Although yes gays do have the right to marry whomever it is the moral fact of who they CHOOSE to marry. Look toward this example, if marriage towards an african american and white person were illegal, yes both of them could marry other people but they don't have the right to marry who they choose. That is what it all boils down to is that we cannot marry who we choose. Then you move on to say that it is state based and all decisions are based on a person belief, however if that may be true all those examples never clearly hurt any one or taken away human rights. Which goes to say that Homosexuals are treated as second class citizens solely on the rights that they are denied, such as work benefits, hospital visits, the right to adopt. ect. And this Union argument. what is a "union" do hospitals recognize that, do work offices recognize that? NO and many of these union things require the participants to have lived with each other for at least 7 years. When has a heterosexual couple had to wait 7 years to get married? The fact that we dont recognize their love or choices and have to limit them to UNION that leads to disasterous results. First off is that why can we not recognize it as marriage? why do we have to segregate them from the "norm" of society just so they are easier targets to discriminize? A non Christian can get married, but a gay cannot. Logically that doesn't work what it boils down to is that illegal gay marriage does lead to human rights being taken away, with those examples from above. And look this nation was founded on the constitution and bill of rights, which guaranteed freedom of religion and eqality to all men. the fact that they are not treated as "Normal" couples and they physically have rights taken away from them is what is flawed in the system
Gay marriage and equal rights

The first thing I'd like to say is that I'm 100% in favor of gay marriage, but I accepted this debate to see how I would do on the other side of the issue. This should be interesting! The first thing I'd like to point out is that gay marriage is not universally illegal in the U.S. - it is accorded the same weight as heterosexual marriage in MA. I'd also like to point out that homosexuals, as individuals, have the same rights when it comes to marriage and unions as heterosexuals - everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, has an equal right to marry someone of the opposite gender. It's different types of COUPLES (not individuals) that are being treated differently. What about the illegality of gay marriage deprives homoseuxals of "rights as humans"? The crux of your argument can really be summed up here: "can you really justify illegal gay marriage just on what you believe?" I don't know, but I'll try! First let's be clear that the legalization or criminalization of gay marriage is a state issue, so the voters and legislatures of each state are the ones deciding the fate of gay couples in that particular state. Many other things on the state level are decided based solely on beliefs. Let's look at some examples: Bob is running for the Texas state senate on the promise that he will cut taxes for his district. His constituents don't have any inherent right to lower taxes, but they vote for Bob, and their taxes are lowered. Fred is also running for the Texas state senate on the promise that he will repeal restrictions on hunting ducks in his district. He is voted in, and duck hunting restrictions are lifted. There also aren't any inherent rights to duck hunting. So these two representatives passed or repealed laws based solely on the wills of their constituents - not because they were delegates of inherent rights. If laws similar to these are passed based on beliefs alone, why can't gay marriage be criminalized in a state where the majority of citizens vote for state representatives who they know will criminalize it?
Gay marriage and equal rights

In America right now there is a huge flaw within the system. There are second class citizens living among us. WE are the nation that calls for equality and understanding. If so how is Gay Marriage illegal? Whether these people are born this way or choose to live that life style rights are being taken away from them. These rights include working benefits, hospital visits, the ability to have a family, and rights as humans. Now why is gay marriage illegal? The majority of the population base it on their religious views. condemning it as "immoral" and its "between a man and a woman" if this is so, what happens if I don't believe in your faith? then as a straight person am I denied these rights? What the flaw in the system is.... based off another persons idea of what it means to be 'human' have to have the ability to have these rights trades off with anothers happiness. Who is to say that you can define what someone can or cannot do with someone they love? can you really justify illegal gay marriage just on what you believe?
Transgenderism

I'm going to assume this debate is over whether or not a transgender person should be viewed as having legitimate feelings of being the gender that does not correspond with their sex-at-birth, and thus whether that transgender person should be respected through the use of their requested pronouns and other acknowledgements of the gender they identify with. If this is not what you had in mind, please say so. First of all, I'd like to acknowledge that no matter what, you have a right to call a transgender person whatever you like. Pronoun usage very much falls under free speech, and thus no one can compel you to use one or the other. However, that does not mean that using the pronoun that corresponds with a transgender person's sex-at-birth is the right thing to do. By refusing to all a transgender woman a woman, or a transgender man a man, you are deeply hurting them. Gender dysphoria, or distress over the sex you were assigned at birth, is a very difficult thing to live with. People reject you at every turn and refuse to acknowledge your convictions. You struggle mentally to reconcile the life and body you've been given with the life and body you know is the right one. In other words, your subconscious rejects the gender that corresponds with your sex, and identifies with the opposite gender. The important thing to remember is that sex and gender are not the same thing. Sex is purely physical and biological, not subject to change. No transgender person is trying to change their sex. On the other hand, gender is purely mental, and manifested in behaviour, thoughts, and presentation. (However, gender is not purely appearance. Transgender people have brains that are closer to the gender they identify with than the one that matches their sex. ) The only way to treat gender dysphoria is to live as the gender you identify with. Conversion therapy has proved time and again to not only be ineffective, but also deeply harmful. And of course, having someone continue to bring up the sex you were born as, when you just want to move on and live as your gender for the rest of your life, unreminded of the past struggles with dysphoria you went through, is unnecessarily hurtful and disturbing. So yes, you can choose not to respect a transgender person and use the incorrect pronouns when referring to them. However, this is rude at best and hurtful and immoral at worst, and thus isn't something you should do if you truly don't hate transgender people. Your beliefs about whether transgenderism is legitimate are irrelevant if your goal is to help rather than hurt.
is evolution real

Thank you for responding, However I don't think it's fair to ask me to dedicate time and effort into a full response if you're about to forfeit. As you said, "I am just barely getting this one in before I forfeit. " I think that's fairly disrespectful and inconsiderate of other people's time, But I suppose there's not much I can do about it. I would just like to point out that my opponent has attempted to counter the proof I put forth from sources ranging from the National Center for Biotechnology Information to the U. S. National Library of Medicine to the National Academy of Sciences. He/she has not done so by using equally-reputable sources, But rather extremely biased, Non-scientific, Purely opinion-based websites like "Defending the Christian Faith" and "Creation Today" along with the biog of someone widely considered to be a lunatic (at best), R. K. Sepetjian. Overall, It is very frustrating to have put all of this effort into this debate only to see my opponent planning to forfeit after backpedaling away from his/her unsubstantiated claims and replacing them with illegitimate sources.
is evolution real

Creationist sources are not biased and here is why. Evolution does not necessarily refute the idea of a God. Why? Because God could have created life with an evolution effect. It isn't inconsistent with scripture and is very well possible. There is absolutely NO REASON for creationist sources to be biased one way or the other. However, There is a reason for atheistic sources to be biased. If evolution is not true, Than what other explanation is there to the origin of life? If evolution is false, Then they have nothing else to cling on to. They would have to admit that there is a God. BUT GUESS WHAT? They don't want to do it. No matter how much evidence there is against evolution, Atheists will still be self-deceived into believing something that has no real evidence to back it up. That is exactly why I think it is unfortunate that so many people believe it today. It is unfortunate that millions of people in this world are self deceived onto believing that there is no God and this crazy scientific theory with no real evidence is true.
India treats its minorities better than Pakistan

I'm sorry, I've been a bit over due with this debate, but, I don't believe India treats it's minorities better than Pakistan does. I'll use the Caste system as a resource... I'm not sure if you're very familiar with it, but basically, it divides Indian citizens based on what their biological ancestors accomplished in the past. Now, it's obviously not as simple as that.. but it's mostly based on religion and reincarnation, because someone that is classified as an untouchable, will work their legs off in hopes of increasing their chance to be higher up on the caste system. Anyway, you have people who are scholars and doctors on top, and that seems fair and legitimate, but then you start to work down the pyramid and you notice that these "untouchables" are not even connected to the pyramid, but excluded. This isn't just on a Pyramidal graph, but it is also happening as we speak in some Indian communities and cultural hearths. Untouchables, have no choice but to clean human waste, trash, and other disgusting things, all for what the community has subjected towards them: A Better Life. You might not think this is relative, but India has "minoritized" their own citizens as well as other minorities such as Muslims or Asian citizens and immigrants. Pakistan is no doubt, a very diverse area, and it contains many ethnic groups and cultures. It's also unarguable that yes, there is severe discrimination with a lack of support from any organizations as well as the government. The citizens in Pakistan also go through something similar, but extremely less humiliating, to the caste system. They follow social stratification, and this is practiced by most Muslims, and the severity in this practice, is basically not being able to be buried in public burial grounds, and although both of these systems are inhumane, it's quite possible that India treats their minorities badly in contrast to Pakistan's minorities. Note: I'm very sorry about my lacking vocabulary, I am extremely tired.
That women need men like fish need bicycles

(It's okay, I have some of those moments too.) I will begin my argument by saying that while this topic is theoretical, it is vital that you establish facts to support it. If we are arguing theories, then we would never get anywhere and none of our claims could be proven. Thus, pointlessness. Also, while the points you presented are somewhat factual, I have pointed out it's flaws, which are factual. You also agreed that, "So no, there is no proof to back up the claim the birth defect can be cured only a logical conclusion from past experience." I must ask you to specify the 'logical conclusion from past experience', because right now I think it is the forinication of men and women. You also said, "I remind the negative that I said this is something wrong and that should be debated somewhere else." Yet your ABCnews article stated, and I quote, ""There is no more important question that is going to face us than deciding how to control and use genetic engineering and genetic selection to design our kids. Nothing," said Art Caplan, ethicist at the University of Pennsylvania." If you don't support 'manufacturing' children, then you disagree with your proof. "Simply saying to build defend and provide is not enough. Women are more than capable of doing all of these things." Alright, let's look at this logically. Women are capable at doing these things. But is this the desire of all women? No. Actually, you would see more men in the military (defending), construction (providing), and more stay at home moms than dads (providing). Women simply do not have the motivation for manual labor. Well, most anyways. "We know men will always be more aggressive than women. We also know that on a global scale, the best way to prove strength is through war." That is not true. The best way to prove strength (as an individual) is not war. Even so, we don't go to war over stupid reasons. We have come a long way from the Inquisitions and Holy Wars. So it's not fair, nor justified to say that. "We also know that as long as there are men and women, there is going to be conflict between them in the world community. Pay, social rights, equality not under the law but in the eyes of those who hire. Without men in society these would be removed and act as the start of an even society." Goodness, all of my debates say that there is conflict. YES! And there will always be conflict, between men and women! Or between women and women. But just because you are a man/woman, doesn't make the conflict. It is the different personalities, beliefs, etc. and you will still have those with women/men even if the world excluded males. I will now rest my argumentation and allow the Affermation to speak, since I have rebutted all of his points.