BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jerusalem is the Jewish Holy Capital

Thank you for accepting. Why Jerusalem is the Jewish Holy Capital Jews have been living in Jerusalem for three millennia. Constituting the largest group of single inhabitants there since the 1840's. Jerusalem contains the Western Wall of the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism. The city has long been celebrated within the religion, and holds ancient significance to the Jewish people. It is mentioned in the Torah 669 times and Zion (which usually means Jerusalem, sometimes the land of Israel) appears 154 times. Additionally, Jews always pray facing Jerusalem. Concerning Islam, no reference is made to Jerusalem in the Qur'an. Muhammad never visited Jerusalem and it bares little (if any) historical importance to Muslims. Any interest is primarily political, and not religious. Examples of its Significance to Judaism -Facing towards Jerusalem when praying. (As stated above) -the constant mentioning of its name in prayers. The main example being the closing of Passover service. At the end of Passover seder and at the conclusion of Yom Kippur, Jews exclaim "L'shanah haba'ah b'Yerushalayim". (meaning "Next year in Jerusalem") (In Israel, one concludes, "L'shanah haba'ah b'Yerushalayim habenuyah"- ("Next year in the rebuilt Jerusalem.") -On Tisha B'Av, the Ninth of Av, Jews mourn for the destruction of both Temples, sitting on the floor of the synagogue to read the Book of Lamentations to a cantillation. -the shattering of glass at the end of wedding ceremonies is to remember the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of the Jewish people. -other special days and holidays celebrating the city. Including "Yom Yerushalayim" (Jerusalm Day) The books of Psalms highlights this special significance: "If I forget thee Oh Jerusalem, let my right hand wither, let my tongue stick to my palate if I do not remember you, if I do not set Jerusalem above my greatest joy" (Psalm 137) In modern times, one of the early Zionist pioneers Natan Chofshi also expresses the importance of Jerusalem: "I used to pray"for the return to Zion"I particularly recall the prayers during Rosh Hashanah" 'And on that day the horn will blow proclaiming the return of the lost in Assyria and Egypt and their return to the holy mountain of Jerusalem.' (1.) http://unitedwithisrael.org...
Morality is Objective

I do agree that people read and interpret things based on opinions. But that doesn't also mean that humans cannot also based their opinions on truth. And since you and I know the Bible to be true, we can base our opinions on the truth that the Bible presents. The verse I gave you claimed that everybody is aware of the moral law. You responded by first claiming that the Bible has contradictions on what was moral/immoral and I refuted that point. Then you went on to say that I might have taken the verse out of context...that was also refuted. What will you say now? Now you claim that "we cannot have a universal immovable principle if people have a different belief." We are now right back where we started. This is the same thing as saying that morality is subjective. People do not really have different ideas about the basic moral principles. You first backed up your claiming by analyzing the acts of societies in the past. It seems I refuted that point as well. Now you backup your claim by saying people interpret "Love thy neighbor as thyself" differently. But no matter how they love people (in a barbaric way or in a physical way) they are still aware of the moral principle of loving other people. It was then stated that "shifts in time and place mean that there are unknown cultural references that we cannot possibly understand now, even if text that we think we are reading correctly." This sounds like a cop out to me. Romans 2:15 is very straight forward and is very easy to understand just like John 11:35. There are many difficult verses in the Bible but this is not one of them. I don't think that the definition of right is circular to morality. The words moral and right are synonyms. Nothing in my argument is circular. As for what morality points to...I would say it points to God. And God, who inspired the book of Romans, said that the moral law was written on our hearts. Lastly, it was stated that "However If I had to look in the bible to see what is right or wrong, then morality is subjective to what I believe. If I looked in the quaran (If I spelled it right) I would find a somewhat different moral code." But let us see what the Koran says about morality. The book of the Muslims states this: "It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong)," (3:3). Therefore the Koran actually states that what the Bible says about morality is correct. Do the Muslims have some immoral actions condoned in their holy book? Yes..that is because the book is flawed and written by a womanizer. It is fully expected for a man who put his personal desires over his morality to condone such actions as wife beating. The ancestors you had still were aware of the moral code God created. They merely were mistaken about where it came from. I will await to hear from you again. Source: http://www.noblequran.com...
Morality is Objective

It is just the way I talk. I use the word perhaps a lot. Perhaps it is a habit ;-) You agree that people read subjectively. Therefore we cannot have a universal immovable principle if people have a different beleif. For instance Islam teaches I am telling you morality is subjective. You are telling me God is objective which I agree with. However in God's infinite love he gave us freedom to choose right or wrong. Not everyone knows this. . ""Love thy neighbour as thyself" has meant various things at various times: A land of barbarians may feel quite free to brutalize others just as they brutalize themselves5, whereas band of 1970s hippies spread love in a much more physical way. Over time, morals are simply read into texts differently, hence why religious prohibitions change over time too. We read text literally, chronologically and philosophically, but both The Koran and much of The Bible was written in prose, in poetry, using many symbolic aspects and word games. Shifts in time and place mean that there are unknown cultural references that we cannot possibly understand now, even if text that we think we are reading correctly." http://www.holybooks.info... The definition of right is circular to morality because the definition of right is what is morally correct. The definition of wrong is what is morally incorrect. So right and wrong points back to what is moral or not. Then what do morals point to? I say the bible. You say our hearts. However If I had to look in the bible to see what is right or wrong, then morality is subjective to what I believe. If I looked in the quaran (If I spelled it right) I would find a somewhat different moral code. If I followed the way of my ancestors and believed in the Great Spirit I would also find a different moral code. Therfore morality is subjective. Not having a definite principle. I look forward to your response.
Morality is Objective

You claim that "Perhaps Romans 2:15 is out of context a little. How about Romans 2:14? "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:" I noticed that you start off your sentence with the word perhaps...this indicates to me that you are unsure of what you are saying. But nevertheless I will address your point. The verse you gave mentioned that the law was not given to the Gentiles in the same way that the Jews knew of the law. The Jews had the law written down on stone tablets and had a little advantage. But...the next verse says that the law was written on their hearts and therefore they (the Gentiles) were aware of the law that God created. In other words, my point still remains valid. God still has a moral law that all people are aware of. Verse 12 "All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law." Verse 16 "This will take place on the day when God judges people"s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares." Verse 16 is merely saying that people will perish when that day arrives. It is not saying that people are not aware of the moral law that God has created. It is saying that all people are aware of the law (they just received it differently) and they will be judged when the day of judgment arrives. While it may be true that people read subjectively, this does not mean we cannot understand truth. We also have an advantage when the truth is coming from the Bible. John 11:35 states that "Jesus Wept." This is something that is well understood and there is really nothing subjective about that statement. Same with the Romans 2:15 verse, it states that the Gentiles and the Jews are aware of the law that God has created. This verse is pretty clear on what it is talking about. I am aware that Morality is the distinction between right and wrong. I am the one who supplied that definition in the opening argument. But how is the definition of right and wrong circular reasoning? Can you explain that claim? You ask "What is morality objective to?" I don't exactly understand the question but God is the one who created the objective moral law according to the Bible. I agree that beliefs are subjective...but morality is not merely a belief. If it were to merely be a belief...morality would be meaningless. People could never tell people what was right and wrong because all they would have is their opinions on what morality is. And peoples opinions on what is moral does not create an ethical standard in which people have to follow. Only God can do that which is why him being perfectly moral created a moral law in which all people would be made aware of it. Sources: http://www.esvbible.org... https://www.google.com... https://carm.org...
Morality is Objective

Alrighty then. Let's get cracking. Perhaps Romans 2:15 is out of context a little. How about Romans 2:14? "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:" https://www.biblegateway.com... Notice the word Gentiles. We should know what that means. It means non Jews. Also notice what it says, they "have not the law". Paul is a funny writer that way. Begins every sentence with a "For" or "So" or "this". You have to therefore read every single sentence to get the full picture. Also verse 16 " In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel" So are we in that time yet? No. I don't think so. http://www.donimon.org... Also we read subjectively. We can translate verses in our own light. We hear what we want to hear. Therfore if we read subjectively we translate subjectively and act on the law subjectively. http://www.holybooks.info... Here. http://www.sacred-texts.com... Hopefully this opens for you this time. Morality is the distinction between what is right or wrong. The definition of right is a circular reasoning. Right: morally good, justified, or acceptable. https://www.google.ca... The same goes with wrong. Wrong; unjust, dishonest, or immoral. https://www.google.ca... Therefore we must agree that what is right and wrong is objective to morality. But what is morality objective to? Morality, principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.https://www.google.ca... What are principles? Principle: a rule or belief governing one's personal behavior. https://www.google.ca... A belief is subjective all beliefs are subjective therefore by definition Morality is subjective. I thank you for an interesting round and hope to hear from you soon.
Morality is Objective

1. Showing that societies have done immoral things does not prove that morality is subjective. It only proves that people are evil. All people are aware of the moral law according to Romans 2:15...but this doesn't mean that we all follow it. And we could go into details about what certain societies did wrong (Cannibalism) but "the moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other" (Lewis 13). In other words, when you look at the immoral actions of societies, you are comparing them to a real morality recognizing that there is a real right and wrong. 2. The Bible has no contradictions whatsoever. But I will address yours since it is about morality. I could not open your link but the Bible says that "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13). There is a difference between murder and killing. Murder is wrong and killing is not wrong. Murder is actually defined as the unlawful killing of a person. 3. I am not only saying that morality comes from God, but I am claiming that God created an objective moral law which he put into every humans hearts. 4. By the way, your verse from 2 Timothy only says this: "...in the last days" men will be lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God" It only speaks of the way people will behave. It doesn't mean that people will forget what is moral and immoral, it only says that people will follow their own pleasures. Good job with the counter arguments. I usually don't get this kind of honest debating when I do it with other people. I also look forward to your next response. Sources: http://www.esvbible.org... http://www.esvbible.org... I used C.S Lewis' book Mere Christianity as well.
Morality is Objective

Hello and thank you for making this debate. Well I personally believe that morality is subjective because... The definition of morality and therefore morality is subjective to many different cultures and societies. https://philosophynow.org... The bible claims that all morality comes from God and is implanted in our hearts. However the bible has contradictions on what is moral or not. One of the ten commandments is you shall not kill. However the bible supports killing in war or other instances. http://www.sacred-texts.com... Also if morals are implanted in everybody then we wouldn't be having this debate we would all know what morality is and what is moral or not. List all the things you think are moral than and I guarantee you their will be people against some of what you say. The bible also states that in the last days many people will lose their moral principles and find pleasure in what is wrong. http://www.bibletoday.com... Therefore what is moral is subject to change and therefore subjective. Also you have created a truism with your saying that morality comes from God. Since all things good come from God. Everything ever made or thought of came from God therefore I won't argue that point since in this case it is unarguable. I instead will argue that morality is subjective such as the debate title states. I look forward to your response. .
Morality is Objective

I read one of your other debates on this topic and I thought it might be fun to argue this topic. I will be arguing that objective morality (or that morality is objective) does exist and was created by the Christian God. Definitions: (used online dictionaries) Objective-Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. Subjective-based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Morality-The distinction between what is right and wrong 1. Religious Argument: Since we are both Christian I thought I would use this argument. The Bible teaches that there is an objective moral law that exists and that everyone knows about it. Romans 2:15 says "They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them." In other words, people were created by God to know the distinction between what was right and wrong. Therefore people are aware of the objective moral law. Whether they are moral or not is another matter entirely. 2. Almost all people are aware that murder, lying, stealing, and etc...are wrong. it seems crazy to believe that every person just so happens to have the same subjective opinion on these basic moral principles. There must be some sort of universal moral law that exists. I made my opening argument short on purpose to keep things simple. If you wish to make things more complicated I will be happy to get more involved in this debate. Debate Format: Debaters go back and forth refuting each other points until the last round. This is not going to be the typical debate. But I hope we might each learn a lot. Links: https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com...
Morality is Objective

In conclusion... The fact you refer your beleifs from the Bible shows that all your morals are dependent on the word of God and is therefore dependant not on your heart but on the word of God. If our moral choices are based on the Bible it proves that morality is subjective. As I stated, and you agreed, some people are not sure which choices are right and wrong. The fact that they're confused and don't know for sure the correct choices proves that morality is subjective, people make a choice based on they're religion, past events, or for pleasure. So I guess this is the end. I thank you for your arguments and hope to be in more debates with someone with as much understanding and responsive as you in the future. As for me, my name is Brian N Johnson and thank you for reading.
Morality is Objective

I should have brought this back to life from the start but I want to bring up an interesting moral question for you. In order to prove that morality is objective and not subjective why don't we list what we believe is right and see if anyone wants to debate. Surely if morality is objective and based on a firm principle everyone would not argue what we have to say is right. 1. It is my firm belief that we go to church on Saturday. 2. We should not eat pork products or anything that is "Unclean" according to the teachings of God. 3. God is three in one. The Holy Spirit, God the Father, and God the Son. 4. Communion (the foot washing, the blood of Christ and his body the bread) Is acceptable in the eyes of God according to scripture. 5. When we die it is much like sleep, we don't go to heaven immediately. when we wake up we go to heaven to be judged. 6. Hell is not a place where you are suffering for an everlasting time. Instead you eternally dead and are not thought of again. 7. The pope is or is going to be the Antichrist as mentioned in revelation. 8. Having a sexual relationship with a family member is wrong. 9. Having a sexual relationship with animals is wrong. 10: Premarital sex is wrong. 11: Worshiping anything other than God is wrong 12: Suicide is wrong 13: Rape is wrong 14: Pornography is wrong Then there are things I'm unsure of. And surely if morality was objective I would know what is right and wrong. 1: Polygamy 2: Drinking alcoholic beverages. 3: Do I dare say it? Masturbation 4: Killing in revenge 5: Lying in a life or death situation 6: Drugs 7: Morality 8: Technology as robots 9: War By this list and the fact that because of culture, society and religion that these moral views are different in every individual I think it is obvious that morality is subjective.
The Christian God is Real

Thank you for this rich argument that you have responded back at me. I just had a hunch, just a hunch that your next argument will be on Gratuitous Evil? I was actually looking through the Internet one day, and I found out this website: http://infidels.org.... I looked through the website and found that your answer was very similar to his. I compared the two, and what did you know? They were exactly the same. How could this be? Well, this could only be a cause of copy-and-paste plagiarizing. Plagiarizing is not a way to go on in a proper debate and is illegal. You have obviously just added just one sentence in the front and back of your argument without real knowledge of the actual writing you have written. If you are a viewer, please see the comparison in between the two and judge for yourselves. Now, since this writing is not of your doing, I will consequently be nullifying this argument unless Con decides he will not copy-and-paste without real knowledge of the information he are plagiarizing off of. If you continue on with this, I will contact the administrators of this site to discontinue your plagiarizing and remove you from the site. Thank you.
The Christian God is Real

I look forward to a thoughtful exchange, and I hope that whoever is reading this debate, even Con, will read this without the thoughts already set in stone in your mind and take this with an open mind. Throughout this debate, I will be asserting that God is real and that He is the Creator. We live in a world in which we can see evidence surrounding us that God exists. For example, the fine-tuning of life. We would not be here if the gravitational force, electromagnetic force, ratio mass for protons and electrons, etc. was off by a unit something as small as one part in 10 to the 40th power, or even less than that. There are so many examples of fine-tuning, it would be next to impossible for life to reign and even thrive on Earth. The possibility of this specific world we live in is so small that it would only be right for a Creator. The Bible, which is a historically accurate source, tells us that there was a man named Jesus, who was God's son, and he rose from the dead. God can only raise people from the dead, so the resurrection calls for a God. If you might challenge that Jesus did NOT get resurrected, just mention it and I will give my reasoning behind the assertion. God has been worshipped for thousands and thousands of years now. How would He be celebrated for so long if God was just a hoax made up by humans? God was obviously not just a made up figure; He was actually leading the Israelites by his voice and through prophets. There is just too much evidence that there is a God, and absolutely no evidence that there isn't. I look forward to Con's response.
Tuition-Free College

https://nortonnorris.com... 1. The money has to come from somewhere, more taxes for the upper-middle and upper class. 2. Younger generations won't know how to handle finances. 3. Devalues a college degree. Students may not go to class because they are getting their money's worth, it's free. 4. TOO MANY people would go to college. Again taxes will go up for upper classes. 5. With more people choosing to attend public colleges because of their tuition-free status, many schools might have to create wait lists or expand the ones they already have. State budgets could become strained, which might lead to cuts and decreased access to the programs that students want to take. 6. Public colleges and universities might become less worried about wasteful spending since they won't have to compete with other schools on cost. And that could strain public budgets even further.
Tuition-Free College

If an American college student is able to graduate with less than $10,000 in student loan debt, they are considered lucky (the average is $37,000). However, students from other countries that have tuition free college have that luxury; most of their loans come from living expenses and books. Without the weight of student loan debt, more college graduates might buy houses rather than renting apartments. They might buy cars, spend more on healthy food, travel more: In essence, they could contribute more to the economy & by negating the large bill of a college education, we could see an increase in the amount of students able to attend college. This then creates a more well-educated workforce and a population that has better critical thinking.