BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage is Morally Acceptable Even Within Christianity

As for Paul, the fact that he was a great follower of Jesus does not mean that every opinion he had was the law of God. The fact that one part of the Bible written by a different author than the rest said his writing was directly inspired by God does not prove that it actually is. Using the Bible to support the Bible goes nowhere. Here we come to a difference of views. Ways of looking at the Bible. I am viewing it as a compilation of historic records around many different times written by wise people. That does not mean that I am not Christian, I still am. It has inaccuracies because of the time. For example, Genesis says the Earth is 6000 years old. That was written a long time ago, so why do we still accept the same number of years? Also the age of the Earth has been proven to be way older. It also, because of the time, says that bugs have four legs. Neither of these are true. Does that mean everything in the Bible is wrong? Of course not. What about more important issues? Well, it says that slavery is morally acceptable and that slaves should show complete obedience to their master. Ephesians 6:5 says, " Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ,". Now, let's imagine Jesus if he were around the time of abolition. Would he be on the side of the Confederacy or the side of the Union? The Union, not because history is written by the victors but because they slavery didn't go with his ideas of love and kindness. What about the women's rights movement? Genesis 3:16 says, "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. ". That doesn't go with women's rights. But if Jesus were around at the time of the women's rights movement, he would be on the side of the feminists. Other than just themes of love, this is also supported by the fact that from the Old to New testaments, God becomes more forgiving. Of course we can't judge God like a person, but it is clear that laws change, from strict rules, harsh judgment, and chosen people to love, forgiveness, and acceptance. So it all comes down to the over-used, "What would Jesus do?" Would he side with letting love happen in obviously loving same-sex relationships, or with the strict, old testament style ancient rules? With this knowledge and our moral/religious obligation to help the world and those in need, it is clear that gay marriage should be accepted by all churches.
Gay Marriage is Morally Acceptable Even Within Christianity

I accept... As con, I will argue the fact that the Bible does not condone same sex marriage or relations. I would also argue that what the Old Testament says does still matter in context of all 66 books of Protestant Canon, though the New Testament should suffice in proving my point. Paul does record multiple times in letters to the Corinthians, Romans, Timothy, and others that homosexuality is a sin that will be punished at judgment. Pro claims that Paul was simply referring to the sin of homosexual rape that would be condemned as much as heterosexual rape. While Paul certainly would have condemned homosexual rape, this would not have been the main action he was referring to. Scholars believe that as early as the second century before Christ, Rome had outlawed homosexual rape. If outlawed, it would not have been prevalent enough for Paul to use the term homosexuality and it not be accepted as everything under that umbrella term, whether rape or love. In fact, homosexual marriage was a known fact and practiced in the empire. Emperor Nero was involved in three gay unions. In one of these he is even reported to have worn a wedding veil, and he would choose whether to be the male or female in the relationship. http://historynewsnetwork.org... Many use Jesus' command not to judge as reason for the Bible's acceptance of homosexuality, or at least lack of condemnation. Unfortunately, they do not continue reading the passage. He says we will be judged as we judge others. This passage is saying that we should not base our judgment on prejudice and preconceived notions or we will be judged by those ourselves. However, according to the Bible we will all be judged according to God's word. Therefore it is not the Christian judging, it is actually the Bible. Another passage that is often referenced is that in which the adulterous woman is brought before Jesus. In an act of great mercy he declares that the one without sin should be first to cast a stone. Those who wanted to stone her quickly realized that they were at fault and left. Jesus then says that he would not condemn her either. When using this verse to support homosexuality, most stop there. One small sentence is usually forgotten in this story. He says,"Go, and sin no more." Though he forgives her and does not condemn, he still recognizes her sin and commands her to stop with his authority and that of Scripture.
Gay Marriage is Morally Acceptable Even Within Christianity

In this debate, I will be arguing FOR Christian acceptance of gays. In arguments about gay marriage, people against it always say, "The Bible says it's wrong, so it is." And I always would reply, even though I'm a Christian, "You can't force your religious values on someone else. Forgiveness and acceptance are more important." But with various Christian denominations accepting same-sex marriage, I started to realize that we should consider the context of the passages where the Bible condemns homosexual acts. The ones in the Old Testament are less important. It only mentions them three times, and we can't just take whatever we want from the Old Testament and not do things that are mentioned multiple times. The others are in letters from Paul. He only mentions them along with drunkards, thieves, and murderers. He was talking about the gay sex that he saw, none of which was like the loving same-sex couples begging for rights today. The only examples he saw of homosexual activity were of rape from Roman soldiers on little boys or the prostitution of slaves. These would have been acceptable if they were heterosexual, either. The bigger themes of the Bible are love and kindness. Let us accept these lovers' differences, and let them love, cast aside our prejudice. (1) http://www.notalllikethat.org...
pringles or lays

You are what you eat. Do you go full potato or 42% potato? Pringles Ingredients: Dried Potatoes, Vegetable Oil (contains one or more of the following: Corn Oil, Cottonseed Oil, Soybean Oil, and/or Sunflower Oil), Rice Flour, Wheat Starch Maltodextrin, Mono- and Diglycerides, Salt, Dextrose. [1] Lays Ingredients: Potatoes, Vegetable Oil (Sunflour, Corn, and/or Canola Oil), and Salt [2] In other words, if you decided to pull a potato out of a garden, slice it thin, drop it in some vegetable oil, and sprinkle it with salt, for a tasty treat just like mom used to make, you’d have a Lay’s potato chip. Lay’s simply does it in mass production. We make these trade-offs all the time as consumers. Do you: 1. Buy less-expensive processed garbage made to resemble some food product? Examples: Tang/Hi-C, Spaghetti-Os, Ramen Noodles, Fast Food Hamburgers, Sugar Cereals, margarine, soda, artificial sweeteners, baloney, cheep beer, etc. 2. Buy slightly more expensive products with better ingredients? Examples: 100% juice, tomatoes for momma’s homemade sauce, hand-made pasta, ground beef and steaks on the grill, butter, tea or coffee, real sugar, chicken or turkey, craft beers, etc. Sometime we’re on a budget and that’s ok. But for Pringles, is it worth it? With Pringles, you’re getting 42% potatoes [3] (dehydrated and flaked), pressed into an unnatural shape, and a whole bunch of other garbage. With Lay’s, you get actual potatoes, thinly sliced. Let’s go shopping, shall we? Shopping at walmart.com, I found: Pringles Can [4]5.96 oz can for $1.58 Lay’s Classic Potato Chips [5]10.5 oz Bag for $3.02 Is Pringles really cheaper? Cost Per Ounce:Pringles Potato Crisps: $0.265 per ozLay’s Potato Chips: $0.288 per oz On a per ounce basis, Pringles is indeed are 2.3 cents cheaper per ounce. In other words, the total cost difference on six ounces (one can of Pringles) of product is 13.5 cents. Your argument suggests this savings of 13.5 cents is totally worth it. But let’s do a potato adjustment, shall we? 1 Can of Pringles5.96 oz x 42% (% potatoes per product) = 2.50 oz of potatoes per can Now our unit costs skyrockets to:$1.58 / 2.50 oz = $0.63 per oz. Well it looks like you’re getting duped by the man to pay more that twice the unit cost per potato by purchasing Pringles vs Lay’s. You’re paying for all that filler and emulsifiers and preservatives and stuff that is even rumored to give you cancer. [6] Why? Because Pringles knows that junk costs less that potatoes and they rip you off. In summary: Lay’s = $0.288 per ounce of potato, no unnatural ingredients. Pringles = $0.63 per ounce of potato, lots of garbage included to rip you off. Stop being so cheap. Splurge and eat a real potato. You’re totally worth it. [1] https://www.pringles.com... [2] http://www.fritolay.com... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.walmart.com... [5] http://www.walmart.com... [6] http://www.snopes.com...
Atheism is not a religion

Poor BackwardSedan! Pro laid out bait for a fundamentalist, And got a debate with one of the 90% of humanity who isn't one. Then Pro refuses to participate in his own debate, Because without the box of fundamentalism, The arguments fall apart. Instead we get some weird and bombastic drivel. So the rest of this is for you, Dear reader: Pro claims he can say whether my cat is a believer or not -- But then doesn't! The question behind the answer, Of course, Is what the hell does it mean to "believe" something anyway? Many religions are essentially a set of social values, So to believe in them is a belief in social constraints and moral codes and God is never independent of those things, So what then does it mean to believe in that god? But atheism does that too. Without the humanism, Individualism, And other attendant ideologies, Disbelief would be a thoughtless 'whateverism'. With the ideological construct, Atheism becomes a religion, Buddhism is an example. Secular Humanism is another. So just accept the accusation, And the tax exemption that come with it.
Atheism is not a religion

Try to do booger. Your guess didn't even hit a flash dive of bottoming out from a cow chirp. Take one lucky guess why? Well luck on the open range to be pistol whipped by stoned barbie dolls who don't know how to use fiberglass con-dumbs for god's sake, You were a very big bad "say uncle" naughty boy and you used some very big homogenized words that you do not understand. "fundamentalism" what is that? Abrahamic, Gosh where did you stack your used con-dumbs? "Because your view on atheism is dependent totally on religious fundamentalism, " Awe well gosh golly gee gosh darned it all um no diaper daddy noddle brain put some dirt on your legs become a turkey in the morning. Had yah taken a viewership of the videos, Combined with the definition of what atheism is then that would be parked on the outside of a Gee Your Hair Smells commercial. "Since god cannot be defined, " Well garsh with a pincushion in your har, That grasps onto telephone poles while you have sex with your Justin Beiber collection, Yeah it can and thus atheism is defined as not only proven now, But as previously proven also. But not to an underachiever drillbit like you. "You can't say whether may cat is an atheist or a believer. " Yeah actually I can. 1. Prove you have a cat. 2. Supposing you do have a cat, A believer in what? 3. Since you've been an arrogant prick and really don't have the foggiest idea as to what you are squawking about, And I do, And have proven you wrong at every instance, Including this one, Guess what sparky? I'm gonna stay tight lipped about this one because believe me, I really can prove whether your cat is an atheist or a believer. Try to do booger. Nighty night.
Atheism is not a religion

I'll make one guess why: Because your view on atheism is dependent totally on religious fundamentalism, So much so that it is a form of fundamentalism itself. As the bastard child of Abrahamic religion, Your Atheism has all the same flaws. Since god cannot be defined, Atheism cannot be defined. You can't say whether may cat is an atheist or a believer. One more round. Try to do better.
Atheism is not a religion

"By evading the question, You've indicated your fear of answering, " No I reversed it and put it in your face like gooey pimples on a rectal itch gone viral. "Yet the implication of the question remains. " Nope oh great tire iron lung flat breasted junk. "I was just kidding anyway. " Course you were! You don't think I DON'T understand sarcasm? "Is my cat religious? " Now its going to be avoided again. Take oh about 30 guesses why?
Atheism is not a religion

By evading the question, You've indicated your fear of answering, And stuttered out some incoherent blubbering to boot. Yet the implication of the question remains. I was just kidding anyway. My cat would accept any miracle as a matter of course. He never bothers to wonder where his food comes from, Or what cat food even is. My cat would accept the existence of any possibility with no need to square any experience with any other observations. Is my cat religious?
Atheism is not a religion

You stated some intelligent things about socialism and about the worst president of all time, Donald Trump who has a lot in common with the god of the bible https://www. Debate. Org/debates/Things-that-Donald-Trump-the-worst-president-of-all-time-and-god-both-are-unclean-have-in-common/2/, But all you did was burp nothingness of Ren and Stimpy yak sauce of pre miss-steak evolution harmonica camp fire love songs.
Atheism is not a religion

"The only way you can be a bad atheist is to believe in god. " Matt Dillahunty "You don't get to put your unreason upon the same shelf with my reason. " Bill Maher "Atheism is a response to a single claim, That some god exists. We don"t believe that"s true so we"re atheists. And that"s all it means. " Jen peeples Atheism: 1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. Here"s some videos among hundreds to help you out and show that atheism is NOT a religion. http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=7o5h0DdcyTA&t=264s - Reasons for accepting atheism http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=WbxqvugoJuw - Proof that atheism is accurate and correct http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=E3rGev6OZ3w&t=130s - Penn Jillette: Reading the Bible (Or the Koran, Or the Torah) Will Make You an Atheist http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=_25w9CE73ak - Bill Maher - Atheism IS NOT a Religion http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=qHsFA7cp7M0&t=178s - Atheism a religion? http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=cUh91EP8ClE - The case for Atheism (Richard Carrier) http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=lDpEeHD54Mo&t=1397s - The Gospel According to Carrier http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=mLdjoEWOnec - A believers guide to Atheism in 9 minutes http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=wtO1e9breLs - Is Atheism a Dogmatic Religion? http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=TqhRlpjp4Dw - Atheist VS christian Jaclyn Glenn RULES: Prove that atheism is a religion. dsjpk5 will NOT be allowed to vote in the voting process.
Free education

I'm going to just jump into my opponent's case itself.1. Pro Admitted Disadvantage"if you think about it yes free education would cause more taxes. but most people dont have the money to afford college or university. and ARE being denied basic education simply by not having an opportunity. "She basically stated that "Yes, we have a disadvantage. But our advantages outweigh our disadvantages. "Except it doesn't. I have another disadvantage that has barely been touched by pro and I will now get to it.2. Pro tried to refute my point that people would stop going to Private Colleges. They're ignoring simple logic. If you're provided free higher education, why would you choose to go to a public college instead of a private one? It isn't hard to grasp. You didn't really have a point here other than "not necessarily. " Yes necessarily. I know I would, if it provided the same quality of education as a private college. Thats basically all they touched upon in their last speech. Now I will explain why I won the debate. In the first round, my opponent presented a decent case in which she stated that everyone needs a higher education and its only fair that everyone gets one. She made a few points about the need for basic education and how higher education gives it. I refuted these arguments by stating: (1) Everyone does not need a higher education (2) people are already taught basic education. These were their only two points I had to refute. I presented disadvantages which were ignored in their second speech. The aff brought up an exaggerated statistic with no source. Had no weight in the debate. She then added points to the debate saying "Education is the most important thing you can have. " "Everybody needs a higher education", "A lot of people can't go to college because it isn't free", "More people would be smarter. They would all have better jobs. " and finally "without education some people will be denied basic education. Half of these I had already refuted, and then I eventually argued against the new original ones she had brought up. In her last speech, she failed to even touch upon my attacks on her points and simply talked about my disadvantages she didn't refute at any other time. In this last speech, I saved my disadvantages. WEIGHING THE DEBATE:Aff: 0 Advantages 2 DisadsCon Wins.
Free education

i thank con for his argument but...... If you think about it yes free education would cause more taxes. but most people dont have the money to afford college or university. and ARE being denied basic education simply by not having an opportunity. Con stated "If we were to implement a free form of higher education, people would stop going to these private colleges" not necessarily giving a free form of higher education would give more people an opportunity to qualify for dream jobs that require college or university. . Imagine you didn"t have that kind of money, but you really want to study to be a lawyer. You need post-secondary education for that. But because you"re not able to pay for your educational needs you"re denied of being able to work in that profession. Therefore without free education students aren"t being treated equally. PRO IS WINNING.
Free education

i thank con for his argument. Education is the most important thing you can have. You can go anywhere with an education. Everyone should have access to higher educational opportunities. Just because you can't pay for it doesn't mean you shouldn't go. If higher education were free, more people would be smarter, would have brighter knowledge and better job opportunities. 71.3 percent of students drop out of college and university because of the costs. That"s near 3/4th of the population of college students. Without education some people will be denied basic education. Everybody needs to know the fundamental basics of reading, writing, comprehension, math and whatever else is necessary.
Free education

(Before I begin my official text, I'd like to say that I'm heavily biased toward my opponent's proposition therefore it will be interesting debating against it.)I'd like to thank my opponent for starting this debate, and I'm proud to be debating against him. I'm going to point out that he failed to create a clear resolution other than "free education". While I was going to argue that we already have that, it seems based on his argument text he believes that "higher education" should be free. I'm going to refute his points now.So, since he has failed to create definitions, I will make some of my own.Free Education: Attending a place of higher education, for example colleges and universities, for free.Basic Education: An understanding of basic mathematices (ie. multiplication, addition, etc), some history and science. 1. Everybody needs a higher education.Well, this is a bit of an assumption. While it would be beneficial to everyone if they had an education, there is no clear NECESSITY to have one. If someone, I'll name him Bob, finds a job at a construction site, he's not going to need to have an understanding of astro physics and quantum theory. What he will need, is a pair of strong arms that he can't get through school.His only other point was the need for basic education.2. Without free education some people will be denied basic education.Everyday, across this country, children wake up to go to our perhaps most effective means of government spending. The Public Schools. Here, kids learn what I've defined as basic education. They learn US History, they learn the history of Mesopatamia and Russia, they learn how to divide numbers, they learn that Velocity = distance/time. Higher education is not required to give people a basic education. In fact, higher education is defined as being above basic education.Now onto the Disadvantages of Free Education1. SpendingDo you honestly think, that as our government is struggling to finance high schools and middle schools they will be able to perhaps buy up all private universities, create their own, and manage them? No. We're already in a huge deficit and we need to cut back on spending, especially on things not necessary, like this.or we could have a communist revolution. Jk.2. Crowds out the private market.For hundreds of year reputable colleges and universities have given the highest education to those daring enough to walk their halls. If we were to implement a free form of higher education, people would stop going to these private colleges, who will without a doubt provide a higher quality of education than public colleges, and start going to a lesser college simply because its cheaper. This already happens in the private scale in terms of higher education, but making college free would make this issue skyrocket.Not only is this a violation against the individual, but is in fact a means of providing insufficient higher education to those who would generally go to somewhere like Yale or Stanford.I wait for my opponent's responses and expect a positive debate.