BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is no such law as the "Law of Silence" in the Bible. Silence is just that, Silence.

The Bible is silent about the law of silence. That means that it approves of the law of silence, by the law of silence. I just blew your mind! Your profile says that you are pro-life. Why? There's absolutely nothing against it in the Bible. There are passages where God commands that not only should pregnant women be murdered they should be cut open and the fetus should be stabbed too [Hosea 9:16, Hosea 13:16]. There is a passage which makes you pay if you accidentally make a woman lose her child [Exodus 21:22-23]. We do that too. Further the payment and penalty for such an act is significantly less than death as prescribed by the Bible for murderers. So why are you pro-life? The Bible doesn't forbid it so by your logic you get to do anything you want. Sure, there's nothing to suggest that things not mentioned in the Bible are forbidden. Why do you allow some interpolation here but not there? There's nothing in the Bible which says looking at all manner of perverted porn on the internet is against some prohibition. In fact, many Christian beliefs have little to nothing to do with the Bible. The Bible is far from a complete document telling you what to do. Much of our society is far beyond the ignorant bronze-aged people primarily responsible for the Bible. Very little of it directly applies anymore. If you demand that, there are no specific requirements to do much of anything. You are trying to replace one fairly silly view with another. The Bible doesn't talk about X so X is prohibited. Well that's admittedly stupid. Saying The Bible doesn't talk about X so X is allowed. Well that's stupid too. Don't you actually make those judgments? Your profile says you're pro-life. But, the Bible doesn't forbid it so isn't abortion fine? Your profile says you're against Gay Marriage too, but the Bible says nothing about gay marriage. It says that homosexuality is an abomination and homosexuals should be murdered, but it is silent on gay marriage. Marriage in the Bible is between a man various women [Exodus 21:10], a few concubines [Genesis 25:6], and the occasional dead brother's wife [Genesis 38:8]. It's silent on men marrying men. Sure, some people take it a bit too far and say singing and dancing is bad because the Bible doesn't say you should do it. But, the flipped argument is a joke too. You say that Silence is Silence, but you don't actually believe that and neither do I.
do boys think of doing immature thing with girl at a young age

Well if it's not rape, I mean I technically win the argument because your agreeing Again freedom of speech. You can say what you want. I can too. Well, it's technical guys talking to guys about it so girls don't really know. If the male openly responds to a girl about his feelings, you can't say they WILL because what if they don't. They might react a way the guy may not expect Also, why limit yourself to guys. ? Girls can feel the same way as well!
do boys think of doing immature thing with girl at a young age

when i was in 6th grade i did not think of wanting to go do those things i see what u mean by its not rape just don't say stuff like that because i don't think a lot of girls think it is funny or cool so why say it.but some girls make take it as oh he has dirty mind. some girls do not like it so next time want to say something that might not be good think which way will she take it . not being rude some boys not to grow up.
do boys think of doing immature thing with girl at a young age

It is because we show girls lots of respect. It is a way of showing affection. No saying you want to sexually reproduce is different than rape because rape is abuse as well and you don't want to reproduce I can say what I want about someone in America. If I wanna screw a girl I can say that. It isn't abuse, in fact, it might be a compliment. Your calling someone attractive enough that you want sexual interactions, which is the process of forming life Some girls feel a certain way about it. It is only a personal thing for a girl A boy's growth in his hormones should not be something to be called rape Rape is different from sexual thoughts because rape is actually doing. Sexual thoughts do not have to do with rape
Raise Minimum Wage to 15$ an hour

Raising the minimum wage would increase economic activity and spur job growth. The Economic Policy Institute stated that a minimum wage increase from the current rate of $7.25 an hour to $10.10 would inject $22.1 billion net into the economy and create about 85,000 new jobs over a three-year phase-in period. Economists from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago predicted that a $1.75 rise in the federal minimum wage would increase aggregate household spending by $48 billion the following year, thus boosting GDP and leading to job growth. A 1994 study by economists Alan Krueger, PhD, and David Card, PhD, compared employment in the fast food industry after New Jersey raised its minimum wage by 80 cents, while Pennsylvania did not. Krueger and Card observed that job growth in the fast food industry was similar in both states, and found "no indication that the rise in the minimum wage reduced employment." Their findings were corroborated by economists Hristos Doucouliagos, PhD, and T.D. Stanley, PhD, in a review of 64 minimum wage studies. The authors found "little or no evidence of a negative association between minimum wages and employment." Increasing the minimum wage would reduce poverty. A person working full time at the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour earns $15,080 in a year, which is 20% higher than the 2015 federal poverty level of $12,331 for a one-person household under 65 years of age but 8% below the 2015 federal poverty level of $16,337 for a single-parent family with a child under 18 years of age. According to a 2014 Congressional Budget Office report, increasing the minimum wage to $9 would lift 300,000 people out of poverty, and an increase to $10.10 would lift 900,000 people out of poverty. A 2013 study by University of Massachusetts at Amherst economist Arindrajit Dube, PhD, estimated that increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 is "projected to reduce the number of non-elderly living in poverty by around 4.6 million, or by 6.8 million when longer term effects are accounted for."
Raise Minimum Wage to 15$ an hour

Hello kkkkatie126, thank you for starting this debate. I look forward to an interesting and educational discussion (I accept this debate). I assume we will use the conventional definitions of terms such as minimum wage. I will not argue that raising the minimum wage is compete nonsense. What I am going to prove is that increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour will bring more harm than good. Throughout this debate, I will show significant disadvantages to a national minimum wage hike. These numerous disadvantages will outweigh any potential benefits. I await your arguments in the next round.
God's love for humanity is questionable

I will start in round 2. This is an acceptance round. Premise; The biblical God does not love you unconditionally, therefore 'His' love for humanity is questionable. I challenge lifemeansgodisgood to this debate. I am not here to convert you, only to discuss. I am not an atheist, I am an agnostic. So please, join me in the dinner table conversation. I wait for your reply.
God's love for humanity is questionable

My opponents "premise" statement was an argument in support of his postion as "pro" in the debate, and I failed to see why I should allow him to post an argumentative statement in Round 1 and I should not argue in Round 1. The argument under guise of "premise" called for an argument in response. Had I been more careful, I would have limited my Round 1 argument to "God loves you unconditionally" and mimicked my opponents style of posting an argument after making a rule for acceptance only as "premise : God loves you unconditionally" It seems to me that this is two different debates. The Debate Challenge is "God's love for humanity is questionalbe". The Con position would be "God's love for humanity is not questionable". By adding an argument under "premise" which could be an entrirely different debate, my opponent confused his own rule if he did not violate it. If the voters wish to hold this against me in conduct, so be it. I will concede that I posted more of an argument than I should have in Round 1, and as I am posting no argument for the debate in this round other than a reasonable explanation of the confusion, Conduct points should be tied in this debate and if my opponent wil not agree so in the opening round, I will post no further arguments in this debate.
Abortion

I will have to cut this part of my last argument short because of my time shortages. I thank you in advance for this interesting debate! And I'd like to point something out before I continue the debate: "According to the definition and my argument in the previous post, a fetus is, quite literally, the killing of an innocent human." You mean abortion? Sorry to find holes in your argument but that led me to question the sentence. Now to my rebuttal. "Furthermore, you have not presented scientific evidence against my argument that a fetus is not human." Is an egg a chicken? A fetus is a potential human being, but it cannot live independently from it's host for obvious reasons and therefore is not yet a person. And since nearly all abortions take place during the first trimester where the fetus is in this position, it's probably not going to be considered a human. It's like saying a piece of dandruff or hair from my head is human, BUT not a human being. In that sense, neither would a zygote that would form into a parasitic like fetus.
Abortion

=== Has, it has the potential to, but if endangered it either will most likely not have the potential to. If early signs from ultrasounds and sonograms point out that there is a deformity/disability in the fetus then you can't really state that the human fetus is really a human. === By this logic someone in a wheelchair isn't human. Note that the potential is enough, because there are always variables -- but they generally do not change the species itself. === Regardless of whether a fetus is considered a human being or not, women will continue to carry out abortions. ... My answer: Yes, because abortion should be considered a misdemeanor, and it only should be a misdemeanor if and only if the fetus is in grave danger or has a deformity or life long illness === From dictionary.com: innocent as it applies to our discussion: –adjective 1. free from moral wrong; without sin; pure: innocent children. 2. free from legal or specific wrong; guiltless: innocent of the crime. Since you have failed to contest the whole of my argument that a fetus is human, I'll assume you agree. According to the definition and my argument in the previous post, a fetus is, quite literally, the killing of an innocent human. No, a fine won't stop illegal abortions, and neither will a full-blown law, I acknowledge that. However, I believe it will slow them and put those responsible in prison. Murder is against the law, but there are still murders -- but this does not mean we need to repeal the laws against murder because it is not 100% effective. Furthermore, you have not presented scientific evidence against my argument that a fetus is not human. You have presented legal evidence. We are NOT discussing legal evidence. The law is pro-choice, of course it will not consider the fetus a human. In conclusion, I have tried to prove that: 1) A fetus is human. (My opponent has not presented scientific evidence as to why this is not so.) 2) A fetus is innocent. 3) An abortion is the killing of an innocent human being. 4) Therefore, abortion should be illegal. Thanks for the debate!
Abortion

"Do fetuses walk upright and speak? Well, no. However, the fetus has the potential to..." Has, it has the potential to, but if endangered it either will most likely not have the potential to. If early signs from ultrasounds and sonograms point out that there is a deformity/disability in the fetus then you can't really state that the human fetus is really a human. "Now, that being said, I'd like to ask my opponent -- do you think that for the killing of an innocent human life, that a mere fine should be imposed?" Regardless of whether a fetus is considered a human being or not, women will continue to carry out abortions. Considering to that labeling a fetus with the title human is very subjective, you can't really call abortion the killing of an innocent human life. Maybe you're right, a mere fine probably won't stop women from having abortions, but what else would you incorporate? Levying a high tax on the abortion clinics? And adding an even higher tax on a woman's bill after her abortion? Going back to considering if a human fetus should be considered human... The fetus has been considered human very rarely, not until there have been noticeable movements of the fetus called "quickening". The Catholic Church actually allowed abortions to be carried out until they heard of this in 1869. http://www.religioustolerance.org... Along with that, today's laws from through out the world are written to protect the rights of BORN human beings and their rights. And no one has really applied these laws legally towards fetuses. So now back to your question, you ask me if I consider the fine I have presented to be a good punishment for a person who has had an abortion? My answer: Yes, because abortion should be considered a misdemeanor, and it only should be a misdemeanor if and only if the fetus is in grave danger or has a deformity or life long illness. Commencing an abortion on a fetus that is already close to, or already fully developed should have much stricter action taken upon than just a minuscule fine.
Abortion

I'm going to try to prove a fetus is a human being. First let us talk about the definition of a human. A human is any member of the hominid family, characterized by upright walking, and articulate speech; A human is a member of the genus Homo and especially a member or Homo Sapiens. Now, in order to fit into the species Homo Sapiens, which all of us are, you must: - Have eukaryotic cells. E cells are cells that have many complex structures called organelles, each with its own purpose. All things in Kingdom Animalia have eukaryotic cells. - Have the same DNA sequence. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is what makes us individuals and who we are. If I am not mistaken, about 98% of a human gene is the same as anyone else; it is that other 2% that makes us different from everyone else. - As said before, have the potential to walk upright (usually, for instance, paraplegics cannot walk upright -- but they are still human) and articulate (again, if you cannot do this because of a disease, you are still human). Fetuses have the potential to do this if given enough time. Those are the requirements for being a human. However, the main requirements are a and b, because c has exceptions (Again, such as disease, paralysis, etc). The question now: Does a human fetus meet these requirements? The answer to all of them is yes. Does the fetus have eukaryotic cells? Genetic inheritance: When the sperm and egg, both eukaryotic cells, collide, they create another eukaryotic cell -- the zygote, which is something we all were. A fetus has eukaryotic cells. Do fetuses have the same DNA sequence? All fetuses share the same 96-98% of DNA with us. The same is with all people; the remaining two to four percent are what make us individual. Do fetuses walk upright and speak? Well, no. However, the fetus has the potential to -- and will, within two years, when they are physically and mentally able (which varies between everyone) speak and walk upright. It is quite safe to say a human fetus is, indeed, human. Now, that being said, I'd like to ask my opponent -- do you think that for the killing of an innocent human life, that a mere fine should be imposed? I also ask for my opponent to dispute my above article if needed.
Abortion

*...and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).* I have a way for allowing abortions to still be carried out with, we should impose a high tax added on with all other fees that occur with abortion, this will help discourage any other *logically unjustified* abortions from occurring. Along with that you could penalize the couple from conceiving a child for a period of time so that they can think twice before committing another action like this. *I believe that the only cases abortion should be accepted are when the mother and fetus are in grave danger.* But what about those families that are in a financial pit of disgrace? I mean sure, some facilities do provide abortion patients with ways to pay for the procedure... I.E: http://www.nyabortion.com... But some just don't, and since some people don't have insurance to cover for it, they are left in a debt hole. Or is that covered by the new Health Care reform?
Abortion

Less than 1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; about 7% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient). [1; 2; 3] I think this pretty much, by my opponent's criteria, shows abortion is wrong. He says he only wants it done for the less than 8% of the 1.2 million fetuses aborted a year. Quite frankly, I am con abortion fr the reason that over 90% are selfish reasons. I believe that the only cases abortion should be accepted are when the mother and fetus are in grave danger. SOURCES 1: http://www.abortionno.org... 2: http://www.guttmacher.org... 3: http://womensissues.about.com... (PAGE 113)
Abortion

"Abortion -- the intentional killing of a premature fetus, especially one in the womb of a human female. Kill -- to cause something living to die, specifically, stop all activities that identify life. Human Fetus -- (referred to from hereon as simply a fetus) an unborn human baby." I do agree with you on these definitions, now I shall say my part in why I think it's good (It only morally wrong in my view point when done for no legitimate reason.) Abortion is beneficial at some point, mainly because it helps with women who are a potential health risk to remove what may cause them a fatality. - http://www.nytimes.com... In this, calling it killing is pretty subjective, I personally have a bias towards it being a some what reasonable procedure only if it's followed through for legitimate reasons. If not for saving the life of a mother, halting the pregnancy of a child who may have attributed deformities, autoimmune conditions that harm the fetus or its future life or halting a child based on the financial level they are in, then it's murder to me.
Euthanasia Must Be Legalized

Hello Sir. This is a very interesting topic. I myself have religious views that I believe, but I will not let that get in the way of the debate Source:https://www.medicalnewstoday.com... The title of the article is assisted suicide. We think of suicide of ending your life by your own will. Euthanasia is not dying on your will. Dignity does not matter in this debate. Adults should not decide the faith of kids health. Kids are willing to fight and I don't think they would want to give up on the fight. Dictating decisions about their life should not be allowed. I will be using an example now to state my points 1. Kids with cancer don't give up. They want to keep fighting and beat cancer. Cancer is one the most deadly diseases in America and if we give up by letting them die, we go back to square 1. We do not want to back to square 1, where we automatically want to kill them off 2. Sure, even if it legalized, parents would not want to do it. They do not want to outlive their children. They want their children to keep fighting. My parents would not use it and I do not think any other parents would either. 3. There are many moral concerns with this. I will not put my religious views on this but their would be a lot of backlash and the medical world would erupt into chaos. REBUTTAL: I don't think dignity argument can be made. They are dying. There is no dignity in dying. Unless in war, which is not what were talking about I know this is a sensitive issue at the moment. This is a great debate argument to talk about and I think this will be a good debate
Welfare Shouls not Be Abolished

Hello daley, and hello everyone else. I will argue that welfare should be abolished, worldwide, and should not be introduced anywhere. 1.) I will argue that it (a)disincentives production, (b)incentives underemployment and unemployment, which (c)contribute to poverty 2.) I will argue that there is no negative causal relationship, direct or indirect, between welfare and crime. 3.)Furthermore I will argue that it cannot help people get a basic standard of living. If welfare can be achieved in any event, potential recipients would have been better off in a capitalist economy an an unregulated labor market. I hope to have a civil and productive debate, and hopefully we'll both learn something.
Yoga pants look better on Girls than Skinny Jeans

s://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com...; alt="" /> s://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com...; alt="" />Nuff' said......."Skinny jeans make the legs look longer and if cut properly show the butt of just as well if not better then the yoga pants. You can also wear heels with skinny jeans thereby making the legs look longer and sexier."What women in their right mind wants to have to take the time to trim their pants, and wear heals all day in order to show off their butt when they could just wear yoga pants and be way more comfortable.
Yoga pants look better on Girls than Skinny Jeans

Wearing yoga pants as a fashion is like wearing pyjamas outside the house. It is not fashion forward thinking and while comfortable and all they are still like pyjamas and not like real clothing. I am all for comfort. If people want to wear baggy track pants and hoodies all the power to them. But I would hardly call that fashionable. Skinny jeans make the legs look longer and if cut properly show the butt of just as well if not better then the yoga pants. You can also wear heels with skinny jeans thereby making the legs look longer and sexier. If you wear heels with yoga pants you look like a hoochy mama
Yoga pants look better on Girls than Skinny Jeans

"Yoga pants define the labia majora and minora (otherwise known as the camel toe) and while some may find that sexy I think it is kind of gross."First, yoga pants to not define the "camel toe". They are more of a push up braw, only for the butt. And sir, if you do not think that is attractive then I question your sanity. "Also, yoga pants are not a fashion and are worn by people that are too lazy to get dressed up and look good."I know many women who somedays wear yoga pants, and somedays don't. I've asked them why they wear yoga pants, and though I half expected to hear this, none of them said it was because they were to lazy, or because they wanted to define themselfs. They all said they wore them because they are comfortable. I myself have never been in a pair, however I'll take a womans word for it.P.S. I think most women know yoga pants make them more attractive, they just don't say it aloud.