BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Day of Atonement = Pre-Advent Judgment

I actually don't have much more to say here beyond what I've said in previous conversations so I will respond more once you make your statement. Again, our understanding begins with Arminianism and thus we conclude believers are judged. Second, because of our doctrine of soul sleep, and our understanding of what happens at Christ's second coming, we conclude that this judgment takes place collectively, shortly prior to the second coming. With this understanding in mind we approach the Old Testament sanctuary service and determine that the best interpretation of the Day of Atonement is that it represents this Pre-Advent Judgment. Throughout the year, individual Hebrews would come to the sanctuary whenever they sinned and would offer a sacrifice. They would confess their sin on the head of the lamb and walk away forgiven. But the story would not end there. The priest would either eat the meat of the sacrifice and thus 'bare the iniquity' or he would collect the blood of the victim and sprinkle it on the curtain within the Holy Place. This would continue every day of the year until the day of Atonement. On the day of atonement, the priest would make an atonement for the sanctuary itself and cleanse it of the uncleanness of the children of Israel because of their transgression. Their sins would then be confessed on the head of the scapegoat which would then be sent into the wilderness. After this the Israelites celebrated the Feast of Tabernacles. Now typically, Christians apply all this imagery to the cross. However, the cross was just as clearly symbolized by the simple altar that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would built to offer sacrifice and it doesn't seem like such an elaborate symbolic service would be needed. Moreover, the feasts themselves are applied to the cross although the Passover is the only one that really fits while other feasts like the Passover fit better elsewhere. Adventists see this service as having a broader application. Whenever someone sinned, they brought a sacrifice and were forgiven: salvation by grace through faith. But, once saved does not mean always saved and therefore, a judgment must take place to determine who the faithful are. This happens on the day of Atonement. Here God goes through and demonstrates why some believers are saved and some lost and in doing so He demonstrates His justice (cleanses his sanctuary/tribunal of reproach brought by Satan's accusations). Satan's mouth is shut and he is shown to be the one at fault for sin. He carries the ultimate blame for all the atrocities ever committed by the people he has tempted (sins confessed on the head of the scape goat). He is then sent into the wilderness (bound in chains for 1000 years - Rev. 20) while the saints keep the feast of tabernacles - are taken to their mansions in heaven that Jesus went to prepare for them. As mentioned earlier, the feasts are also divided into spring and fall (harvest) festivals representing Christ's first coming (spring) and His second coming (fall). The harvest is used repeatedly throughout the new testament to symbolize Christ's coming.
It would benefit heterosexuals and public health if gays were shipped to an isolated location

How do I have a selfish world view? You are wanting to send people away that love the same gender because basically what you're saying is they bother you because they have an STD and that they don't deserve to be treated as a human because of that. Okay. Whatever then. Excuse my supposed selfishness. I am glad that you know that the definition of a person who is bisexual. But if you aren't attracted to anyone that is gay and that they bother you so much then why would you be having sex with a woman that is bisexual? Most people are open about their sexuality, and if she tells you that she is bisexual and then you get an HIV that is your own fault. I know that STD's are deadly. But so is life. No matter when or how you are born, or the cause of your death, you are all going to die. So, so what. Why do you care how someone else dies if they CAN'T AFFECT YOU. I am not deceiving people. I am simply stating actual facts that prove a point. You are stating facts that prove nothing, but the fact that you know how to use google and you know the word gay, so that you can search bad statistics. Good for you.
It would benefit heterosexuals and public health if gays were shipped to an isolated location

th ink the main thing that you are not realizing is that the "gays" aren't affecting you in any way". First of all, you have a really selfish worldview and you are obviously projecting your selfishness on me . You are basically saying, everyone's worldview should be based on selfishness. Secondly, gays could affect me because bisexuals exist and bisexuals have sex with women also. A study shows 75% of women who are infected with HIV contracted it from bisexual men.Quote" New stats from the New York Department of Health and Hygiene and the Centers for Disease Control show that, in New York City, the majority of 647 women who tested HIV-positive in 2012 acquired the virus through unprotected sex with bisexual men"http://www.hivplusmag.com...; "2 in every 10 people have an STD Therefore 20% of the population has an STD" It's really low of you to attempt to deceive voters about something serious as a deadly STD In 2013, in the United States, gay and bisexual men accounted for 81% (30,689) of the 37,887 estimated HIV diagnoses among all males aged 13 years and older and 65% of the 47,352 estimated diagnoses among all persons receiving an HIV diagnosis that year. http://www.cdc.gov...
It would benefit heterosexuals and public health if gays were shipped to an isolated location

I think the main thing that you are not realizing is that the "gays" aren't affecting you in any way, so what if someone gay has an STD they aren't going to have sex with you, so you aren't affected by whatever disease they may have. These aren't contractible diseases unless it is with sexual interaction. I am not saying that every statistic is invalid. but what I am saying is that you are only testing a specific amount, and just because that amount has these results, doesn't mean another selection of people would have the same results. People do statistics like this. 2 in every 10 people have an STD Therefore 20% of the population has an STD. That isn't true.
It would benefit heterosexuals and public health if gays were shipped to an isolated location

"There is no.thing wrong with being gay" Gays are no more then 5 % of the population but they make up 81% of all new HIV cases and around 90% of all new syphilis cases. Gays have higher rates of STDs than prostitutes and prostitution is illegal. So gays are more of a health threat than an illegal activity. Triggering deadly STD epidemics is grounds to outlaw homosexuality. You gays should quit while you're ahead before the majority starts learning this information If gays were shipped to an isolated location, the new syphilis cases would drop by 90%. Lol. You call stopping a deadly STD epidemic from elimination is not wrong???? "Any relationship (Gay, Bisexual, Lesbian, Straight) can get HIV"Straw man fallacy. Guess what? Fallacies don't win arguments.Any relationship does not make up 81 percent of all new HIV cases. Better yet, gays have the highest deadly STD rates on earth"Because of a statistic, which actually don't prove anything" Statistics do mean something especially when every single nation on earth shows the same similar results. "means that this "statistic" is invalid" so you think every statistic in every nation on earth is invalid? Gay scientist won't even agree with you"They most likely only tested gay men" That's falseGoogle this Hiv is decreasing among heterosexuals but increasing alarmingly among gays http://thewestsidestory.net..."Why "send gays away" for something that doesn't affect you in any way?" it will affect me because bisexuals exist and bisexual spread diseases to women
It would benefit heterosexuals and public health if gays were shipped to an isolated location

There is nothing wrong with being gay, and your arguments are completely invalid. 1. Any relationship (Gay, Bisexual, Lesbian, Straight) can get HIV. Because of a statistic, which actually don't prove anything, means that this "statistic" is invalid. 2. They most likely only tested gay men. You're probably going to die if you have an immune deficiency. It's not like your body knows you're gay and then bam you get a disease. Doesn't work like that. I'm not even going to bother to comment on all your ridiculous statistics or so-called proof. When people try to prove something they only test the subject being proved. Anyone and anything can experience these things, and even if these things happen or are more likely to affect a gay person, then it doesn't affect you. Why "send gays away" for something that doesn't affect you in any way?
Be It Resolved That a Non-Mac PC is better than a Mac PC

"Hereonin, let 'Mac' represent any non-Mac PC and let 'PC' represent any Mac PC." I am defending 'Mac PC's over 'non-Mac PC's, as per the resolution. Thus, I am defending PCs over Macs, according to my opponent's above quote. I offer these 3 contentions: (C1) Macs lack the customizability that PCs offer, (C2) Macs rip their users off with false promises, and (C3) Macs have no valid advantage over PC, while PCs do have many valid advantages over Macs. PRO has elaborated on my first contention. My other two contentions will be elaborated upon after my worthy opponent's next argument.
Be It Resolved That a Non-Mac PC is better than a Mac PC

Salutations to all who are reading this. I have started this debate to discuss a topic I find to be of utmost importance: Be It Resolved That a Non-Mac PC is better than a Mac PC. I am arguing the Pro side and believe that this resolution must most definitely stand. I will first define the terms of the resolution. A PC is defined as a Personal Computing unit, a non-Mac PC is defined as any PC which is not fabricated by Apple Computers Inc, and a Mac PC is defined as any PC which is fabricated by Apple Computers Inc. Hereonin, let "Mac" represent any non-Mac PC and let "PC" represent any Mac PC. I will now state my three main contentions: that (C1) Macs lack the customizability that PCs offer, that (C2) Macs rip their users off with false promises, and that (C3) Macs have no valid advantage over PC, while PCs do have many valid advantages over Macs. I will now elaborate on my first contention. My other two contentions will be elaborated upon after my worthy opponent's first argument. My first contention, to reiterate, is that Macs lack the customizability that PCs offer. Let's begin by talking about the software part. Mac's OS line has consistently blocked users from customizing their Mac's interface and functionality. Apple does not allow users to change the color scheme or replace default software with more functional third-party, for example. Windows and Linux, the two leading non-Mac Operating Systems, offer users with many customization abilities. The color scheme is 100% customizable, and default software such as Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player can be replaced with superior software like Opera, Chrome, Winamp and VLC. Hardware-wise, PCs offer far more customization options. For example, you can build a PC from scratch in the way you desire, and run any non-Mac OS on it. Mac does not allow you to do this. It is illegal to run Mac OS on a system you built yourself. Furthermore, you can hardly customize your existing Mac system, while you can fully customize your PC. It is for these reasons and reasons I will state in the future that I believe this resolution must, most definitely, stand.
Earth Is Absolutely Immobile

I'm going to first start off plain and simple: You don't know what you're talking about. My proof? First: Are you suggesting, that Galileo, the one that is known to have coutered Geocentrism, would admit that he was wrong and go back on years of work? ANYONE WHO KNOWS Galileo or Stephen Hawking or Copernicus would know for certain that the quotes you give are incorrect. What you are doing is taking a quote and adding your own words to manipulate it to fit your argument! Everything in [] is added on by you! Making all the quotes you give invalid. Second: Now you say that my source, that proved the Universe is ever expanding everywhere and there is no way to tell where the center is, was outdated. The website was, but the idea isn't! We know that the Universe is ever expanding. It has been proved time and time again! You cannot refute that! http://skyserver.sdss.org... http://www.npr.org... Third: I know what the Hubble Law is! I didn't try to explain it! If you followed my link (which I know you did since you called it outdated) and read it, you would know that: "Edwin Hubble announced that he had measured the speed of galaxies at different distances from us, and had discovered that the farther they were, the faster they were receding" "This might suggest that we are at the centre of the expanding universe, but in fact if the universe is expanding uniformly according to Hubble's law, then it will appear to do so from any vantage point." Had you read this, you would know that Hubble used his law to discover that there is no way to find the center of the Universe! Now that I have proved that your refutes have no meaning and/or are inconclusive, I will start my own argument: If Foucault's pendulum is caused by distant masses rotaing around the Earth and not Earth's rotation itself... then how do you explain the fact that multiple pendulums are placed around the world that have the same result as each other?! Are you going to say that there are multiple masses revolving around everyone one of those pendulums and those masses don't affect each other?! That would be preposterous! And the gravity wouldn't be even close to being able to move those pendulums around in that manner! And you provide a quote:"Foucault’s pendulum is explained by a real Coriolis force acting on moving masses over the earth’s surface[...] the angular rotation of the distant masses around the earth[...] keep the plane of oscillation of the pendulum rotating together with the fixed stars."But as I have said, the [] of your quotes are inputted by you! Which makes the quote invalid and your argument flawed...Also, what about the movement of Mars in the night sky? http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... ARE YOU GOING TO SAY THAT MARS ORBITS THE EARTH LIKE THAT?What about our atmosphere? Our jet streams? Let me repeat: You don't know what you are talking about. All of you arguments are ignoring the basics! That means that Earth Rotates!
Earth Is Absolutely Immobile

I must say, this debate is getting very fascinating. I'm very excited on how this will turn out. Quotes: You said that Galileo admitted that he was wrong. But we must keep in mind that 1641 was one year away from Galileo's death. And as it is known, the Catholic Church would only release him from house arrest if he admitted that he was wrong. In 1638, he petitions the Inquisition to be freed and was denied. He was miserable. We CANNOT trust that his testimony is correct. He could have lied in order to be free. Now you add Stephen Hawking into the mix: however, you added "[Geocentrism]" when Hawking didn't say that himself in The Grand Design. Take that word away, and your quote has just rebutted your Pro! Center of Universe: You say that it is possible that the Earth is in the center of the Universe. But it is actually IMPOSSIBLE to determine where the center of the universe is! http://math.ucr.edu...: "The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell. In 1929 Edwin Hubble announced that he had measured the speed of galaxies at different distances from us, and had discovered that the farther they were, the faster they were receding. This might suggest that we are at the centre of the expanding universe, but in fact if the universe is expanding uniformly according to Hubble's law, then it will appear to do so from any vantage point." This means that there is no center and there never has been! The Big Bang was simply the spontaneous explosion EVERYWHERE at the same time! Sphere of Axis of Evil: If you were to look out as far as you can in all directions. The maximum point that you can see to forms a sphere! This is known as the Observable Universe. That means that if you were to conduct your own experiment except on the Sun; then it would appear that the "Axis of Evil" forms a sphere around the Sun. Proving the "Axis of Evil" inconclusive. My Own Proofs: http://scienceblogs.com...: The Foucault Pendulum: The Foucalt Pendulum is a perfect pendulum that is situated on the Earth. Little do people know, a pendulum (if made perfectly) will actually be AFFECTED by the Earth's rotation! Over the course of two days, the pendulum will actually spin 360 degrees around the full circle! The math (http://en.wikipedia.org...) actually shows that the pendulum rotates at EXACTLY the same rate that Earth does! This experiment PROVES WITHOUT A DOUBT that Earth rotates. And thus, your argument is Invalid!
School uniforms should be banned.

Let these chains break and these shackles ripped off I have no regard for you.You are not a judge nor a person.You are a self centered brain scattered twit.You do not dictate this debate.Let these chains be broken school uniforms should be abolished because it is not fitting in the eyes of a few it is not liked by some.What are we going to do kill the people who do not like uniforms.Or maybe just send a hitman to them.Of course not you may like a uniform and others may not you cannot ignore the fact that there are some people who do not like uniforms.The truth is we all have a creative spirit we have just have forgotten it.We all have something to express but uniforms are just average confining you to wear one suit or dress everyday.Come on everyone let us understand as an evolutionary era we all must evolve from just one type of clothing.Voters please note my opponent is a hypocrite giving rules only involving me.Now that is hypocrisy like she is a judge.You know Temmo I finally now what bop means Bumptious Obnoxious prick and that exactly what you are.I do not care about you defending your friend his account is closed there is nothing you can do.FYI Temmo is a twit Note(Teemo shut it I have no care for your comments)
School uniforms should be banned.

The reasons why we shouldn't have school uniforms are the cost doesn't meet the wadges of families trying to make ends meet.Secondly it doesn't diminish bulling.How is this possible let me explain say I have a blue tie and then I give my opponent the same tie sure the ties are the same but we both look different in the same looking ties.Basically my point is everyone can wear the same clothing but how the look in that clothing is an entirely different story.Also con stated on google there are 1 million people don't care about creativity or art that is not alot there are seven billion people world wide and when viewed from that scale that small compared to seven billion. REBUTTAL#1 CONTENTION 1: BULLYING PREVENTION is illogical because I could had out a billion people the same suit and i promise you all of them will look different sure IT IS THE SAME UNIFORM but the people wearing them will look different. REBUTTAL#2 Contention 3: Restricts inapropriate clothing this one is also illogical sure uniforms restrict bad or improper clothing but the one thing is that WHO IN THERE RIGHT MIND COMES TO SCHOOL WITH A BIKINI!!!!!We are humans no nianderthals we know right and wrong.We have proper sense.Cons statement is possibly a derogatory slur calling our species inferior and dumb.And if that's not what it meant then what dos it mean we have common sense to dress correct.We have parents that tell us not to wear a bikini to school or wait they don't tell us that why because we have enough sense to correctley dress.
School uniforms should be banned.

Before beggining, I would like to make some notes. First of all, I apologize for the small font last round, it was an error. Secondly, I also forgot to cite my sources. Here they are:[1]http://www.lettersofnote.com...[2]http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Now to continue on to the debate with this big, readable font.REFUTATIONS "Temmo you fail to realize that the topic is suppose to say school uniforms should not be banned.Regardless if you refute my points you yourself have failed to state any points."There is no need for me to provide any points. You are supposed to make points on why it should be banned since you are the instagator. Me as the contender am only required to refute your points, and explain how they are false."If you were as intelligent as you seemed you would have put points.Now the win is mine." Please refrain from personal attacks. Due to this comment, you have already lost points for conduct. Furthermore, the win isn't yours because I proved your arguments wrong."(Note: Temmo you say assasination is creative only in the eyes of a killer.You again fail at stating the point.)" False, I for one find some methods of assasination quite creative, and I am not a killer. "Freedom of speech regardless you got off point how do you know most people dont like creativity." How do I know? Over 1 million results on google of people who hate art and creativity, including myself."And if they dont then at least the do not have to wear the exact same thing everyday." I had a uniform in grade school and I loved it. It is fair to make them wear clothes due to all the benefits they present."My point about bulling is that weather you have ripped jeans or silk trousers you will still be made fun of about the following: the way your face looks,your hair looks,your look (in general),or a yo mama joke.My point is that bullies will always find something to make fun of weather its your clothes of not." Did you even read my argument? I said people will still get bullied. However, with uniforms, 1 method of bullying is gone, so bullying is diminished. You fail to meet your BoP, and still fail to make any valid argument. I have no need to make any points.
School uniforms should be banned.

Temmo you fail to realize that the topic is suppose to say school uniforms should not be banned.Regardless if you refute my points you yourself have failed to state any points.If you were as intelligent as you seemed you would have put points.Now the win is mine. (Note: Temmo you say assasination is creative only in the eyes of a killer.You again fail at stating the point.) Freedom of speech regardless you got off point how do you know most people dont like creativity.And if they dont then at least the do not have to wear the exact same thing everyday.My point about bulling is that weather you have ripped jeans or silk trousers you will still be made fun of about the following: the way your face looks,your hair looks,your look (in general),or a yo mama joke.My point is that bullies will always find something to make fun of weather its your clothes of not.Am I right I am creative and analytical but I still dont want to wear the same thing everyday.