BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christian rap battle

I'll murder this kid legitimately like clinical abortionsOn a death and killing spree of Biblical proportionsI'm only here to put an arrow through this guy and his prideI'm someone you shouldn't "cross" like Christ when he died!Christians celebrate the holiday season with a Christmas treeWhile I rhyme with so much divinity even God is sick of mePro can't hear what I say so he has to greet me with "pardons"You doing what you not supposed to do like Eve in the GardenWhen it comes to rap battles I'm as hard as can beI'll put a part in Pro's skull like Moses parted the seaThought he had the upper hand? I'm turning the tablesPro's a junkie, when it comes to 'cain ("Cane") he's more than able ("Abel")My opponent's the type to get hype and type on a message boardWith big words from scripture that's really boring, to me, less is moreThe next plague that arrives will probably include infected soresBecause his mom's like Mary Magdalene; probably an infested whoreWhen it comes to this rap game he has no bold penmanshipPlus nobody cares about his rules anymore just like the Old TestamentI bet in Sunday school he was the most awful studentHe would would dim the lights just to jerk off to Gospel musicJust like God with the trinity I'll divide Pro into three piecesThen watch his soul rise to heaven so he can meet JesusWhen he looks upon God for his judgement at the pearly gatesHe'll get rejected quicker than a fat girl with a dirty face
Gay marriage

Harlan, You must realize that I am not challenging the rights that homosexuals have to get married, but am purely asking whether or not the "the United States government has the power to pass legislation that obligates the catholic church to accept gay marriages within their cathedrals?" Now, in between the assertions about the inconsistency of the Christian religion, and the alleged attack upon my character, you did mention the ninth amendment to the constitution. As this is a potentially relevant argument my original question, I will depict a new perspective of your interpretation. You stipulated that the ninth amendment "states that people have rights not listed within the constitution." Though, you focused purely on the perspective of homosexual's rights to marriage. Looking further, you must realize that this amendment also influences the rights of the church – allotting them the right to deny marriage to those they deem sinners. (Harlan please remember that we are en rapport in regards to the irony of the Christian religion. Also remember that Christianity is not the topic of our debate.) This new perspective validates the churches decisions to deny homosexuals the right to be married. The bill of rights not only authenticates the actions of the church, as you have pointed out to me, but also ensures the separation of church and state (first and ninth amendment). So long as it respects its underlying principles, the government, should in no way be allowed the privileges of forcing any religion to accept something they deem incorrect, or sinful.
Gay marriage

Your not forcing anyone to practice something against thier religion when a gay couple get married. You can get married in a place that's not a cathedral. Do you really think that is the motive behind prohibiting gay marriage? No, its because of the christian fundamentalists up top. Because there all loving god, is against Homosexuals existing (even though he created them), they are not allowed to have legal bondage. Now to put this from your perspective, consider this: What if there was a religion that prohibited heterosexuals from being together. Would you make the decision not to be married because it might make them uneasy. Your mind is not treating homosexuals as equals. You may or may not be familiar with the UDHR (universal decleration of himan rights). It clearly states that all people should be given the RIGHT TO MARRIAGE. As far as I see it, this should also be seen as protected by the ninth amendment of the bill of rights (It states that people have rights not listed in the constitution. What is the real reason that you are against gay marriage?
Gay marriage

As there are many sub-topics that can be debated within this broad subject, I am choosing to focus purely on the question: Does the United States government have the power to pass legislation that obligates the catholic church to accept gay marriages within their cathedrals? It is my sound opinion that the government does not hold this power. If we look at the principles that the US was founded on, "freedom of speech, press, religion..." we must realize that this directly contradicts our founding ideals. By passing a legislation that forces religions to accept a principle - no matter what that principle may be - we limit the rights of our people to freedom of religion. We cannot allow the government to usurp the principles of the bible and to contradict the very document that gives it power; the Constitution.
God is/was Either Imperfect or Not Omnipotent

Responses: >> "God is perfectly capable of changing, but chooses not to to preserve his perfection. By choosing God preserves both his perfection and his omnipotence." How is God capable of changing in a way that preserves his perfection? Obviously, he is not. >>"...defined as God being where he wants to be and not where he doesn't want to be. This application of the word omni can be applied to all of the 'omni' attributes of God including omnipotence." That is a silly kind of omnipotence - being able to do "what he wants to do and not what he doesn't want to do" - that's more than just a silly kind... that's NOT omnipotence. And since you already affirmed God's omnipotence, your argument on this point is contradictory. >> "Thus when applied to God this means that just because God is capable of changing doesn't mean he will. Also this means that just because God doesn't choose to change doesn't mean he is not omnipotent." This "God" seems to be infected with a case of sour grapes... he can't change, so you posit that he simply chooses not to. A perfect god isn't CAPABLE of changing without ruining his element of perfection. An omnipotent being would be able to change if he so wished. Since God cannot both be perfect and change, he is either imperfect, or not omnipotent. ********************************* As far as the change between the testaments, it's fairly obvious that God has changed from a vengeful, wrathful god into one who is willing to forgive, and even give up his own son for our sins. If that's not a change, I dunno what is.... AFFIRMED.
God is/was Either Imperfect or Not Omnipotent

My debate shall be short and sweet as my opponent's was. I will negate the resolution by affirming the following: God in both unchanging and all powerful (or omnipotent). My opponent states that the God cannot change in order to preserve his perfection. My opponent also states that due to God's inability to change he is thus not omnipotent. I will negate this using a small observation of my own. God is perfectly capable of changing, but chooses not to to preserve his perfection. By choosing God preserves both his perfection and his omnipotence. I have two examples to show that I am correct. 1. God is also known as omnipresent. This is commonly thought to mean in every place at every time, but if you look at both the Greek and Hebrew (the two original languages of the bible) it is actually defined as God being where he wants to be and not where he doesn't want to be. This application of the word omni can be applied to all of the 'omni' attributes of God including omnipotence. 2. When a person chooses not to kill another person, this doesn't mean that they can't kill another person. Likewise, if a person is capable of killing another doesn't mean that he will. Thus when applied to God this means that just because God is capable of changing doesn't mean he will. Also this means that just because God doesn't choose to change doesn't mean he is not omnipotent. My opponent also refers to changes in God's attitude between the old and new testaments. I cannot refute his 'observations' until he presents them. So I must ask that he further on that subject. Other than that, I have no more to say. ()__() (='.'=) (")_(")
God is/was Either Imperfect or Not Omnipotent

The proposition on offer is that God is either imperfect or not omnipotent. The proof for this follows fairly easily: If God is perfect, then any change in him would be a change for the worse - it is impossible for a perfect being to change for the better. Furthermore, if God is to remain perfect, then he cannot change, as any change would necessarily be for the worse. An omnipotent being would always be capable of change. The difference in God's character between the Old and New Testament represents a change. If God cannot change because he is always perfect, God is not omnipotent. If God changes, the change is necessarily towards imperfection. If God changes for the better, he must have been imperfect at some point in time. AFFIRMED.
Morality: Subjective or Objective

1.Morality Subjective or Objective? Morality (conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct) is something humanity has been struggling with since the beginning of time so the question is posed, Is morality Subjective or Objective? 2.Subjective Morality Subjective Morality is the belief that morality changes depending on a persons (or nations) feelings, changes, or beliefs. Example: Homosexuality In the case of subjective morality dealing with gay marriage is the fact that while homosexuality was once considered "wrong" and "unjust" people have changed, times have changed therefore gay marriage should be allowed because people believe that if there is a rule, it should change if a society feels it is no longer of importance. 3.Objective Morality Objective Morality is the belief that while times and people may change, right and wrong does not. Example: Homosexuality (using same example to show direct diversity) Homosexuality in the case of objective morality states that while some people claim to be in love with the opposite sex and that they feel they were "born gay", it does not give them the right to claim that being gay is okay. If homosexuality was immoral 3,000 years ago, it is still immoral today. 4.Why morality is objective Morality is objective because right and wrong are always right and wrong no matter what. Here are a few examples 1.You would teach a child not to steal because it is wrong. So, what if the child decides when it is eighteen that they believe that stealing is right to them? Does it make it right? 2.That same child decides that they want to jump off the empire state building because they believe they can fly. Just because they believe it is it any more unlikely that they will die? Of course not! Just because someone simply believes and feels someway doesn't make it at all true. This shows morality cannot be subjective and that there is only one right and wrong. When morality is subjective it gives laws, rules, and morals less values. Perhaps, our nation decides as a whole that "late term abortion" is okay. It doesn't mean it is. I'm just demonstrating a few examples to why subjective morality is simply not the case. You cannot simply run a nation depending on how people "feel" about something.
Morality: Subjective or Objective

My position is that Morality is Objective. *Any source may be used controversial or not. Objective morality means that there are set rules for behavior that cannot be changed. Subjective Morality means rules for behavior change on who you are, what you believe, and what time frame you are in. Round 1- acceptance/definitions Round 2- opening arguments Round 3- Rebuttals/closing arguments Rules 1. debate will be respectful 2. any sources may be used to make ones point 3. all sources named in last round (makes debate flow easier)
atheism is not a religon

Polka dots has been stalking my debates and since my opponent has not made any sort of argument this round, I will address my stalker's comment. There are four definitions of religion provided by Merriam Webster 1 a: the state of a religious b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance 2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices 3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness 4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith — reï¿½liï¿½gionï¿½less adjective The first and second use the word "religious" in the definition, so I nullify those. The third is archaic, so I will use the alst definition. Religion is a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. This is the definition I used in the last round. My opponent has decided not to show and since it is pointless to reiterate my argument TWICE in a row, I will simply end my response here.
atheism is not a religon

Since my opponent ahs forfeited that round, I should refine my argument. I hold that atheism is a religion because it is an organized belief system based on faith. Atheism is the conclusion that deities do not exist. This is not a logical coclusion to the evidence we have today. Objectively speaking, we can make the statement "There is not enough evidence to show that deities exist", but to argue that they absolutely do NOT is a belief held to with faith and ardor, the definition of a religious belief.
atheism is not a religon

A religion is defined as a set of beliefs that are held with ardor and faith. Atheism is the belief that deities do not exist. This satisfies the criteria of faith. Atheists hold to their reasons for believing that deities do not exist. This satisfies the criteria of ardor. Atheism is in and of itself a doctrine of faith because the expression of a stance is still a belief. As of yet, neither side, Theist or Atheist, has any concrete evidence supporting their point. Thus, both sides hold on to their opinions with the foundation of faith, faith that their arguments or beliefs are true. Atheists declare that God does not exist, and this makes it a belief. If they were merely to declare that there is no hard evidence for the existence of God, then it would not be a belief but an actual fact.
It isn't wrong for a person to be gay.

So from the Christian viewpoint homosexuality is a sin. I don't see a reason not to sin. A world without sin defeats the purpose of Jesus dying on the cross. In a world without sin Jesus would have died for nothing. The Christian and Muslim view is that morality comes from the teachings of their God. First you have to assume that your God exists. If a person says that something is wrong because it is against the teachings and the moral code of their God, they are claiming to know the mind of a God. In a world of religious pluralism how can a person abide by every god's moral standard. If a person agrees with divine command theory, are they making decisions based on whether they will be rewarded or punished after death? Wouldn't that be a bias? Is it reasonable to have a moral code based on coercion, under the threat of a being that may not even exist? Then there is the rebuttal, that god's commands are not imposed, it is a person's choice as to whether or not they want to reject God. The problem is that if you reject his teachings, in some interpretations the punishment is eternal hellfire and torture, and the reward for following his teachings is a pleasant afterlife. In this system people are making "moral" decisions for the wrong reasons, they have impure motivations. Morality is subjective. Nothing is inherently good or evil, or right or wrong. When people claim that there are objective moral principles, those principles usually agree with what those people subjectively feel to be true. To your statement that "if you are a person that believes nature , obviously something is telling us that this activity is not meant to be", morality isn't present in nature. The universe has no opinion on whether or not something is right or not. There are no moral absolutes. Homosexuality isn't wrong or right. I agree that one group saying that "what I want should be right". Is an incredibly weird thing to say. Nothing inherently is moral or immoral. Morality is man-made. Saying that being gay is wrong is to say an opinion and not the truth. All statements that something is absolutely wrong or right hold no credibility, but they would if the God was proved to exist, and that no other gods exist. For divine command theory to work there must only be one God and no others, and if there are others they must all agree on every decision concerning morality. Otherwise gods just hold different feeling and opinions about morality just as we do. I want to do a hard topic because otherwise I think I would be wasting my time. I'm learning whether I win or lose. :)
It isn't wrong for a person to be gay.

I will be arguing that being gay is wrong. Saying that, being gay is not immoral is quite a huge fallacy statement you"re making. To whose viewpoint are you talking through? To Muslims, being gay is punishable by death through be-headings. For a time in England, you could be sent to jail for 2 to 5 years. Through a Christian view (which is the view I am going to communicate through the most) homosexuality is a sin. It is not what the body is designed for. When God created both man and woman, he specifically designed that relationship for reproduction. For two people of the same gender to engage in sexual activities, they usual retract diseases that can only be obtained through sexual processes. So if you are a person who believes nature, obviously something is telling us that this activity is not meant to be. Now a relationship with two people of the same gender is not wrong, to an extent. We can have best friends that involve hugs, laughs, and intrusions of personal space, but not on a level of sexual activities. You may ask for what this median relationship that we have is? I can tell you, personally as a guy and a football player, we would go outside, workout for hours, get rolled in the dirt, and be bruised bleeding and in pain at the end of it; but at the end, we would come together at the end of each practice and game, hugging each other"s sweaty smelly bodies, telling each other that we love them, and congratulate them on their hard work. Having this aura of a love that is not sexual in any way. A lot of us like to call it a "Brotherhood". This is actually called, "brotherly affection". If you have a brother, you hug him, kiss him, mess around with him, annoy him and all of that good stuff, but that is not gay. Gay relationships mostly go on the levels of marriage and sexual behavior. Which is not the right relationship. It"s wrong because, as a Christian, God instructed us to not engage in such "strange" activities. Marriage and sex is meant for the relationship of a married male and female. Not a male and male, or a female, and female. The immorality goes even deeper. Not just in spiritual relationships, but social relationships too. Society in general. Porn plays a big part of this. The idea is not, sex is bad. The idea is, what I want should be right. And that is impossible. Not everyone can have their way. If it was, then the whole world would have been in perfect unity already. Gayness pushes through the boundaries of what is right. If we get the idea that it"s about what I want, then who cares about what other people want, or even what is right. I would continue, because this continues to a whole network of issues in society and life in general, but I will stop here. I do want to ask you another question. If you requested to be taken easy on, then why would you pick such a controversial topic? I will assure you that I will not argue in a mean and dirty way at all, but I want to express my full concern for this topic. Thank you, now your turn. (wink)
Term Limits Violate the Principles of Democracy

While I can see the value in the argument that term limits check the ability of any one person to gain too much power, there is no empirical evidence that a person or group of people was able to do so before term limits were mandated. It is the right of the people to choose their leader in a representative system of government and term limits unnecesarily exclude certain people from candidacy. So long as free and general elections are in place every four years there will always be a check on tyranny.
The loss of Television programming due to the Stike

The topic of this debate is not "The strike"; the topic is "The loss of television programming due to the strike". We both agree that the strike is a good thing, so it's a red herring for you to focus on the obvious fact that the writers deserve better pay. The real issue is television itself: is it inherently awful, irredeemably destructive, and just plain counterproductive? Or is it just a medium of creative expression like any other? You haven't provided any evidence that "people will do something more productive with their time" if they don't watch as much TV, you've simply assumed that they will. Moreover, you've failed to address the vast majority of people who will continue to watch TV and just become used to far lower-quality programming; how can someone who is such an advocate of literature endorse TV lowering its standards of writing, much less advocate putting so many writers out of work altogether just to eliminate TV? If you don't like TV, don't watch it. It's that simple. People who do like TV, however, should be free to watch the best-written and most engaging shows available, once the strike is over. #1 Studies have only found links between television and ADHD in children under the age of 2. It's a "no-brainer," as you said, that parents shouldn't leave their babies watching TV non-stop; but there is no evidence that it is harmful for older children, much less teens or adults. #2 So you advocate abolishing TV for moral reasons? What happened to this being a free country? And how, exactly, do Six Feet Under or The Daily Show "promote and celebrate violence, death, and adultery"?! (I won't dispute the morality of The Sopranos, though I don't think art needs to solely deal with moral characters in order to have value; and I'm less familiar with Grey's Anatomy, so someone else should probably address that, if anyone.) Have you even seen the shows I mentioned? If you're just judging them based on hearsay or synopses, that supports my point that your bias against TV is largely caused by your lack of exposure to the many quality series of recent years. There are both good shows and bad shows (in terms of moral messages and in terms of aesthetics alike), and your extremist perspective just doesn't reflect reality here. As for the commercials... uh, sorry, but big whoop? You can always skip 'em if you have TiVo. :) But yes, I agree that we are in general agreement on most points. If I hadn't been exposed to the good shows I have happened to see, I might even share your view on the aesthetic value of television in general. But as is, I still feel that the strike's only benefit is that it will give more power to writers, which in turn will hopefully further improve the writing quality of future series, until someday a play and a TV show are considered equally legitimate modes of artistic expression.