BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A Christian/Catholic CAN be homosexual

I thank you for your argument. I would first like to address the idea that modern Christians do not follow the old testament. This is true seeing as the sacrifice of Jesus did cause changes to the laws of the old testament. However, certain things were still held in place, that is another flaw of the Bible. it is never specified as to what is still in place and what was considered void. With this the interpretation of the "word of God" is off. Now the scripture blatantly states that a man should not lie with another man the way he lies with a woman. That is not what we are debating, what we are debating is whether or not this scripture applies to modern times and what was originally meant by this. We may confuse "a committed, faithful, noncultic same sex partnership, with the ancient world's sexual abuse of slaves, pederasty, rape of foreigners and pagan fertility rites" but the truth is if God did not want them to do those things then why would he approve of them in any other fashion? Whether or not it is a "a committed, faithful, noncultic same sex partnership." There is no double-standard in this, if he forbids it in one sense it is forbidden in all senses. I'm glad you brought up Sodom. Seeing as sodomy is a sin there is no way that homosexuality can be o.k. Maybe in the sense of lesbians it can be considered alright but definitely not for males. Eunuchs are not homosexuals, they are castrated males with an imbalance of hormones. When Jesus speaks of eunuchs that are born that way he is most likely speaking of those whose genatalia are deformed and prevents them from proper relations with the opposite sex. It was not uncommon for there to be those kinds of birth defects during that time. I would also like to bring up the fact that in the Christian religion marriage is only between a man and a woman nad it is pretty much just an excuse for Christians to have sex. And seeing as sex is not permitted before marriage that completely rules out homosexuality. Christians cannot be homosexuals.
A Christian/Catholic CAN be homosexual

I kind of have to laugh at this just simply because this is so blatantly wrong. I will keep this short and sweet. A Christian/Catholic cannot, under any circumstances, be homosexual. Now it is true that the Bible can be interpreted in many different ways but that is only for certain vague passages. Leviticus 18:22 blatantly states "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination." So this shows that Christians/Catholics cannot be homosexuals. I now stand for my opposition.
A Christian/Catholic CAN be homosexual

I chose Catholics/Christians as the topic header as they both follow the bible, and the two groups I mainly debate with. Now, many Christians/Catholics see homosexuality as a sin, but the bible has been misinterpreted in many ways, leading young people brought up with religion at a dead end if they are homosexual. Believing what they are doing is wrong and sinful only contributes to to many difficulties they will later face in life. The bible does not clearly state that a loving, committed same sex relationship is wrong, so any proud Catholic/Christian can be proud of their sexuality too.
A Christian/Catholic CAN be homosexual

Having read both mine and your arguments over again i think we are both on the same page on this subject we are basically just arguing semantics here. Also, this debate is extremely biased seeing as we are both atheist/agnostic. I totally agree that Leviticus is an extremely overbearing and unecessary book of laws that no one would want to follow, i actually find it hilarious if you ask me. Now i know that the commited and faithful relationship is not the same as those practices but when you are speaking of homosexuality in the sense of religion it almost always is talking about the sexual practices of homosexuals, that is what i was comparing. I know that it includes females too but the fact is that it was more prevalently abominable and common for it to be males during that time, women did not have any room to choose who they laid with. Yes it does not specifically state anything about judgement over sexual orientation but by sodomy being a sin it most directly relates to homosexuality. The thing that really makes this hard to debate is the fact that the Bible is too old to attempt to relate modern issues to. Yes, some of the issues are parallel but the rest of it is just a shot in the dark. These Reverends and ministers you quoted are stating their opinion on the subject, the only real biblical evidence says that it is an abomination. I myself think that it is time for a new Bible (not that i care) so that these things are no longer an issue. Like you stated, homosexuality is truly an issue that needs to be at the forefront of our society, especially i teens. The amount of intolerance is ridiculous and if we were to have a new bible with modern issues we would not have this problem ( this of course would take an act of "God"). So seeing as i can go either way on this topic, I concede the debate to my opponent. Thank You
The banking concept of education is oppressive.

Arguing "that with oppressive teaching, students do not just learn it for the time being, they make a "deposit" and store it for life" does not prove that this is actually being done in today's society. In chapter one, Hirsch talks about people in todays society not being able to read and write. Which means that students from the past did not retain their knowledge, so if the banking concept of education is effective why aren't most people able to read nowadays.
The religion of the Old Testament is mind control

Accepted. I'd like to start by asserting that your two beginning statements are requiring some further clarification. Referencing your first comment: "The Pro position, (mine) is that the Torah is a mind altering drug". A mind alternating drug is (generally) a chemical substance used for recreational purposes. The Torah, on the other hand, is a 3000 year old religious text. Additionally, your second assertion may need some more explanation: "The Israelites have been brutalized and sweet-talked for centuries. It is time for the few that are left to reject the offer of a cup of coffee after each beating". Which brutalities/ beatings are you alluding to? The ambiguous nature of your statements does indeed leave one to wonder. Opening Argument One of the most fundamental gifts of G-d is free will, and the use of this free will is something that is fully emphasized in the Old Testament (Jewish Torah). The premise of "mind control" is the domination of ones thoughts, and actions. Something that essentially leaves them powerless, and not in control of their own behaviour. While the Old Testament encourages belief and recognition of G-d, it outlines that it is the individuals decision as to whether they chose to do that. The purpose is to convey to the message of G-d to His people, they can either accept or reject. Concerning Judaism, people are not forced into the religion, and if they wish, they may leave. There is nothing to suggest indoctrination and/or mind control. Here I'd like to provide some Old Testament verses: -The Lord your G-d is with you, he is mighty to save. He will take great delight in you, he will quiet you with his love, he will rejoice over you with singing. ( Zephaniah 3:17) -I have loved you with an everlasting love; I have drawn you with loving-kindness. ( Jeremiah 31:3) -The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious G-d, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. (Ex 34:6-7) -The Lord said to me, "Go, show your love to your wife again, though she is loved by another and is an adulteress. Love her as the Lord loves the Israelites, though they turn to other g-ds." (Hos 3:1) -For men are not cast off by the Lord forever. Though he brings grief, he will show compassion, so great is his unfailing love. For he does not willingly bring affliction or grief to the children of men. (Lam 3:31-33) -Who is a G-d like you, who pardons sin and forgives the transgression of the remnant of his inheritance? You do not stay angry forever but delight to show mercy. You will again have compassion on us; you will tread our sins underfoot and hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea. (Micah 7:18-19) All of these are verses that are not in fact indicative of an unforgiving, spiteful G-d, but one that has mercy and the power to love and forgive through anything. (1.) http://www.libertymagazine.org... (2.) http://www.rationalchristianity.net...
The religion of the Old Testament is mind control

The Pro position, (mine) is that the Torah is a mind altering drug. As always, my main source is the Bible but Con is welcome to use any source. And good Con. (cheyennebodie, please refrain from posting comments or taking up the challenge.) Opening argument: The Israelites have been brutalized and sweet-talked for centuries. It is time for the few that are left to reject the offer of a cup of coffee after each beating.
The religion of the Old Testament is mind control

"The human mind cannot be locked up with physical iron chains. To imprison a human mind one must use indoctrination. "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." (Proverbs 22:6) On the contrary to your given examples, it's more likely that this verse is alluding to the guidance of children and the additional help that is needed in their development; to ensure they take the right paths in life. No implication is made to circumcision, repetition of stories, Jewish celebrations, or frustration of the human mind. These are your own conclusions, based without proper interpretation. You then go on to exclaim that all above points are lies, and change to a completely new argument (having offered to rebuttals for my previous one) but instead of actually disproving your old argument you simply create new unsupported statements. Due to this lack of support, I will continue with rebuttals. (1.) "Judaism is not based on circumcision". Yes, this should be well-established. Judaism is primarily based on the work that is the Old Testament, which is comprised of many different things. (2.) "The repeated stories are either outright lies or explained in such a way that all truth contained in the stories is removed." As with round two, you offer no explanation on as to what "outright lies" you are referring to. Nevertheless, I will say that Judaism does not practice removal of truth in stories, not does practice the removal of truth in them. Stories in Judaism have invariably remained the same throughout the years. Truth (particularly Biblical) is also something that is upheld. (3.) "The Jewish people will never sit on any real throne". You should define what exactly is a "real throne". Jewish people have throughout history been able to attain success, whether it be creating their own business, offering their skills to the art, literacy and medical fields, surviving mass genocides, establishing their own country, or simply following G-d. (4.) "Judaism is the root cause of all Jewish suffering". The root cause of all Jewish suffering is generally attributed to both racial and religious intolerance, particularly the former. To state that Judaism is responsible for ALL of it is completely unfounded, and unproven. The holocaust for example was mainly because of race; the fact that it was not just Jewish people killed is proof of that. Instead of inflicting suffering on the Jewish people, Judaism has kept them together; it has offered hope in times of need; it has given a country; and most of all it has given an identity to all Jewish people. Blaming Judaism, is equal to blaming the Jews themselves. (5.) "Now we need to know what Judaism is founded on. Judaism is founded on divorce". Judaism is not founded on divorce, is founded on G-d. Overall divorce is not favoured nor is it encouraged. However, Judaism does maintain the outlook that if a man and a woman are very unhappy in their marriage, they should not remain unhappy and divorce should be permitted. Such a law is proof of the fact that Judaism does not use "mind control", and that free will is exercised.
The religion of the Old Testament is mind control

Con, the human mind cannot be locked up with physical iron chains. To imprison a human mind one must use indoctrination. "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." (Proverbs 22:6) Here are the steps- 1 Circumcision 2 Repeat stories 3 Give the human mind a party i.e. bar mitzvah, (seat the mind on a throne and begin to tell the human mind that it is the rightful ruler) 4 Frustrate the human mind Point number 4 is the important part. How to frustrate the human mind without the human mind realizing who is actually doing the frustrating? What one must understand is that all four points above are lies- 1 Judaism is not based on Circumcision 2 The repeated stories are either outright lies or explained in such a way that all truth contained in the stories is removed. 3 The Jewish people will never sit on any real throne. 4 Judaism itself is the root cause of all Jewish suffering throughout all of history since the founding of Judaism. Now we need to know what Judaism is founded on. Judaism is founded on D I V O R C E And divorce is the most damaging thing that can happen to a child.
The religion of the Old Testament is mind control

Rebuttals (1.) My point(s) on "free will" were to emphasize that every human being, once an adult, has the gift of choice on as to what they do with their lives, and how they live them. Just because one does not choose to be born , it does not mean they cannot choose how they respond to this world. The main ask of G-d is for one to exercise that free will responsibly. Additionally, the same is said for parentage. Nature determines that we cannot choose our parents, but we are in control of our attitude towards those parents; and our surrounding environment. (2.) "Are you saying that no one has ever been forced into circumcision?" The word "forced" is being used very lightly here. The Brit Milah is a centuries old traditional Jewish practice, one of which that has biblical roots and significant religious meaning. Every parent has the right (providing it corresponds with law) to make such decisions. Christian children are Christened, and Muslim children also have a number of practices. It does not prevent this child from using their free will once an adult. (3.) "Let's not make this too hard. We will work backwards. The Nazi concentration camps never made those People who took the beatings any better. And the Nazi concentration camps never made those People who gave the beatings any worse. In other words, the Deluge was/is totally void of meaning. The Deluge has no meaning." The purpose of Nazi concentration camps was not to make people any better, whether morally or otherwise. However, these beatings/killings and other forms of horrific treatment that people took does make them into victims, as they were essentially powerless. In terms of moral standing, the Nazi officers who provided the beatings are made worse; simply because they were abusing the basic rights of these people, and committing offences that are technically crimes against humanity. Nevertheless, your 3rd argument presents no relevance to Judaism or your resolution. It's connected to Jewish history, but not the religion itself. (1.) http://m.chabad.org... (2.) http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...
The religion of the Old Testament is mind control

Analysis of Free Will: 1) No one chooses to be born 2) No one chooses their parentage/heritage 3) No one chooses bodily functions Therefore, human free will is extremely limited. To quote Con, " Concerning Judaism, people are not forced into the religion, and if they wish, they may leave. There is nothing to suggest indoctrination and/or mind control." So Con you are saying that no one has ever been forced into circumcision? In other words babies have the free will to choose to be circumcised. And if they choose to be circumcised and then change their baby minds, they have the free will to undo the circumcision and their members go back to the way they were before the circumcision. Con asks which brutalities: Let's not make this too hard. We will work backwards. The Nazi concentration camps never made those People who took the beatings any better. And the Nazi concentration camps never made those People who gave the beatings any worse. In other words, the Deluge was/is totally void of meaning. The Deluge has no meaning. As to dope: When a person is under the influence of Opium the Opium is G-d. And when the addict is looking for the next fix, the addict is an atheist.
Science is based on logic fallacy/s

Uniformity Unfortunately, Pro has ignored Cons argument on this point. As stated in the previous round, to commit the fallacy of composition, Science would be required to claim uniformity is true. Science does not claim uniformity true, instead science claims that among all the possibilities, given what we have observered, the most likely possibility is that the basic physical properties are the same in the same "universally" (Con use quotes here since it seems Pro has become confused on this point as discussed later). Con again asks Pro to address this argument in the next round since it has thus far been overlooked. "So science does assumes uniformitarianism while admitting that the universe doesn't operate in the same way, in all places, and at all times" and thus refutes Uniformitarianism. How is this not a direct contradiction ? " It is not a direct contradiction because Pro does not understand either science's view of uniformity nor Con's use of it so far. Pro is attempting to claim science believes uniformity is universal (literally). Instead, despite thinking it more likely than not that uniformity exists in most of space and time, science has clearly stated a few places where it thinks this is not true (like at a singularity). So Con will now use "universal" to show that neither Con or science claims uniformity is likely universally. The common theme that is developing is that Pro's claim of what science states and what science actually states are not the same thing. 2) Empiricism and the reliability of experience Pro claims that science "Science assumes that experience is generally reliable because experience is generally reliable." I agree that if Pro's statement above was the view of science then science would be begging the question. However, Pro has again mistated science's view. Science is skeptical of experience which is why a key tennet of the scientific method is reproducibility. If an experience is reproducible in a different location, at a different time, and by a different people then the probability that the common experience (should the experiences turn out the same) was in error decreases. 3) Falsifiability Science requires that scientific theories be falsifiable. Falsifiability is not a scientific theory (it is not based on natural/physical principles). Therefore, scientific rules do not apply to falsifiability. If Pro wishes to have a philosophic debate about the falsifiability then Con would suggest Pro do so... However, there is no special pleading taking place because the scientific method clearly is not meant to be a tool to evaluate philosophical principles which is what Pro is trying to claim. I ask Pro (sic) to present just one law/concept/principles of science that is not philosophical/conceptual Ohm's law, Gauss' law, Faraday's Law, Maxwell's Equations... to name a few of hundreds. All of these are actual physical and natural laws. One can easily set up experiments that demonstrate/test any of the above laws or principles hence they are scientific. One can not set up an experiment to demonstrate or test falsifiability which is why it is philosophical.
Science is based on logic fallacy/s

What this debate is about Science and Logical fallacies After reading Pro's response I think that Pro has mis understood what the debate resolution is. The debate is not whether the logical fallacies that science are built on can be justified on pragmatic grounds (for the sake of this argument I will concede that they are), the debate is about whether science is built on logical fallacies. For example Pro says "You are right in that uniformity is an assumption made in science. It is not a logical fallacy because science admits that it is making an assumption on this point. " Pro agree's that science is committing a logical fallacy, but then seeks to justify that fallacy. I remind Pro once again that the debate is about whether science is built on logical fallacies in the first place. I would also point out, that admitting that something is committing a logical fallacy doesn't mean the fallacy just ceases to exist. It especially doesn't cease to exist when the same fallacy although admitted is still being done. Consider this example. .. .. .. An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. 1) Pro argues that science is good 2) Pro is an atheist liberal who wants to raise your taxes and probably worships satan 3) Therefore science is not good Now, this is clearly an ad hominem, but what if I then admit that I have committed this logical fallacy, does the fact that I have admitted it make it some how make it no longer a logical fallacy ? of course not. What if I admit I am committing this logical fallacy while I continue to make the same argument based on this logically fallacy ? Does my admission some how make the logical fallacy no longer a logical fallacy ? I thinketh not. Pro says "The principle of falsifiability is a philosophical and not a natural or physical" ALL principles/laws are philosophical, you can't find principles/laws in the physical world because they lack any physical attribute. The law of uniformity is philosophical The law of addition is philosophical The concept that experience is reliable is philosophical Philosophy is philosophical I look forward to Pros reply.