BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A Christian Ought to Vote Against Gay Marriage

"He also desires to assert that the Laws to the Jews served no purpose but to show them they were unrighteous and therefore we should not seek to establish moral laws again." " Jesus was revealing that even the Jews were not righteous (hence him quoting Jewish standards of rightousness) and that God's righteousness was beyond even that of the religious lawmakers of that day." I'll leave the above statements of my opponents to speak for themselves. I have made a CLEAR distinction between bringing up children (we are permitted to use force) and resisting an EVIL man. (we are NOT permitted to use force) For my opponent to pretend otherwise is simply not cricket. To stretch 1Timothy 5:8 to include home defence is a bridge too far, You're twisting scripture for your own purposes.. a VERY bad idea. 'Provide' is NOT 'defend' by ANY stretch of the imagination. Where is GOD in all this? IF I obey His commands and His Word then I fully expect NOT to be burlarised etc.. This idea of defence is ALWAYS taken too far.. If every country only defended their own country then HOW could there be any wars? if no-one left their own country to attack but ONLY defended? Romans 13:1-7 Is clearly talking about submission TO authority.. NOT what authorities role is. Again, you are taking scripture out of context. When we interpret scripture we MUST take the easiest and simplest interpretation possible.. otherwise we create cults where we need others to 'show us the way'.. dangerous ground. A much better scripture for our purposes would be.. 1 Corinthians 5:12 (New International Version) What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? or.. 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 (New International Version) Lawsuits Among Believers 1If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? 2Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church![a] 5I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers! 7The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers. I need comment no further. The fact that some of my statements have been deemed offensive from someone who uses a hammer and sickle as there user icon is of NO consequence to me. The law cannot work on the unregenerated, to pretend otherwise is to deny the work of calvary.
Political Correctness is counterproductive

It is my position that political correctness is counterproductive, in that it actually breeds more intolerance than it prevents. Definitions: Political Correctness: avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... Intolerance: 1. not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one's own, as in political or religious matters; bigoted. 2. unable or unwilling to tolerate or endure (usually followed by of ): intolerant of very hot weather. http://dictionary.reference.com... ----- The purpose of political correctness is allegedly to avoid offending or marginalizing the disadvantaged or discriminated against. It sounds good in theory, and even in practice, to some extent. I'm certainly not sad to see the words "nigger" and "faggot" fall out of favor, for example. What I have found to be an ironic side effect of the PC movement, however, is that it has actually served to breed the very intolerance and marginalization it seeks to end. I have three main arguments as to why political correctness is counterproductive: 1. By perpetually changing our language to be more sensitive to those who are already discriminated against, we draw constant attention to their differences, drawing a very definite line between "us" and "them" -- the very definition of marginalization. 2. Empowerment cannot come from patronization. Every equal-rights movement that has seen any success had one thing in common: the strength and solidarity of the people. By treating them as if they are children that need to be protected from certain words or ideas, we actually perpetuate the idea that "we" are somehow superior to "them". Worse yet, some of those who are discriminated against then get the idea that they are entitled to this patronizing, which is a huge detriment to them (which leads me to #3). 3. The amount of censorship the PC movement has caused (links 1 ad 2, just to name a couple of recent incidents) puts many important things at risk. First, our intellectual well-being. Second, our right to express ourselves freely. Third, a thick skin. Intellectual well-being is most relevant to this argument, mind you, as ignorance is obviously counterproductive to tolerance, acceptance and respect, which are the very goals of the PC movement. (1)http://www.cbc.ca... (2)http://www.cbsnews.com...
Organic is better.

Wikipedia is often the best source of information on the net. It is one of the biggest websites in existence. Because of the fact that anyone can edit it, it stays up-to-date and correct. Also, experts can easily and quickly post their knowledge. Some articles are semi-protected or fully protected to prevent vandalism and false information etc. Citations are on almost every page so you can check the information there as well. If an article lacks a citation this fact is stated very esthetically at the top of the page. Books are considered credible sources because they are peer reviewed. So too is wikipedia and since so many people use it any mistakes are quickly edited. Also my opponent's source is incorrect in saying that information can not be challenged by the site's editors. If someone spots a problem on a protected page they can dispute the info and eventually get it removed. . http://news.cnet.com... . http://arstechnica.com... . http://news.bbc.co.uk... Those sources demonstrate wikipedia is about as good a source as Encyclopedia Britannica >>> Organic could feed the world <<< This is simply not true as demonstrated by these sources . http://ageconsearch.umn.edu... . http://www.organic-center.org... . http://orgprints.org... . http://oega.boku.ac.at... I have refuted all my opponent's arguments.
Organic is better.

Thanks for accepting my debate, I wish you great luck :) Unfourtantley, I would like to state that I find all of your points irrelevant because of the fact that they are from wikipedia. According to(http://www.associatedcontent.com...) Wikipedia is not a reliable source because it describes itself as "an online free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit", which I translate to mean that anyone can cite one's self as an authority on any and everything. And I would like to clarify that Guy Dauncey is President of the BC Sustainable Energy Association; Executive Director of The Solutions Project; board member of Prevent Cancer Now and Publisher of EcoNews, a monthly newsletter that promotes the vision of a sustainable Vancouver Island. With that said, we now know that he has knowledge of this subject. Additonaly, my opponnet failed to refute any of my points specfically. With respect to his population and Green Revolution contentions, 'Organic could feed the world. In a 2002 Greenpeace report, the authors found that organic and agro-ecological methods of growing in the Southern hemisphere produced a dramatic increase in yields, as well as reduced pests and diseases, greater crop diversity, and improved nutritional content. In the Tigray, Ethiopia, organic crops raised 3-5 times more food than chemically treated plots; in Brazil, maize yields increased by 20 – 250%; in Peru, uplands crop yields increased by 150%. In 1998, the Rodale Institute in Kutztown, Pennsylvania, published the results of a 15-year study that compared 3 ways of growing maize and soybeans – a conventional chemical rotation method, an organic system involving crop rotation and legume crops, and an organic system using cow manure. The yields were similar for all three systems, debunking the myth that organic methods cannot feed the world. In Britain, an experiment run at Broadbalk by the Rothamsted Experimental Station for 150 years has shown that wheat yields on manured plots average 3.45 tonnes per hectare, compared to 3.40 tonnes on the chemically fertilized plots. A recently completed 21-year Swiss study, on the other hand, showed that organic yields were 20% smaller than conventional yields. The organic plots required 34% to 53% less fertilizer and energy and 97% less pesticide, however, and produced more food per unit of energy and fertilizer. The soil microbes, flora, fauna and soil fertility also increased, leading the study's authors to conclude that the ecological benefits of organic farming make up for the reduced harvest. ' (http://www.earthfuture.com...) Thanks for debating, for PRO!
Organic is better.

Thank you, Saamanthagrl, for posting this debate. Organic food may not necessarily be organic. A product which bears the label "USDA organic" has only to be 95% organic. This means that the farmer could use pesticides in small amounts, artificial fertilizers, antibiotics, or growth stimulants. My opponent's source for the Scottish study provides no proof and the only thing they put is "written by Guy Dauncey. " We know nothing of his credentials or his knowledge of the subject. Salicylic acid has a few problems. It has been proven to reduce hearing in zinc-deficient individuals and to cause bleeding if used in the last 2 trimesters of pregnancy. It can cause skin damage if a person fails to use sunscreen after using a salicylic acid based skincare product. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Organic farms may be better for the environment in the short run but they have major drawbacks. At most, organic farming can only feed 4/6ths of the world's population, and that's if every bit of arable land is used and many ecosystems destroyed in the process. Not to mention that we would have to move to inhospitable housing to make room. . http://en.wikipedia.org... The Green Revolution, which is a method of genetically altering wheat and other crops to attain higher yields and create immunity from diseases, has had many positive affects on the world. When Mexico began using this method in 1945 they imported half their wheat. In 11 years they were self sufficient and soon they were exporting wheat. This has helped the economy of Mexico and created a higher standard of living for its citizens. In India, before the Green Revolution was introduced, inevitable famines plagued the area frequently. Now there has not been a famine for over 40 years. . http://en.wikipedia.org... While the use of pesticides presents real health threats to the farmers, they pose little threat to the consumer, as most scientists agree there is little left on the food once it has been cleaned, packages, and shipped. However, many non-organic farms do not use pesticides because their crops have been genetically engineered. Just because one part of non-organic farming isn't desirable doesn't mean every farmer uses them or that we should stop. On balance, non-organic is better. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Conclusion reasons why we should embrace non-organic farming methods and crops: 1. ) Higher yields 2. ) Better economic opportunities 3. ) Little dependence on foreign-grown crops. 4. ) Minimal farmland so as to better preserve the environment 5. )
Humans are smarter than animals

Thank you for accepting. I look forward to this debate. I do condede on the technicality that humans are indeed amnimals - so from now on I suppose I will debate that humans are smarter than OTHER animals. Humans are the only creatures on earth that have the ability to rationalize. Squirrels can't rationalize not to jump in the middle of the street, whereas humans are able to rationalize that that may not be the best idea. Humans also have the ability to cognitively think whereas other animals do not. Humans have invented language, cars, computers, telephones, etc wheres most other animals live simply on instinct and their every day consists solely of obtaining food and shelter.
Humans are smarter than animals

The fact that you know are able to rationalize what jaywalking is and knwoingit's dangerous puts your mental level above an animals' other than a human. Someone pulling a prank or doing something silly doesn't mean their mental capabilities are less than that of an animal or than human. The fact that humans actively seek out attention and affection proves our minds are more complex than that of an animal for we seek the approval of others whereas animals can't rationalize these emotions as we can. Apes are more intellegent that other types of animals, but still not as intellegent as humans. Humans are the ones that created the AK-47 for the ape to use. A lot of what those monkeys were doing was instinct - humans have instinct as well. Insticnt however doesn't put a monkey's intellegence over a humans. Have you never heard of a "sufer dude". That's all he is. To another surfer I'm sure he's speaking coherently. People may not always use computers correctly, but the fact of the matter is HUMANS were able to invent and develop them, not any other type of animal. George W. Bush is the lowest of the low. I can easily show a picture of Steve Jobs, Ben Franklin, Mark Zuckerberg as examples of humans smarter than animals. As a whole, humans are smarter than other animals.
Rape is love

Okay well pedophilia is a controversial topic, However your points don't justify what you do as right, Literally no evidence you just state how you enjoy the things you do. 1. " my only crime is love" actually no it's not. Your other crimes would include at least for CA. Penal code 288: sex crimes against children, 278 child stealing which im assuming you did becuase doing this in public would have gotten you in trouble and well 261 felony rape charge so yeah you actually have more crimes then just love. 2. My next point, A 4 year old girl can't really give consent on something as impactful as intercourse, So. . . Yeah that's not right also just becuase you like it doesnt mean the 4 year old likes it. Molesting a 4 year old would have traumamtizing effects on the persons life. 3. What you like and want to do in the American Pediatric Association in the DSM-5 pedophilia is a mental illness. You are considered again in the CA penal code as a 5150 and therefore you cannot take of yourself and are an endangerment to others and yourself, Basically your whole poem is just illogical and wrong.
Rape is love

Good old times You were only four years old When I molested you Those were the good old times When nothing could stop me from doing crimes I took off your panties and licked your cunnie It felt good and your juices tasted like honey I am a criminal of love My only crime is my love People keep thinking if there is anything above While I focus on this world, On the Earthly pleasure In a 4 year old girl, I have found the real treasure I have found a friend, I have found myself This is the purpose of life, This is the end This is the dream, This is my role This is the majestic realisation of my goal In this life, I have never asked for much Some food on the plate, And your gentle touch I am a criminal, They say, Of the worst kind Because love flows through my mind I never thought for a second that what I do is wrong Even if it is wrong, I want it to last long Let my words be my journal, Let these memories be eternal
God is Real

I'm pretty sure I have already covered this but I'll repeat myself. If a star did explode, and with the assumption that there is water on earth, it would be quite easy for plants and animals to evolve over millions of years. Would probably start as bacteria in the water, micro-plants and animals that over long periods of time started to gain intelligance, till they one day just walked out of the ocean. Of course, I'm not an expert on this I'm basically just using common sense here. So technically, There were "starter seeds." And aliens? The government would pay BIG to shut people up and if the person don't zip their lips then they would probably find themselves the victum of a suspisous car accident or something. Point is, gossip may get around but society doesn't screw around. Besides, who would believe anything about aliens? There are tons of government conspiracy theories, alien cover-ups, and lots of people claiming to "know" something. But noboby takes them seriously. Anyways, thanks for the debate (though I think we never really got to the point in this debate. I kinda felt like we were going in circles but it was fun! It was fun!) Good luck and VOTE CON!!! :D
God is Real

Really sorry 'bout that.- As you put your theories I think I'll 1 of mine: Maybe God created a big bang out of stars as a compromise with your therories so creating the earth. Say that one of the stars did explode then how was the trees and the flowers created because for that you would have to have a starter seed to spread them and across the sea? Also animals wouldn't just appear. Imagine! So if aliens were then wouldn't the archeologist tell his wife who may tell their kids supposing they had some who would forget to be quiet about it and tell their friends who would tell their mums and so on and then the secret would leak out eventually. Gossip gets around quick you know!
God is Real

Hey good to know your actually still checking this debate! Don't worry; you didn't offend me in any way! In fact, you're probably the first person to be polite about my wackiness because everyone else looks at me strange then backs away slowly! (My family also thinks I'm nuts!:) Anyways... 1. The big bang theory is actually very easy to understand (at least, it makes sense to me). Who isn't to say that a star exploded in space, creating our planet that over time involved and created plants and animals? As for the aliens, I have a few suggestions. One, who knows where the aliens are now? Maybe they are all hiding from the humans or maybe we can't find them. The unverise is HUGE! We could not explore it all because we don't have the technology, while maybe the aliens do. That way they will only be found if they WANT to be found. Two, if the aliens had died off they may not have left any evidence behind. Maybe they evapourated (Hey, who knows? Happens in movies! XD) or the lack of gravity in space made them disappear into a black hole or whatever. Like I said before, the universe is huge and there is no way we have explored even a quarter of it. So maybe there are remains we just haven't found yet. Another thing: maybe we have found remains! Ask yourself: if the government found evidence of aliens do you really think they would have told the public? No, they would hide the evidence in area 51 or something because I'm pretty sure the people would freak if they knew aliens lived. 2. THIS, IS FREAKING AWESOME!!! http://www.cracked.com... 3.Oops, I think you misunderstood what I was saying here. I was NOT saying that a mixed breed of alien-humans created the human race. I just got a little carried away explaining about that book I was talking about (It's quite a good book). Sorry for your confusion. I will try to stay more ummmm, on topic. (3 Oh, and no problem that I forfeited round 2. I wanted to see your response before I started more theories. I await your response!!! XD
God is Real

Sorry that I forfeited the last round, I was away and left all means of technology here- and then forgot my password! And sorry about that naming question I am sure I did not put that in there. Oh well. 1. I continue to question the big bang theory- how was that 'balloon' created? I know you do not believe in that- so let say that you 'wacky theory' as you put it- sorry, again!- is true then where are the aliens now? It is possible that the died off, but would they not leave some evidence? 2. Involution isn't THAT hard to believe but why haven't the other animals involved so quickly? If they are involving 'before our eyes' than can you give me some evidence please? This is not sarcasm- I really want some! 3.For your super being thing you would need a human and an alien for that - to create a half - and there wasn't a human back then to actually create the entire human race. Sorry again about forfeiting- I will not do it again, oh and thanks for forfeiting to. Sorry if I offended you in any way during this argument- I did not mean to. I await your response- happy debating!
God is Real

I first would like to thank whoever accept my challenge since I believe in God and I would like to see what other people think. Thank you also to the people who have commented since the more variety of comments the better. Just a few of the many reasons to believe in God How was the earth created? You may answer the scientific result 'A Big Bang' but what caused the big bang huh? And you can you answer this in detail? How was the big bang created? How was Man created? How did things get names without people? If things got named before humans were created, like dinosaurs did you expect them to name themselves do you? If Earth wasn't here before the big bang supposedly, how was it created and how was it names? If you can answer all of those questions reasonably and believably I will be surprised and a few others I know would be to.
Religious education in Australian primary schools should educate children about all religions.

. Since my opponent failed to provide any definition, I am put in a position to do so in an effort to better organize as well as maximize clarification of the topic at hand. Definitions: Religious: "A person bound by monastic vows" {1} Education: "The process of receiving or giving systematic instruction, esp. at a school or university: "a new system of public education". {2} Australian: "A native or national of Australia, or a person of Australian descent. "{3} School type: All primary/ elementary level private schools. Should: " Used to express obligation or duty" {4} Educate: "Give intellectual, moral, and social instruction to (someone, esp. a child). " {5} Children: "refers to the age range from 1 to 5 years" {6} All: "every: all kinds; all sorts. " {7} Sources: {1} . http://dictionary.reference.com... {2} . http://www.merriam-webster.com... {3} . http://www.answers.com... {4} . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... {5} . http://dictionary.reference.com... {6} . http://www.mchoralhealth.org... {7} . http://dictionary.reference.com... My position: I will be arguing that schools as defined in this round should not teach ALL religion simply because: 1. they are not obligated to 2. They do not have enough resource 3. They can not force a religion on a child 4. It would be detrimental to the child's learning process. I await my opponents main case.
Religious education in Australian primary schools should educate children about all religions.

In my experience, in Australian primary schools, religious education usually consists of children being taught about Christianity and it's beliefs. RE should instead be teaching kids about not only Christianity but many other religions, like buddhism, Judaism, and even atheism, and the main ideas behind these religions and beliefs in an unbiased way. RE should also teach the kids about what religion is and the effect it has on the world. I am "pro/for" this argument, but I am interested in hearing the opinions and arguments of others that share my view, as well as those that are "against", so please feel free to reply even if you are also "for".