BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Lord's Supper/Crackers served in Church is actually not in bible.

I said clearly Crackers served in 'CHURCH"! Christ had his "Crackers" in an upper room. Not a temple. Christ used a dining hall made for food. It was the day before the Passover week, because the 7 day feast week Christ was on trial, then on a cross and then in a tomb. Christ is Lord of the Sabbaths (Yes two Sabbaths!) because He died on His annual Sabbath and rose on the weekly Sabbath=Saturday=The Seventh Day. First Witness: Mar_14:13, And he sendeth forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him. Mar_14:14, And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples? Mar_14:15, And he will shew you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us. Mar_14:16, And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover. Second Witness: Luk_22:8, And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat. Luk_22:9, And they said unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare? Luk_22:10, And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he entereth in. Luk_22:11, And ye shall say unto the goodman of the house, The Master saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples? Luk_22:12, And he shall shew you a large upper room furnished: there make ready. Luk_22:13, And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover. Luk_22:14, And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. Luk_22:15, And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: Luk_22:16, For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. Christ is Lord of the Sabbath. Joh_19:31, The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. Joh_19:32, Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. Joh_19:33, But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: Joh_19:34, But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. Joh_19:35, And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. I use the bible for my facts, not false traditions set up by man. I know what I say is not popular because, i know my true purpose is to stand against false teaching=Satan worship in ignorance. 99.9% of all religions serve Satan in ignorance. Luk_6:26, Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.
Lord's Supper/Crackers served in Church is actually not in bible.

Using the bible only, I see no crackers served to the people in church. Do not confuse the feasts days such as Passover serving bread. Does not mean, priest serving people bread and grape juice. The key is to rightly divide the Word of God. 1Co_11:17, Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. 1Co_11:18, For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. 1Co_11:19, For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. 1Co_11:20, When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
The Civil War was an unjustified invasion and the Southern states should have been allowed to secede

It was the right of the government of the United States of America to enforce law. The secession of people and land by the South was illegal. Who was right or who was wrong is inconsequential on the moral level. The issue is that all land in the United States is property of the US Government. Taking this land bought with blood is illegal. If the inhabitants of the lands bought in the Louisiana purchase decided to take their land back for themselves after it was bought from Napoleon, is it any less so stealing from the government? Proper channels must be followed for the proper usage and appropriation of Federal lands and property as well as the emigration of all those people. The South and North had been balancing slave and free states for many years, so the South had its ability to choose to apply for secession through the Federal system. 'Justified' implies Justice, and just or not, it is the responsibility of the US government to protect and enforce its laws for/against its people and property--it can't allow people to desert with land and goods, that is piracy.
The Civil War was an unjustified invasion and the Southern states should have been allowed to secede

First of all I totally disagree with the practice of slavery, which was one of the primary reasons for the southern states' secession. However I believe that the American Civil War was an invasion of a foreign nation by the United States. In seceding the southern states were attempting to form their own nation so they could govern themselves the way they wanted, because they saw the way the United States government was treating them was oppressive and unfair, which was exactly the justification for the American colonies to declare independence from Britain. In both cases Britain and the United States invaded their opponents for economic reasons, because the colonies and the south both provided valuable resources for their respective mother country. The reasons for the Union invasion were not humanitarian ones. I understand the argument that the Civil War was historically a good thing because it expediated the abolition of slavery and expediated the acceptance of blacks into society. However I contend that it is more important for a people to be able to declare its' independence from a government that is perceived as oppressive. The fact that the Union invaded the Confederacy to forcefully bring it back to the United States, sets a precedent that people will not be able to secede from the U.S. if they want. Some people say that this precedent would not be applicable today, in case of secession, because more diplomacy exists currently, and that a war broke out in the 1860's because there was a lack of diplomatic mentality back then. To this I would point to the fact that from before Revolutionary War, up until the outbreak of the Civil War, there were numerous diplomatic attempts to rectify disputes between the two sections of the country. If a section of the nation tried to secede today, I believe it is highly probable that the U.S. would forcefully keep the section from declaring independence.
Drasai's premise for the illegalization of same-sex marriage

Drasai, you made the following statement: "This issue isn't about love or equality. I agree that most of the arguments against same-sex marriage are flawed, particularly those that reference the "ick" factor. But while the jury might be out on whether same or opposite sex couples make better parents, it is difficult to refute the position that children are generally better off being raised by their own biological parents, and both together as much as possible. If this wasn't the case, family courts and child protective agencies wouldn't view removing a child from her parents as a last resort. If we accept this premise, that children are generally better off being raised by their own biological parents, and that this is the preferred situation for society as a whole, the question needs to be raised: should there exist a legally protected institution that encourages children and their biological parents to remain together, and if so, what form should this institution take?" I would like to challenge this statement and put it to a debate. Do you accept?
Abortion is murder and it should be banned worldwide

"Abortion should be banned worldwide, because it"s killing a human being." An unborn fetus is technically not a person and therefore impossible to murder. The court case Roe vs Wade established an unborn fetus not a person. (1). In order for murder to be constituted you must willingly and knowingly kill a sentient being. And while there is much controversy over the matter, until definitive evidence is given that a fetus is in fact a person, we certainly cannot call the termination of one a "first degree murder". I you wish to see what constitutes a first degree murder I encourage you to visit this site. http://criminal.findlaw.com... "Of all abortions in the US, 49% was because of unprotected sex." May I ask about the other 51%? To quote the source my opponent used last round "Fifty-one percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method in the month they got pregnant, most commonly condoms (27%) or a hormonal method (17%)". Now from what that says we can infer that the majority of abortions are from woman who used protection. These woman were being responsible and still got pregnant. Why punish them with a child that they can't care for because of that? My opponent also agrees with me that food insecurity is bad and harmful, but she does not provide any arguments of how banning abortions will not negatively affect this, or even how banning them will make woman more responsible! "Adoption is indeed an option, but should only be used if you all of a sudden become incompetent of caring for your child. " While this may seem like an idealistic scenario, this is not how the world works. My opponent goes on in her argument to basically rant about the excuses for an abortion. While I agree that these are somewhat flimsy reasons, the abortion seekers don't think so. The single parent may neglect her child, taking out her anger on the "one night standee" on the only thing that she has left of him, the innocent child who just happens to contain half his DNA. Why put a kid through that? Why drop a kid into a household where the parents are feuding, and the child is likely to get caught in the crossfire? Why force a kid to endure a mother who cares more about work than her own offspring? What I am saying is banning abortion will not increase morals, it will not install a sense of responsibility in a mother. No, it will only serve to create unwanted children, some perhaps destined to be neglected or abused by their supposed caretakers.
Abortion is murder and it should be banned worldwide

When an abortion is carried out, you"re killing a small, innocent human being. You"re terminating a life. Terminating a life is wrong and should be punished. Anyone performing abortions - legally and illegally - should be put in jail and given a huge fine. It"s never okay to have an abortion, and there"s no valid reasons for killing an innocent human being. Abortion should be banned worldwide, because it"s killing a human being. And killing - murder - is illegal. Abortion is murder and not only murder, but first-degree murder since the woman carrying the baby is planning to terminate her baby"s life. First-degree murder is defined as a killing, which is deliberate and premeditated, so abortion is indeed first-degree murder. Here in the US, murder is punished by everything from prison sentences to death penalty, and first-degree murder is punished the harshest. Usually with a lifelong prison sentence or death penalty. So why should it be illegal to kill an adult but totally okay to kill a small, innocent baby? The baby has no voice, no way of saying no. No way of telling the world that it wants to live. When carrying a baby, the woman is the baby"s only option for having a voice - the baby"s only opportunity to be part of the world until it"s born. But this does not mean that the woman is allowed to make the decision of whether the baby should have the right to live or not. Nobody but the person self should make such a decision. One of the human rights say: "Everybody has the right to life." This includes babies of all races as well as adults of all races. I see what you mean about overpopulation, and I agree. Starvation and food insecurity is not something to want. But why not just use a contraceptive? Many abortions are caused by unprotected sex - especially between the ages 16-25 years old. Of all abortions in the US, 49% was because of unprotected sex. I believe that it"s a responsibility to make sure you do not get pregnant when having sex, unless you want a child. Adoption is indeed an option, but should only be used if you all of a sudden become incompetent of caring for your child. Adoption is not a place to put your child because you "don"t have the time or can"t cope with having a baby." The excuses for abortion are for example: - Not wanting to be a single parent. - Having problems with their partner. - Having a baby would interfere with work. (1) These reasons are selfish. How did you get pregnant if you"re single? Properly by an unprotected one-night-stand. Having problems with your partner? Problems are created to be solved. The baby would interfere with work? You get maternity leave. It"s totally okay to not want a baby, but if you don"t want it all I"m saying is: don"t get pregnant. Why should someone innocently, when they could have a life - a normal, happy and long life and die of old age in the end? I agree, not all are equally great parents at first, but you learn. There"s a learningcurve for everything - for riding a bike as well as parenting. 1: https://www.guttmacher.org...
Abortion is murder and it should be banned worldwide

I accept. In this I will be arguing for Abortion. Despite moral and religious objections for abortion, it is a simple fact that we need them. Overpopulation: At the time of writing the current population of the Earth is 7,295,403,875 people (1) and is increasing at an exponential rate. Just today there have been 183,345 births(1) (at the time of this writing). To ban abortion Worldwide my opponent wishes to would increase these births exponentially. The current population of humans is already three time the sustainable level (2). We simply can't afford to have more babies on this planet. Is it not the right thing to do to give a unborn embryo a quick death rather than have a small child suffer through starvation? Even in America we face huge food insecurity rates (14.6% of American households suffer from food insecurity as it is) (3). Banning abortion will only increase this, because the average cost to raise a child is $245,000 (4). Why put not only the child, but the parents through horrible poverty and food insecurity just for moral justification? Child Security: If a mother wants an abortion she obviously doesn't want a baby. So why force a small child to endure a lack of love from a mother who does not want him? Of course my opponent may argue that kids can be put up for adoption but few realize the absolute horror of foster care systems. Kids in foster care have sometimes been put through horror and unspeakable things to the children they are suppose to be protecting. (5). Why put kids through such misery when you can give them a quick death when they are young and entirely innocent. I will rebuttal my opponents arguments next round. Sources: 1:http://www.worldometers.info... 2: http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org... 3:http://www.feedingamerica.org... 4:http://money.cnn.com... 5:http://www.upworthy.com...
Abortion is murder and it should be banned worldwide

When an abortion is carried out, you"re killing a small, innocent human being. You"re terminating a life. Terminating a life is wrong and should be punished. Anyone performing abortions - legally and illegally - should be put in jail and given a huge fine. It"s never okay to have an abortion, and there"s no valid reasons for killing an innocent human being. Abortion should be banned worldwide, because it"s killing a human being. And killing - murder - is illegal. Abortion is murder and not only murder, but first-degree murder since the woman carrying the baby is planning to terminate her baby"s life. First-degree murder is defined as a killing, which is deliberate and premeditated, so abortion is indeed first-degree murder. Here in the US, murder is punished by everything from prison sentences to death penalty, and first-degree murder is punished the harshest. Usually with a lifelong prison sentence or death penalty. So why should it be illegal to kill an adult but totally okay to kill a small, innocent baby? The baby has no voice, no way of saying no. No way of telling the world that it wants to live. When carrying a baby, the woman is the baby"s only option for having a voice - the baby"s only opportunity to be part of the world until it"s born. But this does not mean that the woman is allowed to make the decision of whether the baby should have the right to live or not. Nobody but the person self should make such a decision. One of the human rights say: "Everybody has the right to life." This includes babies of all races as well as adults of all races.
Abortion is murder and it should be banned worldwide

"An unborn fetus is technically not a person and therefore impossible to murder." An unborn fetus is just as much a human being as any other human - child or adult. The fetus has a heartbeat just like you and me. It has fingernails, eyes and a brain just like everybody else. Banning abortions will take away an "easy out" for women, and they will have to take sex more seriously. If abortions were banned, they would have to think twice before having unprotected and careless sex. The world has been developing for many centuries now. Our technology, our society and even agriculture has only been improved. Agriculture is one of the main food sources we have. The world"s population"s estimated to be about 7,2 billion people right now. By 2050 experts estimate the population level to be above 9 billion people. Still, they are not concerned about overpopulation or food insecurity. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations still believe that all of the 9 billion could be supported as long as countries continue to trade with one another. "There really is no such thing as a human carrying capacity." (1) "There is no environmental reason for people to go hungry now or in the future." (1) This means that food insecurity is not necessary to think about - at least not relating to whether abortion should be legalized or not. My opponent seems believes that the children would have an awful life - almost not worth living - if abortions were banned globally. Why should these children be any less happy than the currently living children? Life is not always a bed of roses I realise that. But being born does not affect this for the worse. Childhood is the happiest and carefree period of a person"s life. This can"t be argued against. Nobody laughs more than a child. Why kill so many unborn children and take away their entire life out of convenience? There"s no valid reason for making a so cruel and self-interested decision. 1: http://www.nytimes.com...
women should've stayed in the kitchen

Hello, my good sir. I appreciate you for posting this debate as it allows me to flex my brain and share my thoughts with those around me. To begin, I want to highlight that the definition of Whore, when used as a noun, is a prostitute. As statistics show, there are only about 2 million active prostitutes active in the United States which is about 0.6% of American women. Thus, we can conclude that the statement all women are whores is obviously false when using the word in this context. My question is, In what way is my interlocutor using the word? Also, what are the reasons for his or her statement/ belief?, Is there evidence to support that statement?, and How did this individual determine that the evidence if any valid?
Creationism is not a logical alternitave to Evolution.

In my Debate I will argue that Creationism is not a logical idea. That its attempt to explain the origins of life, is nothing more than creation itself. I will show through evidence that evolution is a more logical theory that has yet to be disproved. I will compare the two and point out the difference's. I will attempt to discredit Creationism all together. To begin I will give definition's of the two views. cre"a"tion"ism krēG2;āSHəG6;nizəm/ noun noun: creationism the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution. another term for creation science. ev"o"lu"tion G6;evəG2;loV2;oSH(ə)n/ noun noun: evolution; plural noun: evolutions 1. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. synonyms:Darwinism, natural selection "his interest in evolution" 2. the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form. "the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution" synonyms:development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, expansion, unfolding; More. As you see Creationism says that the origins of life were do to a "creator". Like someone creating a world with life on a computer program, but in reality instead. Evolution on the other hand says that over time simple organisms will adapt to the changing environment naturally changing more complex to accommodate it's needs from what resources are readily available. In other words Everything (to a certain point) came from previous ancestors that slowly evolved into what they are today. I intend to show that there will be no real evidence for Creationism and the idea is poor attempt to support religious belief. I am an atheist and would like the challenge to be accepted by someone who actually believes in Creationism.
I have Moral Authority

You called me "autistic" in the comment section. Using a handicap in slang for ad hominem is beyond the pale. In round two You said, "5 surgeons have more value than 50 shop assistants", I can only wonder how low an estimation handicapped people have to you. You claim to have moral authority over humanity based on god's love. Your warped ideology devalues human life. I hope your arguments were a parody of an Introvert. A distasteful satire.
I have Moral Authority

If you tried to imitate "a flying spaghetti MONSTER", then yes, your perception of moral authority would separate you from the behavior of those who find no relevance in such a deity. Would the love of a "correct" deity save humanity? That's a precarious presumption. Biologists estimate that 99% of Earth's species went extinct. (Yikes! Wikipedia) Would god be "correct" for making an exception for us? Who knows? What I do know is this: every person and animal you will ever meet will one day lose everything it ever loved. Be nice to them in the meantime-----Sam Harris.