BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
premarital sex not forbidden by the bible

no where does the bible explicitly forbid premarital sex. it has prohibitions on 'fornication', but that only means 'unlawful sex'. that doesn't necessarily include premarital sex. in fact, in the old testament when it is listing various sins including sexual sins, it doesn't mention premarital sex. if it was wrong, you'd think it'd be included. conservatives expanded the definition of fornication from the original usage. originally it doesn't include premarital sex: "Strong's Concordance gives 19th century meanings to Greek and Hebrew words found in the Bible. It describes "pornea," as having a somewhat broader usage in Biblical times, compared to today. When used literally, it includes three activities: prostitution, adultery and incest. Figuratively it means idolatry, or sexual intercourse between unmarried persons. However, most conservative Christian churches have greatly expanded the English term "fornication." It is to them a catchall term" http://www.religioustolerance.org... a common argument is that Jesus forbade lustful thoughts. that would pretty much inherently prohibit permarital sex. Matthew 5:27-28 (New International Version 2011) Mt 5:27 "You have heard that it was said, "You shall not commit adultery." Mt 5:28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." there are a few problems with this approach. the first glaring issue is that he used adultery when he could have said fornication or something else. why is that? adultery is specific to marriage, and lustful thoughts do not necessarily have anything to do with marriage. the real problem though, is a mistranslation of what Jesus said. "lust" is the same word as "covet" in biblical language. also, "woman" is the same word as "wife". http://www.jasonstaples.com... covet, most christians agree, means something excessive, inordinate. that's why you don't see people get hung up on the ten commandments, cause they know it's something excessive, not just passing thoughts. in fact, if you look up covet in the dictionary, it says "inordinate". according to Webster's dictionary "to desire (what belongs to another) inordinately or culpably" so, we basically have Jesus saying, "if you covet another's wife, you have already committed adultery with her in your heart". we already know the covet rule by the commandments, and Jesus is just getting to the "heart" of it, pun intended. noteably, this also causes Jesus's 'adutlery' usage to make a lot more sense.
It is moral to use other living creatures as resources.

I apologize for not posting previously. I accidentally missed the deadline :/ I will now continue my debate: Mutualism, in your definition, is a positive reciprocal relationship between two species. You only wrote the following statement- "Each organism uses the other as a resource for its own benefit, creating a relationship between the two that can either be inherent in their genetics, required for survival, or can be unnecessary for survival but still extremely valuable. For example, some Central American ants use the acacia tree for nutrition, while the tree "uses" the ants as a means of protection against predators. Because it provides benefit to both species, mutualism is "one of the most important ecological interactions, with strong influences on almost all levels of biological systems." Through this argument, I assume you are saying that human beings using other animals as a means of resources benefits both parties and creates a relationship between both parties. This is incorrect. Other creatures do not benefit (if so, very minimal) from humans using them as resources. Most are tortured, hurt, wounded, etc. in the process of gaining something from them. Also, no relationship is created between the both parties accept for the fact that we greatly rely on these animals now. I agree that equality does not commonly exist in the animal kingdom. But, since humans have taken a superior form above other creatures, then we should strive to change this. Since humans do not necessarily need other creatures to survive (i.e. meat is not necessary to sustain life, furs are simply for fashion, circuses are unnecessary, etc.), then we do not need to use them. Sorry again for missing the last round and I hope to continue this debate! :)
Evil proves God does not exist (6)

I am sorry to say, that due to technical difficulties my opponent could not post his response. I hope the audience will be understanding enough to see past this misfortune and not take the situation as my opponent forfeiting. Please consider both our arguments, fairly and with no bias, from Round 1 to Round 3. I understand that the results may still be unfair because of points or ideas that did not have the opportunity to be presented, defended or criticized. I hope the audience and my opponent understand this unfortunate situation and take all fairness in considering this debate. I will take this last opportunity to state that I have enjoyed the debate with my opponent and thank him again for presenting it. I look forward to debating Con in the future. I lastly will thank the audience for their time and honest read of the debate up to its abrupt ending.
Evil proves God does not exist (6)

CA: 3. (derived from 1 and 2) God knows of any evil and has the will and power to stop itPreviously I argued against this premise, on the basis it doesn't allow the possibility of God to have a moral sufficient reason to allow evil. I would like to point out, Pro does not dispute my claim. I argued that's its possible that God could have sufficient moral reason. Pro did not provide any argument that's it is impossible for God to have sufficient moral reason. Argument from IgnorancePro invites me to a challenge, a challenge to provide an example of a an evil and an explanation of the moral sufficient reason that God has for allowing that evil. My answer is I don't have one, I plead ignorance. As Pro says "So to paraphrase, I challenge my opponent to give an example of a moral reason for allowing immorality to the greatest extent. "Any ignorance on my part doesn't in any way prove or imply that God can't have moral sufficient reason for allowing evil. Now maybe Pro is trying to set up a counter argument that is built on the premise that God can't have a moral sufficient reason to allow evil. Of course Pro is free to do that, but if Pro was to justify that premise based on my ignorance, then it would be an argument from ignorance. "Argument from ignorance or argumentum ad ignorantiam in its most formal definition is a logical fallacy that claims the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false because it has not been proven true. " [1]Cons argument1) It is possible for God to have a sufficient moral reason for allowing evil to exist2) Evil existsC: The existence of evil does not prove God does not exist. Pro says "I challenge my opponents first premise of round two. " You are free to argue against the premise, but you didn't provide an argument against it. I look forward to Pros reply. [1] . http://rationalwiki.org...
Evil proves God does not exist (6)

Second Round Opening StatementsCon has now made clear what burdens each party carries; our only burden (nothing more, nothing less) is to disprove our opponents arguments for his position of the resolution. I thank Con for taking time to address this. I hope I had not misunderstood the terms and will be open to hearing any corrections to my understanding of the debate parameters.Addressing RebuttalsMy opponents objection to premise 3 of my previous argument draws the question of whether it is possible that God has sufficient moral reasoning for allowing evil to exist. Con has used this objection to make space for his round two argument. He contends that because it is possible that God has a sufficient moral reason for allowing evil to exist the existence of evil possibility does not contradict the existence of God and therefore evil does not necessarily disprove the existence of God (the resolution). My opponents argument may appear sound but he has not yet shown validation behind his first premise (It is possible for God to have a sufficient moral reason for allowing evil to exist). Cons premise is drawn to attention out of objection to my premise 3. My premise (not in the conditional form in which Con agrees to) is contradictory to his recent premise. The proposition "God knows any evil and has the will and power to stop it" clashes with my opponents "It is possible for God to have a sufficient moral reason for allowing evil to exist" on the point of whether God has the will to prevent evil from existing. Cons reasoning is that God may not have the will to prevent evil from existing because of a sufficiently moral reason. I challenge my opponents first premise of round two. I challenge Con to give an example of a moral reason for allowing evil to exist. I will introduce a definition of evil.Evil: profoundly immoral and wicked[1]So to paraphrase, I challenge my opponent to give an example of a moral reason for allowing immorality to the greatest extent.I look forward to my Cons next response in this debateSources[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Evil proves God does not exist (6)

Burden of ProofPro says "I will assume that my opponent has taken the burden of proof since he is the instigator of the debate and is contesting a well known resolution. "I am not too sure exactly what "burden" you think I have so allow me to clarify. The resolution is "Evil proves God does not exist", you are the Pro and thus are affirming that resolution. "Each side is either in favor ("for, 'Affirmative' "), or opposed to ("against, 'Negative' "), a statement (proposition, moot or Resolution) which if adopted would change something with the exception allowed to define the scope of the proposition; i. e. they choose what it will mean if adopted. To further illustrate the importance of rules, those opposed must destroy these arguments sufficiently to warrant not adopting the proposition, and are not required to propose any alternative solutions. " [1]If you mean I have the burden to show that your argument in support of the resolution is a bad argument then Yes I have this burden, if you assume I have more than that burden, I do not. CA = Counter argumentCA: Pros new argument1. God is all good, powerful and knowing. He is also the first cause.2. evil does exist3. (derived from 1 and 2) God knows of any evil and has the will and power to stop it4. (derived from 1) Since God is the first cause, all good and all powerful, he did not create evil.5. (derived from 3 and 4) evil does not exist. I object to premise 3. More specifically that God has the Will to stop evil. The premise allows for no possibility that God can have sufficient moral reason for allowing evil to exist. As such I agree to premise 3 on the CONDITION that Godwould stop evil absent any moral sufficient reason for allowing evil. But this raises the question, has it being proved that God can't have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil to exist ? Maybe Pro will present argument that refutes this possibility, till then my argument is. .. .. ..1) It is possible for God to have a sufficient moral reason for allowing evil to exist2) Evil existsC: The existence of evil does not prove God does not exist. I look forward to Pros reply. Sources [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Best Yo Mamma Joke

You are three jokes ahead now, which isn't fair to me. If I post 6 jokes this round, and you post three, it will be even. Yo mammas so stupid, she bought a spoon to the Super Bowl Yo mammas so old she went out with Jesus in seventh grade. Yo mammas so stupid, she failed a survey. Yo mammas so fat, when she saw a bunch of white people go into a school bus, she said"Catch that twinkie!" Yo mammas so stupid, when somebody said spring was around the corner, she went looking for it. Yo mammas so stupid, when she got locked in a 99 cent store, she starved to death.
Best Yo Mamma Joke

Yo mama is so fat that when she was diagnosed with a flesh-eating disease, the doctor gave her ten years to live. Yo mama is so stupid that she asked me what yield meant, I said "Slow down" and she said "What... does.... yield... mean?" Yo mama is so stupid that she spent twenty minutes lookin' at an orange juice box because it said "concentrate". Yo mama is so old that her birth certificate says "expired" on it. Yo mama's so fat that she expresses her weight in scientific notation. Yo mama is so skinny that instead of calling her your parent, you call her transparent.
Best Yo Mamma Joke

Imma catch up with six here Yo mammas so fat when she went outside in a yellow raincoat, the sun said "I quit." Yo mammas so stupid, she failed a blood test. Yo mammas so poor, she cant even pay attention Yo mammas so fat, when God said"Let there be light." he had to move her over. Yo mammas so stupid, when I asked her to buy a color TV, she asked me which color. Yo mammas so old, she saw herself on history channel.
can you give me a essay on why it is good to be nice to your brother hurry

I am starting to assume you and "justanawesomeatheist". I believe such because you both posted a similar topic right after each other, you both are atheist, and both human. Anyway, I will now prove you wrong. You didn't imply who the "you" was directed to. Because of such, anyone can be "you" since you could be talking to anyone. So if a deaf, blind, silent orphan in Africa wanted to, he wouldn't be able to write you an English paper on why you should be good to your brother.
Actors Vs. Costume Designers 2

Mr. Cooney may have choosen you for the job, but he also did tell all the Indians from the first rehearsal that we would be able to make our own costumes. We have been planning on making them from the beginning and were not so thrilled when the costume designers came in and told us we couldn't make them anymore. Some of us had already made the purchase and the already made Indian costumes can not be returned. Some were $50. None of us are trying to stand out by having different costumes because with the costume designers, everyone still has different costumes. Either way some Indians will stand out, but not purposely. Also, the costumes provided for us for Meet the Department were difficult to dance in, which is the main focus of the Indians. We are known as the dancers and how are we supposed to be able to take our part in the play if the costume designers do not understand how difficult it is to move in the giant, constricting dresses they give us. If you want to bring up the subject of appropriate, the costume designers would not let us wear leggings under the dresses they gave us for Meet the Department. So while sitting cross-legged in front of the audience, we did not feel these costumes were appropriate and therefore believe that the Indians should be able to make their own.
Actors Vs. Costume Designers 2

The Indians' costumes are just as important as the rest of the cast. As costume designers, we believe that we are responsible for making everyone look like they match with their costumes. Mr. Cooney picked us for the job and trusted us with making the right decisions. Although it is kind of the Indians to take the intiative to make their own costumes, they are not appropriate for the show. Some of the Indians have too little fabric and other Indians are trying to make their character stand out by wearing a different costume. We believe that we hold the responsibility of making everyone look the same everyone feels equal, and so that the costumes are appropriate for the show.
Actors Vs. Costume Designers 2

The costume designers job is to be a costume designer. They should assume full responsibility of this task, and I believe that the show would be better off with the use of the costume designer. Although your arguments are valid, and I understand your point of view, I believe that the costume designers should make everyone's costumes. They are able to unify the show and take the pressure off of Mr. Cooney and other performers who might have trouble getting a costume together.
Actors Vs. Costume Designers 2

Preparedness should deal with how ready you are for show, not the costumes. The costume designers check with every indian on their costume and modify them to fit the needs of each indian. The costume designers have been entrusted with this job and have years of experience.The costume designers know how to make the costumes visually pleasing and comfortable for each cast member. It's also less stress for Mr. Cooney because he is able to see the costumes ahead of time and approve of them. The costume designers also take very good care of each costume, and by taking care of the costumes the designers give the cast one less thing to worry about. It's their job, and they are only trying to help.
Actors Vs. Costume Designers 2

You said you are trying to make it easier and less stressful for the Indians by providing them, but it just puts more stress on us. By not knowing what we might get and not being able to practice in them, we do not know whether we can move in them and do our dance the best we can. We realize our audience and wouldn't wear something if it wasn't appropriate. Our main focus is to be able to dance. I believe that it wouldn't be confusing if we made our own, it would only give the costume designers more time to focus on the others and the Indians would feel ready and prepared.
Actors Vs. Costume Designers 2

As costume designers, we believe we hold the control over all costumes and assume the responsibility of making it easier on the cast by providing costumes. Mr. Cooney would not have assigned us this job if he did not believe we could handle it. We provide free costumes for the whole cast and we want to make everyone feel less pressured on costumes, so that they can focus on the show. We understand that the Indian's main role is a dancer, but everyone has to match the tone of the show and realize that the show is for an audience of parents, fellow class members, and younger children. We believe that we can unify the show by taking up the position as costume designer. The costumes for meet the department were only temporary and we have been working on everyone's costume every single day. We attend scheduled rehearsals so that we can fix any costumes and make sure that the cast member approves of it. If the Indians had the right to make their own then other characters would want to make their own too. I believe we create less confusion and add to the organization of this show
The Use of Preferred Gender Pronouns Should Not Be Legally Enforced

I argue that you are indeed obliged to use a persons preferred gender pronouns. But lets look at the nature of that obligation. I would also say that - if someone says their name is Harry you are *obliged* to refer to them as Harry, but noone considers this an imposition on their lives in any way. Apply the same thing to gender pronouns and it should just be the same thing. All that is at stake within this obligation is that you don't make someone feel weird or upset them. Should this obligation be enforced by law? well, no, and noone is arguing that it should. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you may be referring to Bill C-16, the Canadanian law that adds gender expression and gender identity as protected grounds to the Canadian Human Rights Act, and also to the Criminal Code provisions dealing with hate propaganda, incitement to genocide, and aggravating factors in sentencing. This does not make it illegal to use an incorrect gender pronoun at all - what is *does* make illegal, is using an incorrect gender pronoun continuously in order to harass and verbally abuse someone. This, I argue, *should* be illegal.
The Use of Preferred Gender Pronouns Should Not Be Legally Enforced

Because I am very new to the concept of a proper debate, and I am, in effect, "winging it", I am unfortunately unable to provide an appropriate framework for this discussion. For this reason, I will simply state my position as clearly as possible, and open the floor to any well-formulated rebuttal. I believe that I should not be obligated by law to utilize preferred gender pronouns when referring to another human being.
Ron Paul is the best republican candidate

Although I originally thought that I agreed with your statement, after watching Meet the Press yesterday I have changed my mind. I have always disagreed with Ron Paul on many things but have also thought that he at least we a real conservative and I respected him for that. However, there are two main reasons that I no longer feel that he is the best republican candidate. First, I dont think that he is actually as principled as he always seemed. As pointed out on Meet the Press yesterday, Ron Paul will put earmarks for his district into spending bills, even though he thinks that the federal government should not be giving that kind of money away. He tried to say that this was like a tax credit that he was just accepting. He doesn't want the government spending the money on social programs so at least this way the money goes back to the taxpayers. But then why did he vote against the bill. It may be unfair to put him in the catch 22 but I feel that it makes sense. Especially since he is billing himself as a true conservative and a man of ideals. He should either be for those types of spending bills or against them. The second problems that I see from him is the fact that he is such a "fringe" candidate. I am not saying that he is fringe from the point of view of polls, but just from ideas. He has never met another congress person that agrees with him or even almost agrees with him so he has never formed alliances or had to barter over bills. As president there is no way that he is actually going to be able to get rid of the IRS but that is one of his main focus points. I just dont see him being able to come down off his horse and really get things done. Few bills are passed just by one side, you need to get support from both sides, or at least you should. As a result I think that Ron Paul will turn out to be a very ineffectual president and allow others to run the table on him. So though I hear your desire to have a smaller government and respect the constitution, I dont think you will get that from Ron Paul. If anything, respecting the constitution will turn into just one of those "fringe' things that are crazy president Paul believes in.