BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Being Gay is Wrong and Unnatural

I thought maybe I was leaving myself vulnerable by posting my whole argument before the debate was accepted. I seem to be wrong. You quoted some bible scriptures, and I understand that that's where a lot of people come from, but I'm not religious. Is being heterosexual like saying you like coca-cola, and being homosexual like saying you like Pepsi? That's a restatement of your position, it doesn't seem to be a reason. Anyways, I acquire a taste for much of what I like to eat and drink, so it's not like environment doesn't effect your diet preferences. If I may respond to some charges that are really beside the point: I don't interfere in anyone's lives. I'm sure your girlfriend is awesome. I abhor bigotry of all kinds. Am I a bigot? I don't think so. I'm quite tolerant of people who believe different things from me. I don't curse at them or believe in using law against them. I don't get aggressive, shout at people or tell them to get the hell out. And I try to treat them like the thoughtful human beings they have the potential to be. But at the same time, I don't get to believe whatever I like, so often like engaging in debate so that someone will tell me something I haven't already thought of. There are a lot of people on my side who can be described at bigoted, or intolerant of those who have different opinions. And I've dedicated a fair chunk of my text disassociating myself from those people. There are also a lot of people who are intolerant of anti-gay beliefs. They're mean-spirited toward even the most thoughtful and meek individuals who happen to have different moral feelings. I don't think being gay gives anyone a free pass to be hateful toward others. So... I offered my argument in the first round, I assume it'll be responded to in the next. But for clarity's sake I'll restate the position I've taken in this debate. Being gay is unnatural: - Nature means occurring in nature in contrast to being human specific. - Homosexual acts occur among animals, but homosexuals do not. (1) -The difference is that homosexuals perform exclusively or primarily homosexual acts. - The suggestion that gay people know where they got their sexual orientation is not serious. You do not know how your biology works through sheer introspection -Homosexuality is effectively the sterilization of the individual. Evolution would never let that biological trait persist for millions of years. Being gay is wrong: -We don't feel like being gay is wrong, but individual moral reasoning are flawed (2) -Instead, we need to look around the world and throughout history to find which moral feelings are robust -Around the world anti-gay moral feelings are still prevalent (3) -History of gay persecution demonstrates how frequent and strong moral feelings against homosexuality have been common All the best, -Eli
Being Gay is Wrong and Unnatural

Being gay is not wrong and unnatural in any way. You are who you are and nothing will change that. If you are saying that being a homosexual/queer is wrong because of religion (let's say Catholic or Christian), well in the Bible, Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." So maybe it is not religion at all. Maybe you are just naive. Being heterosexual is like saying you like Coca-Cola and being homosexual is you liking Pepsi, or vice-versa I don't give a sh*t. If you for some reason really just think homophobia is wrong, why are you interfering in our lives? I am bisexual, I am a female attracted to females and males and nonbinary people and other genders, and I have a beautiful, sweet, respectful, kind girlfriend. So if you think that being gay is wrong and unnatural, then just get the hell out. Or just mind your own God damn business. Let people express themselves however they want. Go ahead, tell me every little disagreement and tell me more of your "thoughts" about this topic, and I will certainly have something to say about it.
mocking religion is acceptable

if by "mocking religion", you mean trying to make religious people miserable for your own enjoyment, then yes mocking religion is bad. but i think of "mocking religion" as more like teasing a friend. i have heard people tease me for my beliefs, and i dont have a problem with laughing along. if you do have a problem laughing at yourself, then you should lighten up. people can be offended by just about anything, but it is their own fault for being over-sensitive. we cant always be bending over backwards to avoid offending over-sensitive people. there are people offended by women who dont wear full body coverings, and other people offended by women who DO wear full body coverings. there are people offended by almost anything, and that is their own fault."We must remember that in some cases, we are talking about a religious way of life which has been handed down through generations of family, and probably hasn't been questioned in generations. Again this goes back to the reasons why it is important to approach with respect."so what if it hasnt been questioned? even more reason to mock it. if someone is extremely bothered by someone mocking their beliefs, then they are an intolerant person and they are the one who needs to correct their behavior
mocking religion is acceptable

" if you mock a belief that is completely ridiculous, then it should be mocked and disrespected" Surely this is entirely subjective, since what is deemed ridiculous can be totally different from one person/culture to the next. Who has the right to decide what is ridiculous and what isn't, and is it only then seen as acceptable to mock things that a majority of the population deem ridiculous? for example the american family who were the subject of the "god hates f*gs" documentary. This is a family who see fit within their beliefs to turn up at soldiers funerals chanting intentionally offensive mockeries during times of family grief and mourning. You could say they are they well within their rights to make a mockery of what they see as ridiculous? I'm not a big fan of that notion. "if you mock a belief that makes perfect sense, then it only makes the mocker look bad" I would say it depends a lot on the type of mockery, and what exactly the mockery is. The reason it is more acceptable for a comedian to mock religion is that it is a comedians job to mock everything, and so if they didn't mock religion it would be strange. Therefore, I would be a lot less shocked if a comedian resorted to mockery during a stand up routine, than say if a reknowned intellectual resorted to mockery in a debate with a theist. Its all about context, and its obviously a fine line. "if someone mocks my beliefs, then if they have a good point, i will laugh at myself and maybe rethink those beliefs". I understand that you personally probably have a healthy appetite for debate and see mockery in a rather constructive way. I also think that many people's first reaction to someone mocking their deeply held beliefs is indignance, which often doesn't make for progressive debate. I am not personally religious, and have had debates with theists many times over the years, often very frustrating! We must remember that in some cases, we are talking about a religious way of life which has been handed down through generations of family, and probably hasn't been questioned in generations. Again this goes back to the reasons why it is important to approach with respect.
mocking religion is acceptable

"I wonder how many times people treating each others beliefs disrespectfully has been the cause of wars and atrocities."many bad things have happened as a result of respecting beliefs. if people who talked to hitler before his rise to power would have put him in his place, instead of respecting his beliefs, then maybe the holocaust and WW2 wouldnt have happened. im not saying we should kill all religious people, im saying what is so horrible about just mocking something that is ridiculous?"Of course we can laugh at everything"..."a certain amount of sensitivity required when dealing with laughing at something as personal as religion"..."Comedians can be as extreme as they want"im confused, you think that it is acceptable to mock religion, but only if you're a comedian? what difference does it make? isnt everyone a comedian more or less?why would a religious person be so sensitive about their beliefs? it sounds like the unhealthy thing there is the belief, not the insensitive mocking of their belief. if someone mocks my beliefs, then if they have a good point, i will laugh at myself and maybe rethink those beliefs, and if they dont have a good point, then i will laugh at them and be even more convinced that those beliefs are true. it is a win-win situation. why should i feel threatened?if you mock a belief that makes perfect sense, then it only makes the mocker look bad, so it's not like they are hurting anyone but themself. on the other hand, if you mock a belief that is completely ridiculous, then it should be mocked and disrespected, because of how anti-intellectual it is, until it can prove that it should be taken seriously.
mocking religion is acceptable

"people are entitled to believe whatever they like" "mockery should be shunned in favour of reasonable debate" The issue isn't a case of whether one should question elements of a belief system such as religion, because I believe that questions should be constantly asked about any belief system, in the same way that science constantly questions itself. The issue is that when approaching a topic as personal as a religious belief system, it should be done with a certain amount of respect, and mockery is rarely the best way in my opinion. I would like to think that, debating in a rational democratic society populated by free thinkers, we would treat each others beliefs, however bizarre they may seem, with that basic decency of respect, whether that be on YouTube comments, or in parliament. I am not talking about religious or political extremism, which I think is different. By this I mean when a belief system becomes militarized. By this point reasonable debate has long been forgotten in favor of force, so the situation must obviously be approached differently, but not necessarily disrespectfully. Perhaps what happens at that point is a whole different debate, but also I wonder how many times people treating each others beliefs disrespectfully has been the cause of wars and atrocities. Indeed the KKK or the Nazi's are organisations with disdain for other belief systems at the core of their principles. Also I am not saying that we must treat every topic with the utmost sincerity and discuss every single matter completely po-faced and humourless. Of course we can laugh at everything, that's something comedy is great for, breaking down barriers, starting discussions encouraging progressive debate. Again the issue is that there is a certain amount of sensitivity required when dealing with laughing at something as personal as religion. Comedians can be as extreme as they want, but you can choose whether or not you laugh, or even watch them in the first place, so they have their place in healthy debate in the same way music and art do.
mocking religion is acceptable

"people are entitled to believe whatever they like"mocking religions or religious beliefs doesnt force anyone to not believe in their religion. if you're entitiled to beliefs, then you're entitled to your negative views on religion, so why not speak your mind? there are even religious scriptures that mock infidels for their religious beliefs or lack thereof"mockery should be shunned in favour of reasonable debate."why cant you do both? i have reasonable debates all the time with people on religion. why cant i also point out and laugh at a belief that i find funny and ridiculous? is it disrespectful? yes, but so what? why should we respect all religious beliefs when many are false, harmful, and encourage bad things? for instance, why should i respect the KKK or Nazi's?
Is omnipotence possible

(1) Even if it is above logic that does not change the contradictions. If it was above logic or possibly created it doesn't change the fact about it. If I asked a truly omnipotent being to create a rock so heavy that it could not even lift. Or another is that this being is the definition of pure perfection. Could it create something that surpass it or equals it in power. Even when it is above all logic it would still contradict it self. (2) This would probably not be included since it pertains to nigh-omnipotence which is much more possible.
Is omnipotence possible

Con's argument is that omnipotence is inherently contradictory, therefore impossible. However, he has failed to define what exactly that means. I will argue that the two main competing defintiions for the term are both possible.(1) Omnipotence as ability to do anything with no limits. This type of omnipotence would still be possible considering that omnipotence would therefore entail being aboveand more powerful than the laws of logic themselves. Therefore, Con attempting to limit the existence of omnipotence to within the confounds of logic is inherently self defeating. If an omnipotent God can do anything, than it doens't make sense to attempt to limit it's power.(2) Omnipotence as ability to do anything within the confounds of logic. This definition has also been forwarded by theologians. Under this definition, Co's refutation wouldn't apply since it rests entirely on God being above logic.
Is omnipotence possible

I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible for any being/entity to be omnipotent. My argument is that any thing that is omnipotent contradicts it self. If I was omnipotent that means I would be invincible and immortal but that means there is something I cant do which is killing my self breaking the concept of omnipotence. Another example is me being able to create something I cant do. If I could do that than I couldn't do something but if I couldn't there is the same effect.
Is omnipotence possible

(1) The resolution does not argue that omnipotence is contradictory, it argues that it's impossible. Now unless Con has some argument for why the two terms are synonymous, his rebuttal here is more or less irrelevant. Obviously if a being is above logic, one could technically call it "illogical". However, that doesn't mean such a thing is impossible to exist and Con has given us no reason to suppose so.(2) Con concedes that the second style omnipotence is possible but claims to be arguing off of (1). Therefore, if (1) can be shown to be possible (=/= illogical) then Pro's burden will have been fulfilled.
Choose one!

It may be a predominantly male area here in the U.S but definitely not in the world their are still matriarchial societies in the world. The U.S. is a patriarchal society because we have always had male presidents NOT female presidents. Also half of what you just said is not even proper grammar or even follows the English language rules. This meaning thy your sentences' words are out of order or just don't even make since at all. Therefore I conclude that women dress provocatively and yes it is to attract a mate I will admit but yet they still do dress provocatively even though it's not necessary because women can attract a man with sheer wits and cunning personalities. Voter vote con of you think women can attract a male without overly exposing their bodies and are strong and have high intellectual minds. Once more voter vote con!!!!!!
Choose one!

The way a woman dresses is her choice, if she wanted to dress provactitavely it's her choice, if she's been raped because a lustful and violent man chose to be a dick, no pun intended, then it's his fault at majority. However at least 5% is her's too, she oviously dressed some way or did something to get his attention... which is why people dress fancy anyway to attract mates. Now I'm NOT trying to say it's a woman's fault for being raped, unless she shows up in a room full of past offenders wearing nothing but a thong... then yes she is at fault. But the innocent girl walking to her car from work, no he's a bunghole. ANYWAY back to the point!Woman dress that way because they find it comfortable, they like it and it's "cool". Not because we dicktate them to.
The Illuminati is a legitimate orginization that continues to influence global politics

I thought that this would be an interesting topic, after discussing it with a close friend friend who wholeheartedly defended the conspiracy theory. I will define some key terms and set some parameters and then pass it off to pro who will present their opening argument. Parameters: I would appreciate it if my opponent actually BELIEVED in the Illuminati and aren't arguing just for argumentation's sake. Admittedly though, I probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference if you were any good. My opponent must prove that: A: the Illuminati is a legitimate orginization B: They continue to influence world politics I must prove that: A: The Illuminati is not a legitimate organization B: They do not influence global politics IF NEITHER OF US (pro or con) CAN fulfill these obligations than I urge the voters to vote for a tie accordingly Definitions: Illuminati: an Enlightenment-era secret society founded on May 1, 1776. In modern times it is also used to refer to a purported conspiratorial organization which acts as a shadowy "power behind the throne", allegedly controlling world affairs through present day governments and corporations, usually as a modern incarnation or continuation of the Bavarian Illuminati. (www.wikipedia.org) legitimate: in accordance with recognized or accepted standards or principles; organization: a group of people who work together influence: a power to affect persons or events especially power based on prestige With that I hand the proverbial floor to my opponent, Pro. Thanks for accepting this thought provoking debate.
The Illuminati is a legitimate orginization that continues to influence global politics

I hate to forfeit this debate, but I have no choice. Life threw me a curveball by the name of Charles Dickens, Little Dorrit. Nice argument. Really well constructed I applaud you, and if you indeed win this debate, so be it. I will be back. Props to my opponent. Once I conquer Dickens, I will be back to conquer you.
reality is not possible

3+3=6(exists in reality) 3+3=9(I have to imagine the last 3, as any false answer is imaginary) if there is no false answer, there is no true answer if you forfeit the debate it will happen in reality which is absolute, and while happening it is not a possibility, it is no other possibility you cant see reality if you close your eyes, cause and effect is absolute, and logic only applies in reality, that's why I can imagine myself jump of a cliff and splat on the ground and nothing happens except maybe an emotional response, cause and effect you have the possibility in your imagination, not in reality, the button you can click to forfeit is true light on your screen when you click it, and its not possible that it is happening, when its happening, because it is happening if you do it, like you reading these words is absolute, no possibility involved you are abusing the language when you say that thought becomes reality.. its the same as saying what you think pops out of your head and happen in reality, that is what you are saying.. if you read a book, reality is what it is, and its only true now your saying what you imagine becomes real, go back and read what you said.
reality is not possible

Pro demonstrates wonderfully how to ramble on, however his rebuttals are less than satisfactory. To start off, the "truth-false" analogy is pointless. I could say 3+3=6, and it would be true, and it would be reality. However, if I said 3+3=9, that is false, but that answer exists. While it may not be true, it is still there and is still reality. So you state possibilities are not evident in reality... I have the possibility to forfeit this debate. But I'm not going to to prove the point to you. I am in reality right now. I had the possibility to forfeit the debate, but I didn't. So a possibility exists in reality, therefore, I have successfully refuted your claim. But as an added bonus I'll refute everything else: "Everything that is constructed or created is a machine" Opponent obviously forgets the clothes analogy I made in the previous argument. "Thoughts never become real" ...what?! If I thought I was going to read a book, and later (doesn't matter when) I read a book, that thought became a reality. Many people had just thoughts or imagination that became reality. Creation of new machines or inventions all begin with a thought. So currently the existing items in the world had to be thought of somehow before they could be built. Overall, pointless claim. "You are implying you are a god...a real god" When did I imply that? Just because I imagined myself taking a walk and a few minutes later I took it, makes me a god? Sweet! If this were true nearly everyone would be a "god" which can't be possible. "Possibility doesn't exist in reality, as I have to imagine them" Once more opponent forgets previous rounds. I imagined a situation happening, and then later it happened. The possibility for me to do it was there and I did it, henceforth reality. Good luck in round four.
reality is not possible

so the walk you went out on is the one you imagined? thoughts never become real, you are implying you are god right now.. a real god reality is real, I never stated it was not, but let me rephrase, possibilities dosnt exist in reality, as I have to imagine them anything that Is created or constructed is a machine, and creation only happens in the mind my physical body is nature, and memory is the machine, my imagination is supernature, like 3 sides of a coin, true truth and false, now past and future the opposite of physical is mental, metaphysical is mental, now, matter is physical, and information is mental, information is the opposite of matter, and matter is true balancing false and truth, now balancing future and past, I am being now, I am now if a false answer exist a true answer must exist, and if a true answer exist a false answer must exist