BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the bible may not be against homosexuality

Your dictionary citation doesn't address the argument, and represents little more than a strawman. And as a dictionary definition has only been around for 60 years or so. Find the ancient text where the meaning is clearly 'homosexual'? John the Faster patriarch of Constantinople at the end of the 6th century chided men for committing the sin of arsenkoitai with their wives. So by definition it cannot mean homosexuality. A Sybaline Oracle text from the second century ce talks of the Arsenkoitai stealing children. The acts of John is no clearer than Saulus the Liar, but could refer to a temple prostitute. Aristides Apology 13 references the rape of Ganymede. Origen, Exposition on Proverbs 7.74. Condemns men and women for engaging in arsenkoitai with each other. Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, claims the serpent raped both Eve and Adam. Eusebius indicates rape. Pseudo-Macarius rape again. Whatever the word means it is not homosexual. 'Physikan' (Physiken In some texts) specifically gives ownership of the nature to the actor. (Their nature)As opposed to generalised nature 'Physis', which has a vague meaning, anything from custom (e.g. 1 cor 11: 14) to physical law. 'Xrasin' actually translates as 'using' meaning the phrase translates as 'their natural using'. Nothing about hard and fast rule of nature. And therefore literally interpreted endoses homosexuality. N.B. 'Degrading passions' is incorrect, the correct translation is 'feelings of unvalue' and appears in other texts referencing ingestion of narcotics, or inhelation of volcanic fumes to induce religious delerium. Whatever the bible says, there are not 2 of every animal, less than half the animal Kingdom fits the binary sex model, eusocial insects have 3 sexes, some species of fish 5, etc, some species can change sex.
the bible may not be against homosexuality

Thank you for your quick response I will first give you a translation from Greek of arsenokoites. " "O36;`1;`3;^9;_7;_9;_4;_9;^3;`4;_1;`2; arsenoko"t""s, gen. arsenoko"tou, masc. noun, from "rs""n (730), a male, and ko"t"" (2845), a bed. A man who lies in bed with another male, a homosexual (1 Cor. 6:9, 1 Tim. 1:10 [cf. Lev. 18:22, Rom. 1:27]). Zodhiates, S. (2000). The complete word study dictionary: New Testament (electronic ed.). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers." therefore suggesting that arsenkoites is in fact a meaning of homosexual. So all your arguments about the meaning are in vain. Next your argument about Romans 1. You simply dismiss this verse saying it pertains to ones nature. That is not a sound argument. Lets take a closer look. "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural (phusikan) function (xrasin) for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the women and burned in their desire (orexis) towards one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.(Rom.1:26-27) If the text only said natural and not natural function then your argument may be worth while. however natural function in this means desire for them of the same sex. Men and women both are gender specific words. A mans natural function with women? Obviously to multiply! Next lets look at the obvious. God made two of every animal, male and female. Man and women. Noahs ark the men and women went aboard. Two of every species (except for sacrificial animals) male and female. Obviously there is no reason then for homosexuals to feel inclined towards each other. It is a choice. A choice I have made A choice my aunt has made. A choice everybody has to make. I don't hate gay people. Even if the bible told me too, I still love my aunt. The choices though I believe will affect us forever. As for me. I'll go with the bible.
the bible may not be against homosexuality

The actual text of Lev 18:22 transliterated says "and you (male) shall not lie down with a male, in the beds of a woman, she is ritually unclean" This has been consistently mistranslated for 2000 years, (e.g. the septuagint) why do you imagine that should change unless challenged. The translation reflects the preconceptions of the translators and their political agendas, not the actual text. Your appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, so your argument can be dismissed. Find any use of arsenkoitai in an ancient text which indicates it references homosexuality and you might have a case. There is none, the most reasonable translation is rapist. Regurgitating a poor translation of Romans 1 doesn't help you. The possession of the 'physis' (nature) is specific to the actors, "Their natural sexuality relations" so the actors are acting against their own nature. Hence the passage endorses homosexuality. Leviticus 20: 13 again doesn't prohibit men lying together, simply lying together in the beds of a woman. Tim rests on the translation of arsenkoitai, without an ancient text which translates as homozexual in context you have no case. Jude is more complex as it's not clear it references Genesis 19, it may reference another tradition regarding female angels, from Hebrew folklaw. However in either case it has nothing to do with homosexuality, since genesis 19 concerns rape. Saul describes David and Jonathan as married twice. Jonathon strips naked in front of Ravid. They roll on the floor in each others arms until David 'exceeds' the whole book is a homosexual love affair between the two. Niome and Ruth: the problem you have is that the text describes them as 'cleveing together' if this is not a reference to sexual relations its the only time the word is used in a non-sexual context in the bible. Your appeal to authority re Daniel is also invalid. The Hebrew words describing Daniel and Ashpenaz's relationship are chesed v'rachamim chesed translates as is "mercy". V'rachamim is in a plural form which is used to emphasize its relative importance. It can mean: "mercy" or "physical love". It would be odd if it read that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and mercy." Therefore the most reasonable translation would be that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and physical love" to Daniel. A279; Matt 19 1: 8 just references divorce.A279; Catamite is just offers as an alternative translation of Arsenkoitai. Unless you have a specific reference.A279;
the bible may not be against homosexuality

The bible isn't really against homosexuality and I think that I can prove it. Here are some verses that christians may use or take out of context. A Bad translation is of Leviticus 18: 22 the paleohebrew transliterated actually says, "and you (male) shall not lie with a male in the beds of a woman, she is ritually unclean." So if the men are supposedly sinning, why is the woman the one that's supposedly unclean? Another is 1 corinthians 1:9-11 which is also a bad translation from Koine Greek, the word "Arsenkoiti" has been translated as 'homosexual' since about 1950, before that it was translated as 'sodomite' which actually means any sexual 'sin' from adultery to masturbation. It is unlikely arsenkoiti means homosexual since John the Faster 6th century condemned men for engaging in this sin with their wives. Romans 1:26, is again poor translation, of the Koine Greek word physics (nature) which can mean simply custom as Saulus the liar shows us in 1 cor 11: 14 when he describes long hair as 'against nature'. In Romans 1: 26-28 ownership of the 'physis' is given to the actors, so strictly speaking the passage condemns people for acting against their own nature/custom. So actually Romans 1: 26-27 endorses homosexuality rather than condemns it. Hint: Lev 20: 13 Tim 1: 10 both fall for similar reasons. And Jude 1:7 (probably) references Genesis 19 which is about attempted rape not homosexuality. We do however have 3 passages favourable to homosexuality in the bible, The love affair between David and Jonathon, where Saul describes them as married twice, and they roll on the floor in each others arms until David 'exceeds'. We also have Ruth and Naiome marrying. But the most positive passage of all is when God gives Daniel the gift of physical love with Ashphenaz Daniel 1: 9.
Marijuana Should Not Be Legalized

My favorite saying in the entire world is those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it" and what you and millions of other Americans propose shows that America has leaned noting from the failure that is prohibition which gives a historical precedent that is still relevant today "if you illegalize something it often manifests it self into a more dangerous and unregulated activity". thus by illegalizeing marijuana you create a health problem that can't be mitigated by government regulation. for instance if the government legalized pot in the 1970s the slightly more dangerous high THC marijuana plants never would have been created. But we Americans are always bad at realizing our past mistakes and thus we fail to learn from them. You in my opinion represent the historical ignorance that America has because you fail to see that government regulation makes things safer. For instance alcohol poisoning killed thousands during prohibition because their was no regulation. Thus by keeping marijuana illegal you first of all provide revenue for criminal enterprises, secondly you case over 700,000 incarcerations per year which contribute to Americas growing health crisis, and you make a potential industry more dangerous than it has to be. Thus you are only perpetuating the problems you intend to solve. Not only are you perpetuating the problem but you are creating a double standard where marijuana is treated differently because of its mystique while other drugs such as alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine go unmolested because they are the status quo. I also notice in all the medical studies that you fail to mention a single study on how caffeine, alcohol, or tobacco affect your health. Tat is because they hold almost every side effect that marijuana has. Thus you are creating a double standard by cherry picking data that supports your claim while ignoring the potential side effects of other already legal drugs. I also have never smoked nor intend to smoke marijuana or cigarettes. Thus I support legalization not because I want to puff the herb but because its foolish dangerous and hypocritical that we keep marijuana illegal while alcohol, tobacco and caffeine are not. Thus I am insulted that you insinuate that I am not of the material to have a family and I ask you to retract your insulting comment on my personal life. This is a formal debate not a insult forum. Also for you experience with your friend that smoked pot are you implying that legal drugs can not have the same effect? A chronic smoker or alcoholic could exhibited similar symptoms and some that are even worse. Thus I say again unless you intend to go on a purity crusade to expunge all semi dangerous and dangerous drugs fine but don't create a double standard to support your social norms that you are used to. Thus I ask you to stop continuing your ignorance of history which shows time and time again that illigaliztion does not work. You instead only perpetuate the problem and make the issue of marijuana a criminal issue rather then a surmountable social obstacle.
Marijuana Should Not Be Legalized

Though you may think the logic does not hold up it does. For instance in prohibition people manufactured their own alcohol that dangerous standardized and led to thousands of deaths yearly. However, when alcohol was legalized even the more intense versions of alcohol became safer due to government standardization. Thus their may not be a logical connection that you see but the legalization of certain drugs that pertains to health risks has led to a reduction in deaths from "bad doses" the same could happen for marijuana with the only difference being their has never been a death related to too much marijuana use. On your expansive list on side effects of marijuana many other legal recreational drugs such as alcohol, tobacco, and even caffeine have the exact same side effects in at least some respects. So unless you plan to ban all of these drugs and force these industries underground which would cause the death of more american than currently due to a lack of standardization you need to stop treating marijuana as a ban of society and instead realize that the ban on marijuana is creating a double standard in which established recreational drugs can continue to damage the health of Americans but budding industries industries can not. Not only do you create a double standard but you actually hurt the health of America by refusing to standardize a health risk in American society by instead fighting a war on drugs that leads to a influx of 700,000 prisoners each year. So I recommend that you either accept the facts that marijuana is just as dangerous as other legal drugs. If you really think that marijuana is dangerous than I defy you to find a record of a signal death from a pot overdose.
Marijuana Should Not Be Legalized

I read with concern "Legalizing Marijuana Would Allow Regulation of Its Potency" (letter, Feb. 13). According to the writer, marijuana with high levels of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC (the chemical that causes the psychoactive effects on the abuser), is not a new phenomenon, and this high potency should not be used as a reason to keep marijuana illegal. I read with concern "Legalizing Marijuana Would Allow Regulation of Its Potency" (letter, Feb. 13). According to the writer, marijuana with high levels of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC (the chemical that causes the psychoactive effects on the abuser), is not a new phenomenon, and this high potency should not be used as a reason to keep marijuana illegal. This logic doesn't hold up. Why would a marijuana abuser opt for a less potent drug when stronger varieties are available? As health regulators distributed the lesser drug, illegal growers would be pushing their higher potency marijuana. Marijuana contains known toxins and cancer-inducing chemicals, which are stored in fat cells for long periods of time. Scientific research relates marijuana use to damaged brain cells and respiratory systems, decreased hormone production in both sexes, acute memory loss, lowered immune systems and impaired motor skills. THC and marijuana smoke have been directly linked to miscarriage, in-utero fetal death, stillbirth and infant death just after birth, along with behavioral and biological abnormalities of offspring. Marijuana certainly isn't a drug we want to put our stamp of approval on, no matter what the THC level. And we should beware of those who say "there is nothing new about strong dope." STEPHEN H. GREENE Acting Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration Washington, Feb. 17, 1994
Marijuana Should Not Be Legalized

I am planning on offering my opinion on the issue and offering rebuttals to your previous statements Marijuana should be legalized due to the fact that it does no more harm to humans than other very legal drugs such as caffeine, tobacco, and school. Marijuana illigalization no longer a reasonable proposition just as Prohibition eventually ran its course. It like Prohibition has led to a spike in crime, unnecessary arrests, and a generation that flaunts disobeying the law. This is all to prevent a drug from reaching the market when other completely legal drugs are just as available. So I ask you why do you refuse to legalize a drug just as harmful as drugs that are currently legal. Rebuttals 1. Pot not Harmless Correct Pot is not harmless the steam from the blunt can damage the lungs and high driving is dangerous. However, drunk driving but instead of banning alcohol we launched a massive social and legal movement that has caused the number of drunk driving cases to drop significantly. Alcohol is also create a physical dependency and can cause liver damage. Meanwhile tobacco damages the lungs more because their is no filters in marijuana blunt. if filters were added the damage would be minimized and would reduce the damage caused by smoke inhalation. However, if you do not legalize marijuana his type of standardization with never come about thus you are perpetuating health risks not helping them by keeping it illigalized. . http://www.lung.org... . http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov... 2. withdrawal symptoms That is also correct but monkeys have also been found to suffer withdrawal from caffeine so unless you proposes that you ban coffee the addictive nature of marijuana means little. . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 3. Prison sentencing not that bad If you think that incarceration in the united states isn't wrong that's a debate for another time but if you think that only 700,000 people per year getting arrested isn't bad I really don'y know what to say. To see why mass incarceration i Its bad watch this phenomenal video on prisons in the United States. 4. Societal pressures of Marijuana Can be problematic but once again misses the point that such drugs are already widely available so unless you insist on going on a purity crusade should we not extract sin taxes and help standardize it instead of creating a dangerous environment where people are imprisoned for upwards of 30 years, violence on the streets, and the issues of society are pushed under the rug of whether its legal or not. If so then I ask you to not grant special exception to marijuana as a drug and attack the "sin" industry equitably. Thus if you believe marijuana should stay banned it ignores historical precedents and is dangerous to America.
Teachers Should Have the Right to Bear Arms

"It does not mention once that guns will prevent school shootings"No. It doesn't. Your right but you missed the point. I provided it for those who need a reminder on school shootings and the statistics of deaths."We want our students to feel safe and secure in the learning environments, so it makes no sense to put them in that situation"I'm not proposing that we arm teachers all the time. I'm simply saying that teachers should have access to some sort of weapon for self defence and the defence of students.I said this in the beginning: "If teachers were equipped with guns or defensive objects (eg tasers)[...]" A weapon, anything used against an opponent, could be considered a taser (http://dictionary.reference.com...). Which as we know is harmless.You may argue that tasers will only scare the students. But considering how kids watch TV (http://www.pbs.org...) these days, it will only affect a small percentage of the students to know that their teacher has access to a taser that might not even be exposed. Looking at the shooting of Washington:http://www.nydailynews.com...http://www.kirotv.com... Where a teacher tried to stop the shooter..."She’s the one that intercepted him with the gun. He tried either reloading or tried aiming at her. She tried moving his hand away and he tried shooting and shot himself in the neck” Imagine the scenario if the teacher has a taser:1)"He tried either reloading or tried aiming at her."2) Teacher tasered student.3) 911 dispatch arrives in time to prevent any further deaths."We want our students to feel safe and secure in the learning environments, so it makes no sense to put them in that situation"Will the students feel more insecure if the teacher just saved their lives?"Many measures can be used to prevent kids who would want to shoot up a school from committing the action. Typically those children get the guns from their parents. If we mandate gun safes in homes, children will not get their hands on guns."Which will be easier?1) Arming teachers with tasers2) Getting background checks on all parents and refusing their kid tuition if they have a gun. And then debating gun control.Situation 1 seems more likely to happen.Furthermore, students die of alcohol poisoning all the time (https://www.google.com...). What makes you think controlling guns will be easier and more effective?In conslusion:It is only logical that as long as we moniter teachers with tasers, schools will be just as safe, if not more safe...
Teachers Should Have the Right to Bear Arms

I glad you cited that article. If you are judging, please read the article. It does not mention once that guns will prevent school shootings, it only talks about how guns have been negatively involved in the shootings. This will be where I get my information from: http://www.slate.com... Now, to talk about the article. Guns are intimidating to some students. Even as someone who grew up around guns, and has no issues being around them, when someone I don't know that well is strapped, an uneasy feeling is created. We want our students to feel safe and secure in the learning environments, so it makes no sense to put them in that situation. Many measures can be used to prevent kids who would want to shoot up a school from committing the action. Typically those children get the guns from their parents. If we mandate gun safes in homes, children will not get their hands on guns. Thanks
RESOLVED: Scripture Alone Is Sufficient To Determine Faith

"My opponent is right in that my proposition assumes the Christian God exist. That was the intent of the debate. It was designed to be a debate between sola scriptura and someone who would argue for the traditional view of the Catholic church. This does seem to be a strange rebuttal on the part of one who claims to be a conservative Catholic. Again this was designed to be a debate between two people who accepts and does not challenge the existance of God. Which my oppennt does accept, being a Catholic, but is denying." --> Um, well. To become a better debater, I believe it is necessary to debate both sides. Furthermore, you never claimed an opening assumption that "God exists." Thus, you have the burden to prove he does, because if you can't, then the resolution means nothing. My 1st topical negation stands for the remaining rounds. --> He drops my 2nd topical negation. Thus, it stands for the remaining rounds. "His base premise is that Killing is immoral and the Bible records God killing and if the bible is the rule of faith then I am condoning killing. Again this is very strange argumentation foming from a guy who votes "pro" on all four war questions in his profile. He is pro war to the highest degree so far as the current political issues are concerned. He asks, if this is the morality being shown through the bible, should that be the basis of peoples faith. As a believer in the bible, and a pro war advocate, maybe this should be the question that he ask himself and his own conscience. I will have more to say as me go along." --> lol, he drops my contention. Extend this. Furthermore, he keeps on saying I'm Catholic. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ROUND. My faith is my own, and separate from this site. However, I will explain one thing. I am still against the resolution because "Sola Scriptura" is a logical fallacy because of my contention I. Since the Bible is flawed in a literal sense, then a contextual meaning must be embraced. That's the meaning behind my contention I. By reading the Bible literally, you have opened up a can of immorality and destruction. This is obviously contradictory to my opponents beliefs. Therefor, scripture alone CANNOT be the basis of faith. [Extentions] 1. 1st and 2nd Topical Negations 2. My contention I Extend these for the remaining rounds. Since my opponent dropped them, my opponent cannot respond to them in any other rounds. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.