BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible Advocates Slavery

I tried searching to see if there was a debate on this topic, but couldn't find any. Therefore, I feel that this debate should fill in the topic. Many people that I have talked to, Christians as well as Atheists, have commented that the Bible advocates slavery. I believe that this is untrue. First of all, I would like to set some ground rules for this debate. In all fairness, there should only be one version of the Bible used in this debate, the King James Version, so as to not confuse people about the different wordings each version offers. KJV is a widely accepted and popular version, but if my opponent would like to use another, please state which version you will use at the beginning of your argument. Second, outside sources are permitted, but I ask that Wikipedia not be used as a direct source for evidence, due to credibility issues. If you are going to use info from an outside source, make sure that you use it directly and not indirectly through Wikipedia. Third, I would like for this debate to cover the entire Bible, so I ask that my opponent base his arguments from both Testaments of the Bible (Old and New) and not just one, as I will be doing the same as well. Fourth, the Greek word "doulos" could mean either slave or servant, so I will permit the use of both as the same meaning, although they have different meanings in today's English language. (All definitions used come from dictionary.com) The Bible (the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion, comprising the Old and New Testaments) advocates (to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly) slavery (the keeping of slaves as a practice or institution). Since I am Con in this debate, I will wait for Pro to make his or her arguments first and go forward from there.
gay marriage

Sorry for the lack of debating... Hopefully our above arguments prooves our cases. I've been very busy as of late... and wish I could have gotten on and posted another argument. To the pro, you thinking something "seems weird" doesn't proove your case. Gay parents could have male or female friends if the child needs a same sex mentor. I'm still slightly confused on wheter this debate is about same sex marriage or adoption. Hopefully, I've prooved my case that both should be excepted. It's not up to the state to decide religiously if someone should be married. That is a Christian practice. If a church decides gay people should not be married that fine. What was our Government have to do with gay marriage?
gay marriage

hello candice, thank you ok i never said they have sex all the time, they may not have sex at all, but still you are a Christian right? now please do not take this personal, but it clearly says in the Bible about Gay marriage. Yes being in love is a great thing. But love is not a feeling it is a state in which you are united with your partner. Yes you are correct in saying that if your partner is not accepting he/she is not for you. i will also say it's not sickening altogether but it just seims weird. you said gay parents with children add love, yes this is true, but is it the right kind of love to have. should children live with two moms, or two dads, or is it better for the child to have one of each. say a son has two moms, without a dad, how will the son learn how to take care of the wife, and be a good father. Now what if a daughter has two dads the same way around. it is better for the child to have one or the other
gay marriage

Thank you for your warm invitation! So, is this a debate about gay marriage, or gay people raising children? Well, as for your wish of a definition of gay marriage; it's gay people getting married. Why this is disgusting to you, I know not. People being in love is a wonderful thing, especially when they want to become a family, and share that love with an innocent child. Having a loving home is a wonderful thing. If you are raised by two men, or two women your not embarrassed. Your proud you have two parents that love you very much. Just because you don't except it doesn't mean others don't. If you could see past your nose, you would see that more love in the world is a wonderful thing. If your fiancï¿½' leaves you, then you weren't dating a very excepting person and family is important. If anyone didn't like my family I would say, Goodbye. Sounds like your parents just got rid of a bad future husband. It sounds like your confused. Gay men and women don't just have sex all the time. Did you know that? They are people, who live and love just like straight people. There is a separation between church and state. Yes... look at what gay couples with children do to society... THEY ADD LOVE, and promote acceptance. So, are you asking me questions because your confused about what your debate should be about?
gay marriage

hello candice well this should be fun, but a little hard if you debate this i thank you highly and hope the best debater wins Ok, so you say gay marriage is ok. 1) why 2) Give you definition of a gay marriage suitable besides two moms or two dads Now in this sense lets look at what a child would think if he had two dads or two moms. That is just sickening to think about. Now i will have to agree two girls seem really hot, but if you think about the long term of it what is the outcome. say you had two dads how would that make you feel. Having to walk around with two guys holding eachothers hands while you go shopping at the mall or even worse. Your fience comes over to pick you up on a date and you invite him in. Just saying If. Anyways you have two dads asking him questions and hhe is totally grossed out that he leaves you and tells all your friends you have two dads. Now like i said lesbians are awesome, but it is morally wrong. 1) God and the bible are against it. 2) look at what it does to society
Feminists don't hate men.

WE CANNOT BE WHOLLY EQUAL WITH ONE ANOTHER AS LONG AS BOTH GENDERS EXIST!!!!!!!!!!! that is a simple fact, and I prefer complimentary distinctions as opposed to a potential tyrannical power called equality. How do you plan to eliminate the gender differences? there is no good way. I can move things 99.99999% of women cannot, what do I need to do to make them equal? They can suckle a baby, I cannot. I am not jealous or resentful, only respectful of their ability.
Feminists don't hate men.

I meant absolutely nothing about sexual preference, sorry you read my words wrong, my fault for not clarifying that, because feminists don't love men as they feel the female species is superior, and that is what I meant, not any kind of sexual preference reference. lol! The think they are superior to men, hence the willingness to label themselves as feminists. When a man calls a woman a feminist out of spite, that is no different. I attack with electronic words, but I accept no labels.
Feminists don't hate men.

"Feminists do not love men either." Not all female feminists are lesbians. Only lesbians can be lesbians. Being feminist does not define one's sexuality. You can be feminist and still be: A straight male, A gay male, A straight female, A gay female, Any form of trans person, and Everyone else "They feel overpowered physically..." Feminists are not afraid of being attacked by, for example, a buff anti-feminist. At the same time, that does NOT mean they will use said violence as a 'filter' to bring men down. As people who believe in equal rights among the sexes, "Violence against women" is not something women want used to make them look weak. "...they attack with words..." This is necessarily a good thing. Feminists are not people who resort to violence to prove a point. What other option do we have than to use words. This is why feminists have speakers. Human rights allow feminists to have a voice in the political picture. They use the voice to get their point across that women are not weak or crazy or whatever the anti-feminists like to say. Words are the safest tools to use and feminists use the tools correctly. No matter how many tools they get or how they use them, the only thing the public says is, "You're crazy."
god or nut

Theism doesn't really have a position on nuts inside of an unbreakable nutshell. I'm a theist, I personally doubt the exsistance of an unbreakabble nutshell, so if i'm going to dream up things, why not imagine an unbreakble nutshell without a nut? While not every theist may share my views, but I submit myself as proof that this is not true.Some atheists may argue that athiesm isn't a belief in anything, but merely a lack of belief in something. For say atheism is the lack of belief in a god, while it may be true that some or most atheists that there aren't any unbreakable nutshells it's really irrelevant because atheism has nothing to do with nuts. You can even do research[1] on the word itself, and see that it has nothing to do with nuts. Also, this does also apply to theism as it has nothing to do with nuts either.I don't know if agnostics would accept that they don't know, I'm somewhat agnostic towards agnostics knowing things or not. How would you know that an agnostic's doesn't know? they could be lieing through their teeth that they don't know. =D 1) http://www.etymonline.com...
god or nut

Nope. When someone is saying something is possible, they're meaning something might be true. For example when someone says it's possible that there is some cheesecake left in the fridge, they're probably talking about that there might be some real cheesecake in an actual refrigerator. Not necessary an imaginary cheesecake in an illusionary refrigerator. Sure, one might be able to imagine a cheesecake in a refrigerator, but that’s not usually what the person is talking about when they’re talking about possibilities.
god or nut

so is there a nut inside the nutshell? .. or is it empty? if you dont know either, how could the "nut" be material? Honestly, I wouldn’t know if it’s empty or not. If you toss the nut over here I can see if I can pop it open with some tools outside in the garage to check if there is a nut inside it or not. I guess if we’re really desperate I can get it x-rayed. And maybe if you have more nuts, we can work on juggling or something if we’re bored. if i imagine there is a dragon inside the nutshell i can believe that just as i can believe there is a nut in there, so who is to say i am wrong about the dragon in the nutshell Wrong about what? I don’t think anyone is saying you’re wrong… If you’re saying that you’re imagining a dragon inside a nutshell, I’ll agree that you dreamed up a dragon and a nut, I have no reason to doubt that is true (people imagine some very bizarre things). I probably won’t believe your imagination, because I don’t even believe mine. If I was curious of its truth, I might inquire if there is a method for acquiring knowledge of it. But the thing is I don’t see why I would even care of ever laboring to acquire knowledge of a dragon inside of an unbreakable nutshell, it’s not like I’m worried it’s going to break out, I’d rather spend my time playing video games or reading the Bible (things I find more interesting) then figuring out if there is a dragon in there. god is possible, just like the nut, imaginary That may not be true, as it is written “Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh. Is anything too hard for me?[1]” Now it is possible that God really wrote this down, and if this is true that he really did write it, this would contradict him being imaginary, one cannot really write things down in the imagination. You can imagine someone writing something down, but you can’t really write anything in the imagination because it isn’t real, hence why nothing “really” happens in your imagination. So it is possible god is not imaginary. 1) Jeremiah 32:27 (ESV) so, becasue you are not dead, you know i was wrong Right.
god or nut

so is there a nut inside the nutshell? .. or is it empty? if you dont know either, how could the "nut" be material? if i imagine there is a dragon inside the nutshell i can believe that just as i can believe there is a nut in there, so who is to say i am wrong about the dragon in the nutshell only now is true, now is matter, i know my experience of now god is possible, just like the nut, imaginary so, becasue you are not dead, you know i was wrong
god or nut

hm, is god the nut in the unbrekable nutshell? or an empty unbrekable nutshell? I don’t think God is a nut or a nutshell, John 4:24 says God is spirit… So I think this rules out the notion of God being nuts because nuts are materialistic objects and not spiritual. because you cant break into the nutshell the inside belongs to the future, it is not now, it is in my mind, i can imagine a tiny dragon inside the nutshell, does that mean there is a dragon in there? does that mean there is not a dragon in there? You’re losing me. Never mind, I’m lost already… what???? seriously what are we debating here? What does it matter if you or can’t imagine a tiny dragon in a nutshell? the future is imaginary, as i can only reach it with my imagination Well I know that the future is not imaginary because what happens is different from my imagination, say you can imagine having passionate sex with your teenhood dream girl at 5 o-clock, and then when 5 o-clock rolls around it doesn’t happen. This is the proof that the future is independent from the imagination. you are about to take a shower.. is now, will you die before you get out of the shower or even into the shower? am i right if i claim, you will die before you get out of the shower? at what point, do you know, if i am right in claiming that Well if you’re saying that I’m going to die before getting in the shower, then obviously you would be wrong because it would contradict my knowledge. So I would know you’re wrong almost immediately. Also making a claim doesn’t make a person automactiaclly right. I could make a claim that all bachelors are married, but me merely claiming it doesn’t make it true. So no to your statement that if you claimed that I would die upon leaving the shower is not true based on your claim. However if you knew that I was going to die, then it must be true that I am going to die because you know that I am. besides the obvius you wouldnt know if you are dead.. its just an example to highlight a dilemma i guess Uhh… I’m not dead, atleast last time i checked. I guess I can check again, but I think i'll get the same results.
god or nut

hm, is god the nut in the unbrekable nutshell? or an empty unbrekable nutshell? because you cant break into the nutshell the inside belongs to the future, it is not now, it is in my mind, i can imagine a tiny dragon inside the nutshell, does that mean there is a dragon in there? does that mean there is not a dragon in there? the future is imaginary, as i can only reach it with my imagination i dont know=i have to imagine it know=physical experience of now you are about to take a shower.. is now, will you die before you get out of the shower or even into the shower? am i right if i claim, you will die before you get out of the shower? at what point, do you know, if i am right in claiming that besides the obvius you wouldnt know if you are dead.. its just an example to highlight a dilemma i guess
Homework should be given less to the children

But I will like to point out that the definition of LESS varies from one person to another. Giving 10 sums as home work can be pressure to a kid while it might not be the same for some one else . So arguing on the topic "home work should be given less " is itself not convincing . Teachers can revise the lessons to test the students or give them detention to teach them individually but it is often not feasible because of the shortage of time to complete the syllabus. Giving home work is easier. So giving home work is justified. Thank you.
Homework should be given less to the children

THE DEBATE IS 'HOMEWORK SHOULD BE GIVEN LESS TO CHILDREN' BUT NOT 'HOMEWORK SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN TO CHILDREN'First, teachers can have a revision after the lessons and see if the students understand the lesson. Classwork is also a better choice than homework.Second, teachers can teach the students one-to-one during the detention. The students will not be bored and can improve their results instead of scared of lessons.THE END
Homework should be given less to the children

Here are some of my points to argue against my worthy opponent Taking test can be a solution to check whether students have revised a lesson or not.But home work ensure that they have done their lessons properly . So home work prepares them better for examinations than taking test . Secondly if a student is given detention for not doing lessons properly then he or she will get afraid of studies and thus spoil the fun of studying. So giving home work is better. I return the debate to my opponent.
Homework should be given less to the children

Thank you for accepting my challenge. I agree some of your points but I think that exams are better than homework. A test once a week is enough to see that students have or have not revised yet. I also think that a little bit of pressure is OK, but as I see, pressure because of homework is the most, that means that homework causes so much pressure to students even though they are well planned. Another point is, I think if the teachers find out that some students are lagged behind, detention is better than give more and more homework.
Homework should be given less to the children

Giving homework is beneficial for students in many ways. It teaches the student about time management and makes them sincere. It helps the student to recapitulate the lessons done at school so that they don't lag behind. It also teaches them the art of planning and organizing their studies one after another to get good grades. Homework also helps the teacher to asses the ability of the student and she can help the student to improve his or her weaknesses. But most importantly it makes the students study and helps them to realize that even if they don not like to do the homework sometimes they have to do things in life they do not want to. So the pressure which is created is actually good because it helps them to face reality and also their life Thank you
Homework should be given less to the children

It's obvious why homework should be given less to children. First, too much homework can cause stress in a student and lead to health issues in the body and mind. Homework related anxiety and stress can affect school work negatively. Stress causes lack of sleep, slipping grades, fatigue, unhealthy eating habits, depression, and many more factors. Second, kids are doing more than the recommended amount each night, with no academic benefits. The recommended amount is 10 minutes times the grade level, so first grade gets 10 minutes, second grade gets 20 minutes, third grade gets 30 minutes, and so on, but kids are doing much more than that. Twenty three percent of 13-year-olds do more than 2 hours a night. The more the students do, the less they get out of doing it. There is no academic benefit for high school students after 2 hours and there are no academic benefits for middle school students after 1 and a half hours. Thank you
Gay prides doesn`t lead towards more tolerant society

Hello and thank you for participating in my debate, I appreciate your interest. Before start I want to mention that I am by no means homophobic person and this debate is intended to boost some discussion about Gay prides and their values. My opinion is that so famous gay parades (or prides) that are meant to build up tolerance against homosexuals, actually does the opposite. In countries that are famous with their intolerant and homophobic societies, seeing members of gay and lesbian communities marching through cities streets makes people ask questions - why they are doing it? Popular answer from pride organizers are - to fight for our rights and more tolerant society. But in reality, many of these prides are just some kind of `Rio carnival` filled with half-nude men and women [1] Even for people who has nothing against homosexuality, behavior like this, forces them question the purpose of aims of gay/lesbian community. I`m not discussing moral aspects of homosexuality, but my opinion is that gay prides should be restricted in a form of formal meetings, not as an annual festivity. If there is a message - gays and lesbians are ordinary people like everybody else - why aren`t they acting like that? Why are they sending such a strong message about their sexuality? I though that controversy was about discrimination and abuse from government and society, not about their genitals and stuff they do at home in the beds. Nobody is forcing them to put video cameras in their bedrooms and judging the way they are making sex. Talking should be about discrimination at workplace and hate crimes but visual impressions from gay prides doesn`t show their concerns. [1] http://www.homosexinfo.org...
is listening to music good while studying

Pro has forfeited all of her debate rounds. Pro has not posted for any round, and Pro's beginning statement, "it gets you off task" has been more than destroyed these past few rounds by my argument. For Pro's sake, I will not post another argument. I gave Pro a chance before this after her forfeit, and I will allow her another chance to give her side. If she does not post, Shadow-Dragon deserves all the votes. It's as simple as that. So, I leave Pro another chance.... - Shadow-Dragon -
is listening to music good while studying

Well, Pro has forfeited the previous round, so I will continue with more arguments. Thanks. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ {P4} The studies by Dr. Emma Gray The article linked below summarized studies conducted by a Doctor/Researcher, Emma Gray, who studied the effect of music on people. Her studies could be summarized by the following results: Students who studied mathematics listened to classical music. Their scores were an average of 12% higher than those not listening to music. This performance was attributed to the fact that, "Research found that in order to stimulate learning and enhance concentration, {students listened to classical music." The article continues with more very-telling information: "The right side of the brain is used to process original, creative thoughts, so Gray suggests English, Drama or Art students listen to emotive rock and pop music." ""The left side of the brain is used to process factual information and solve problems, which are key skills in these topics,"" says Dr. Emma Gray Resolution- Supported I have provided multiple studies throughout the entire debate showing that different types of music enhance the brain's functions, and certain types of music help the student study specific subjects. Thank you. {P4} http://metro.co.uk...