BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Teaching that is it immoral to eat meat is antichrist.

"Well, that escalated quickly."I implore the voters to think again when Stupidape claims to have fulfilled the Pro BoP. Pro's BoP is to prove that vegans inherently believe that consumption of meat is immoral, which has not been proven.With that I will narrow this debate into four key issues which you should base your vote on, all of which I believe I have won as Con.Voting Issue 1: Immorality =/= SinJust because sexual immorality is deemed a sin doesn't mean everything that is immoral is a sin. Slavery, sexism, etc. These are immoral concepts and are widely accepted as such, but the Bible never explicitly forbade them or deemed them sinful, or at a bare minimum Pro has not proven that the Bible deemed them sinful.Morality is a dynamic concept, and in a modern world, morality has shifted to where something that may have been deemed moral (consumption of meat) may be currently considered immoral, as the circumstances surrounding production and its impacts have changed. Con wins this issue.Voting Issue 2: Ending World HungerExtend this argument and its impacts. Veganism allows for a greater potential for feeding more people. This was not the case at the time Jesus was alive, as the meat production process has evolved. Con wins this issue. Voting Issue 3: Environmental ImpactsThis is apparently irrelevant to Pro. I disagree. Pull through every impact. Con wins this issue.Voting Issue 4: Factory Farming/Aquaculture InhumaneThis too is irrelevant to Pro, but isn't to me and shouldn't be to the voters. Pull through the argument and the impacts.Essentially, this entire debate revolves around one idea. Vegans can believe that meat consumption is okay, but only under circumstances where environmental impacts are minimal, it doesn't prevent someone else from accessing food they desperately need, and the animals are treated humanely. Con wins this issue.CONCLUSIONAs Jesus never ate factory farmed meat/fish, none of these apply to his consumption of meat. Therefore, vegans can still argue that while modern consumption of meat is immoral, historical consumption (such as when Jesus did so) is perfectly justified. As I have won this and all four of the supporting issues, I can see no way to cast a vote except for Con. Thank you.*Disclaimer: I'm not a vegan, I love meat*
Teaching that is it immoral to eat meat is antichrist.

Claim: In Christianity the words immoral and sin are used interchangeably. Warrant: "Bible Verses About Sexual Immorality" [5]Impact: Teaching eating meat is immoral is anti-Christ by denying that Jesus was the son of God by claiming that Jesus had sin. Since Jesus cannot be the son of God if he had sin and Jesus ate fish. Therefore, I have fulfilled my bop.As for the other issues, they seem largely irrelevant to the discussion. Thanks for the debate. Helped me clarify a few concepts in my mind. Now I understand that veganism is pure evil. Sources5. http://christianity.about.com...
Teaching that is it immoral to eat meat is antichrist.

Thanks Stupidape,Since my constructive provided direct clash with my opponent's, I think I will just go ahead and defend my constructive rather than wasting time dissecting their opening arguments which I have already largely refuted.1. Defense of Immorality =/= SinI understand that the text of the Bible is not inherently in line with the teachings of Jesus. I was using these examples to further my argument that an action can be deemed "immoral" by today's Western society but is not sinful. Vegans can argue eating meat is immoral without arguing it is sinful. In fact, this is the general premise of veganism. I have yet to see that vegans argue eating meat is a sin Instead they argue it is immoral. In Corinthians 5:21, which Pro quoted in R1, it does not say Jesus never committed any acts that may be deemed immoral by a different society.2. Defense of Ending HungerFactory farmed catfish is essentially just one form of aquaculture. I'll use "aquaculture" to refer to this from here on out. 2 pounds of feed per pound of catfish still means we're putting more resources in than 're getting out. Even if we were to shift to this lifestyle, it still has every impact discussed in my constructive, just to a slightly lesser extent. Pull through all of these impacts. That being said, this only applies to catfish. "It can take more than 5 pounds of fish from the ocean to produce just 1 pound of farmed salmon or sea bass." -Peta [1]Pro is trying to shirk their BoP by going the easy route of "99%vegan, and 1% fish." Do not allow him/her to do so. This is because even the 1% has negative impacts, which is one reason vegans may choose the diet they do. 3. Defense of Environmental ImpactsMy opponent didn't even touch this. Pull through every impact of the UN study as to how vegan diets help the environment. Vegans have a problem with meat consumption in its current manifestation, not meat consumption in general.As a precaution, I'll argue that aquaculture also has serious environmental impacts. One of the most important is nutrient discharge. [2] Nitrates and phosphates are two of the major chemicals discharged into surrounding areas, which are both major players in eutrophication. [3] This can lead to oceanic dead zones.4. Defense of Factory Farming InhumaneAgain, this wasn't touched. Pull through all my arguments and impacts. Vegans can be okay with the idea of meat consumption, just not the way it is produced today.As another preventative measure, I'll make the argument that aquaculture is inhumane. The fish are confined to a small area, perfect for spreading diseases. [4] It is also often overcrowded, and there are currently no regulations on humane treatment toward fish. [1] Pull through and magnify all of my inhumane impacts.Thank you, I look forward to the closing arguments![1] http://www.peta.org...[2] http://www.int-res.com...[3] http://oceanservice.noaa.gov...[4] http://www.epizone-eu.net...
Teaching that is it immoral to eat meat is antichrist.

Jesus' actions versus what's written in the Bible.There is a large difference between the Bible tolerating slavery versus Jesus physically enslaving a person. The Bible tolerates a lot of deeds. Nevertheless, if you could find a passage where Jesus physically enslaves a person, then teaching slavery is immoral would make the teacher antichrist. "These two examples serve as anecdotes to prove that though something may be deemed "immoral" it is not inherently sinful." warren42I don't see any difference in the Bible between immorality and sin. Modern culture may have deviated from the ways of God, but sin will remain constant. Feeding the HungryWhile feeding the hungry is a noble goal. There are other ways to achieve this goal. Simply shifting your diet away from the most resource intensive of all factory farmed cattle to factory farmed catfish would be a great start. "For catfish, it's about 2 pounds of feed per pound of fish." [3] Since fish contain omega-3s, you could save on supplements this way. My main problem with veganism is the aim for 0% meat. If you want to eat a diet of 99% meat free that's fine. It is that 1% meat that worries me. I give the counter proposal of an almost vegan diet. The diet would be 99% vegan, and 1% fish. The environmental impact would be practically the same as the 100% vegan diet. Finally, not everyone can be vegan and have a sustainable economy. There simply is not enough high-quality cropland. "The reason is simple – fruits, vegetables and grains must be grown on high-quality arable cropland. Livestock based foods (such as meat and dairy products from ruminant animals) are supported by lower quality, and far more widely available, lands that are only capable of supporting pastures.So, based on the last set of global census data (2008) we would require 3,068,444,911 acres of arable land. At that time, the global population was 6 billion and if a global one-child programme had been enacted, the ~3,212,369,959 of arable land that was globally available may very well have sufficed." [4] Impact, not everyone can be vegan. Animals can be raised on lower quality land and crops can't. Therefore, I suggest at least some meat should be consumed. Sources3. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...4. https://gpfarmblog.wordpress.com...
Teaching that is it immoral to eat meat is antichrist.

I don't think Christians are taking the vegan movement seriously enough. By teaching that it is immoral to eat meat, animal flesh, vegans are becoming antichrist. This is because Jesus Christ is the man without sin. Jesus ate a fish. Therefore, telling people to eat is immoral to eat meat is saying Jesus Christ had sin. Stating that Jesus Christ had sin is denying the son of God, and thus antichrist. There's no way around this, vegans will be killed by Jesus and burn in eternal damnation for being antichrist. I think a fitting death for people who think it is immoral to hunt bears would be for God to kill the vegans via bears. This would be justice. Vegans often tout that it is immoral to eat meat. Jesus ate fish, Luke 24:42 [0] Jesus had no sin. Corinthians 5:21 [1] Jesus cannot be the son of God if he sinned. Whoever denies the son is antichrist. John 2-22 [2] By claiming eating meat is immoral a person is antichrist. There's no way around this vegans are antichrist. 0. http://biblehub.com... 1. http://biblehub.com... 2. http://biblehub.com...
Family Guy has an explicit liberal agenda that ruins the show

I just watched you sit there and, with a completely straight face, tell every member of this website that you could not be entertained by a show because it occasionally mocks your political party of choice. I watched you hypocritically use your freedom of speech to oppose your American first amendment, and I watched you do so in a format that enabled you to challenge the entire website to prove you wrong. You're damn right I take this seriously, this is bigger than Family Guy or Republicans, this is about simple, basic rights, the rights your country was founded on, the rights your country had to fight against mine in order to procure, the very rights you are using to try and deny them to someone else. Yet here I am, once your enemy in the name of freedom, having to explain to you your own Constitution which at time of publication was one of a series of insults against my country that we took as akin to rubbing salt in a wound. I take this very seriously, and to be quite frank, you sicken me.
Family Guy has an explicit liberal agenda that ruins the show

Its jokes are spread around. As I said before, 142 episodes plus the feature length stuff. Unless each episode each has at least one anti-conservative joke then your entire argument is nothing but aimless whining. "Conservatives can take a joke just like anyone." Apparently not. "I understand that there is also other jokes attacking others in it" It's not an attack, it's parody, mockery, at the very worst you could call it light hearted. "The conservative cracks are the most obvious insults in the series" Because you feel they're aimed at you, because you feel like the victim, the most obvious insults are always the ones aimed at you, it's human nature to notice it more when they're being mocked than when something else is being mocked. It doesn't mean there really are more jokes about your beliefs than anyone else's and it most definitely doesn't mean that you have the right to sit there and say "you can't do that, waah waah waah." "I admit that family guy is getting more liberal as the series go on, I just think that the writers should spread the jokes to make everyone happy and make everyone laugh" Who isn't laughing? Oh, right, you are because it's dared to mock your precious political views or your religious beliefs (because an all-powerful deity can't appreciate something like humour and needs you to defend him, right? right?) Seriously, if it annoys you, don't watch it. I'm sure if Conservatives can take a joke then there must be some Republican comedy show on somewhere.
Family Guy has an explicit liberal agenda that ruins the show

Ok i see what you mean, although not stated nicely, i understand the problem you have. I am not saying that Seth doesn't have the right to voice his opinion, just that a satire show should have jokes that are spread around. I understand a few conservative jokes here and there, but if you ever watch any scene with Brian in it there will be some liberal views expressed. Conservatives can take a joke just like anyone. I say that family guy should take the south park approach, make fun of views you think are stupid but also make fun of some jokes you agree with. I understand that there is also other jokes attacking others in it, but here is my main point. The conservative cracks are the most obvious insults in the series. I admit that family guy is getting more liberal as the series go on, i just think that the writers should spread the jokes to make everyone happy and make everyone laugh
Family Guy has an explicit liberal agenda that ruins the show

I chose to take this argument not based on the idea that Family Guy is a Conservative show, it most definitely isn't. I chose to take this argument because my opponent seems to believe that Seth McFarlane doesn't have the right to express his opinion through his own show. My opponent stated "I feel that family guy is being ruined by Seth McFarlane and his liberal agenda he tries to throw into every joke in the episode" Family Guy currently has eight seasons and 142 episodes in total, as well as the various feature-length productions. All in all if you were to watch the entire Family Guy anthology you'd be sitting there for roughly 290 hours. My opponent desperately wants to give you the impression that that 290 hours would be nothing but anti-Conservative jokes. My opponent, it seems, is unwilling or unable to accept the fact that a show designed to entertain can call upon political humour or humour related to current issues. This isn't Seth McFarlane looking out of the television screen at you and screaming "Conservatives suck!" This is merely a man who is expressing his freedom to his opinion. Oh, and the show was originally hosted on, funded by and on several occasions censored by Fox. The very same Fox that spends pretty much every waking moment on it's news programs or pundit shows talking about how Obama is sinking the USS United States. Family Guy isn't even the first show to really do this, The Simpsons have offered numerous mock endorsements of Fox, criticised more than one Conservative politician and has mocked Family Guy too. South Park often has the character Eric Cartman holding Conservative of Fascist views (depending on the episode) only to have them thwarted each and every time, at one point directly parodying Rush Limbaugh's criticism of Obama. It's not new, it's by no means prohibited, and Conservatives aren't the only ones being mocked. Family Guy has more stones than most, mocking countries, political entities, religions, historical events and entire social sects. Quit whining and suck it up. Nothing is being "shoved down your throat" if your self esteem is so low that light-hearted mockery of your political views reduces you to this then don't watch the show. Seth has a right to parody whoever or whatever he pleases. If you mocked Obama only for him to suddenly say that you couldn't, you'd be in uproar. It works both ways, it's called Freedom of speech. I believe you guys hold it in quite high regard, such high regard in fact that you went and wrote all about it on some historical document which was then called The Bill of Rights which is part of the Constitution, and so important was it that it was the very first thing they put on this document, the first amendment, the first right granted to all. Man up. Sources: Bill of rights: http://en.wikipedia.org... Family Guy details: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Family Guy has an explicit liberal agenda that ruins the show

I know what you may be saying, why worry about a topic such as the one I have provided. I feel that family guy is being ruined by Seth McFarlane and his liberal agenda he tries to throw into every joke in the episode. I am a conservative and this isn't meant to offend any liberals out there, or anyone for that matter, just a topic I've wondered about for a long time. I can off the top of my think think of a few instances of such an event. There is an episode where Meg becomes a super religious Christian and tries to convert her family to it as well. Brian is an atheist. You all who haven't seen this episode may simply say so what, however, Seth McFarlane feels that it necessary to shove his atheistic beliefs down our throats when we are simply trying to be entertained. He has Christians burning books such as logic for first graders, and has Brians atheist view lead to the episodes revolution. I know that's not specifically a liberal issue, but you understand my point hopefully. Now this is a liberal point. In an episode where Stewie and Brian travel back in time to Nazi Germany, they talk about Germany having weapons of mass destruction. Stewie questions why the United States doesn't stop them, which leads to Brian looking at the camera and saying because they don't have oil. Now that one annoyed me, but there was another one. The two of them along with Mort Goldman steal some Nazi officer uniforms, and they have a McCain Palin button on them. Now this is supposed to be a satire show, but it clearly is written with the beliefs of liberals. If anyone disagrees and says that it simply just appears that way, feel free to say something. This is just a fun debate, not a political death match
Generally, Sex Before Marriage is Not Morally Sound

I have made this debate nearly impossible to accept. Anyone that would like to accept it, please post in the comments section and I will decide whether or not I want to debate you. Anyone that finds a way to accept this debate without my permission will automatically forfeit all rounds and all 7 points will go to me. DefinitionsSex - Sexual IntercourseMarriage - the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriageMoral - of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behaviorSound - free from error, fallacy, or misapprehension RulesNo trolling, no semantics, nothing that would be deemed innapropriate by the average DDO user. Good luck to my opponent!
Gay Marriage

I would like to start this debate with a quote DIRECTLY from the Bible itself. "Male and female, He created them" Genesis 1:27 This verse clearly states that we humans were created to a plan- male and female complementing each other. My first main argument is as follows; I. God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, nor Madam and Eve A. Genesis also teaches that God instituted and designed marriage between a man and a woman (verses 2:18- 2:25) The complementary structure of the male and female anatomy is obviously designed for the normal husband-wife relationships. Clearly, design in human biology supports heterosexuality and contradicts homosexuality. The combination of male and female enables man to produce and nurture offspring as commanded in Genesis 1:28 "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth. " This command is repeated to Noah after the Flood (Genesis 8:15-17). But procreation is not the only reason God made humans as sexual beings. The BUWA report affirms "that sexual intimacy between husband and wife is good, and is intended by God for bonding, pleasure and procreation. " God gave man and woman complementary roles in order to strengthen the family unit. Woman was to be the helper that man needed (Genesis 2:18). However, the woman's role as the helpmate is certainly not an inferior one. The enterprising God-fearing woman in Proverbs 31:10-31 is an inspiring role model. My second point is as follows; II. Homosexual activity is notoriously disease-prone Andrew Lansdown points out that "Homosexual activity is notoriously disease-prone. In addition to diseases associated with heterosexual promiscuity, homosexual actions facilitate the transmission of anal herpes, hepatitis B, intestinal parasites, Kaposi's Sarcoma and AIDS. " Research on the life expectancy of a group of homosexual men in Canada in the early 1990s indicated that they could expect 8-21 years less lifespan than other men. If we vote no on gay marriage, we can help put a stop to the spreading of these deadly diseases. Even though the gays and lesbians might not appreciate this kind gesture now, they will when they are spared from viruses like AIDS. My last argument for this round is as follows; III. Biological or social factors may contribute to a person's bent toward homosexual behavior, but does not excuse it. Some people have a strong bent towards stealing or abuse of alcohol, but they still choose to engage or not engage in this behavior the law rightly holds them accountable. The final report of the Baptist Union of Western Australia (BUWA) Task Force on Human Sexuality affirms that "the Bible is clear that sin involves choice, and it unequivocally condemns homosexual behavior as sin. " ~Matthew 19:1-12~ Since other groups who have been discriminated against (such as women, blacks and the disabled) have been given equal opportunity, homosexuals claim that they, too, should be liberated. However, as one Christian expert has said "Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does. " These are all my points for the second round, and I await my opponent's refutes and arguments!
Lucifer Had Better Intentions than God for the Life of Humans on Earth Only Not Heaven

I KNOW THAT ALL PEOPLE ARE NOT GOD FEARING. THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT A SUBJECT TO THIS DEBATE. Point 1: Just to let this person know that this insane perso nis known as Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormon religion. A religion that is accepted around the world, just like other well accepted religions. Point 3: My opponent says that "If no one had to repent then most Mormon church officials would be destitute and without multiple wives." If Lucifer would have been the son of God repentence would not be an issue in the first place. LOGIC: If sin never existed, then repentence would not exist, if repentence did not exist then the Mormon religion would not exist. Point 2: One cannot choose what sins he wants to keep and which ones to do away with. He chooses drugs, pre-marital sex, lesbian relationships, and drinking alcohol as things that are fun that one can do with free will. Yet he forgets to mention un-fun things people do as free will to others. Including things that include suffering. Continuing on Point 3 My opponent says that if there was no sin, then everyone will go to hell. I believe that he implies repentence. Yet he forgets that if one never sins, he would not need to repent if he was sinless. LOGIC: Lucifer would have been the son of God, since Jesus never repented, Lucifer never would have either. JESUS NEVER REPENTED AND HE IS IN HEAVEN... WHAT YOU THINK HE ISN'T. Just because you do not repent does not mean you do not go to Heaven. If one was sinless he could go to Heaven without repentence.