BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the government should only recognize straight marriages

I am here to propose arguments as to why the government should only recognize straight (one male, one female) marriages. Let's begin by defining a few terms: gov"ern"ment [guhv-ern-muhnt, ‐er-muhnt] - (noun) the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc. ; political administration: Government is necessary to the existence of civilized society. [1] rec"og"nize [rek-uhg-nahyz] - (verb) to perceive as existing or true; realize: to be the first to recognize a fact. [2] Therefore, in order to prove that the government should only recognize straight marriages, we need to realize that the term "government" was not specified in the original post, therefore, for argument's sake, we will be discussing the FEDERAL government. Marriages that are not straight, for this purpose, will include but will not be limited to: marriages between male partners marriages between female partners polygamous marriages The arguments in favor of the resolution presented during this round will be as follows: 1) The people are not ready to accept change 2) Gay marriage would have worsening economic effects Contention 1: American people are not ready to accept change: When Americans think of gay marriage, the most prevalent obstacle that comes to mind as to why the government has not passed it is simply religion. Specifically, the bible speaks out against it. [3] The bible is defined by dictionary. com as "the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion. .. ". [4] Base-christian communities are those that follow the statements set forth in the bible and study it as such. [5] Approximately seventy percent of our country is Christian, and therefore, agrees with the principle of the Bible. [6] Since American politics are based on a majority-rule system, and the majority of America follows scriptures that do not support non-straight marriages, the government should only recognize straight marriages because it is in the intent of the majority of the people. Contention 2: Gay marriage would have economic effects: The United States deficit is currently $16t. [7] The United States spent $15.6b in 2008 alone on the war against AIDS. Therefore, if it continued at this rate, $156b would have been spent by 2018 -- something that does not help our deficit. We don't have the economic wiggle-room to spent such money. I'm sure you're thinking, what does this have to do with marriage? Unfortunately, homosexual couples make up the largest AIDS statistic in the United States. [8] It should be obvious that allowing gay marriage would increase the number of gay relationships. Therefore, the amount of AIDS cases and the tax dollars spent to fight this disease would increase. Sources cited: [1] - . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] - . http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] - . http://blog.al.com... [4] - . http://dictionary.reference.com... [5] - . http://www.theradicaltruth.com... [6] - . http://www.gallup.com... [7] - . http://zfacts.com... [8] - . http://www.cdc.gov...
Praying for the sins of the dead is a biblical practice, and a holy and pious thought.

2 Maccabees 12:44-45Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE) 44 For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. 45 But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.[a]
Praying for the sins of the dead is a biblical practice, and a holy and pious thought.

Rules: 1. For the purposes of this debate, both parties shall assume the God of the Bible exists. 2. For the purposes of this debate, both parties shall assume the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God. 3. For the purposes of this debate, both parties shall use the same translation: The RSVCE. 4. First round is for acceptance only for Con. 5. Any violation of any of these rules will result in an automatic debate forfeit for the violating party.
It's more logical to believe in the Resurrection of Christ Jesus of Nazareth

I believe that the writers of the bible weren't writing history, they were writing a holy book. The examples you gave of historians, were they alive during the time of jesus's life or after? And are they 1st hand witnesses of jesus or not? The quote you gave didn't actually contain any evidence to persuade me, it was just another testimony that any religious person I know could've told me. Also, about the jewish historian you quoted, many scholars believe his words to have been modified by most likely, Eusebius or another church father. That stuff he wrote was written after the gospels and could be hearsay. So again, answering your last question, I do believe that jesus was made up. Here's why: 1. Jesus NEVER wrote anything. 2. The savior of the world being sent to the most superstitious, illiterate part of the world doesn't make sense, that's illogical when he could've been born in China instead where they already could write and read much better. And it is also illogical for a normal guy to be resurrected like that. 3. There is NO mention of a miracle working Jesus in Secular sources. 4. The story of Jesus copies other stories and includes unoriginal ideas like virgin birth and resurrection after 3 days. 5. The earliest writings of Jesus contain no details about his life. 6. The bible and writings of Jesus have been translated and altered many times over time. And there are some more....
It's more logical to believe in the Resurrection of Christ Jesus of Nazareth

I'm saying that it is logical, sorry for that. Now for evidence that He existed. Roman Tacitus, an accurate historian of the ancient world, acknowledged superstitious Christians, who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, the chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian wrote that there is a man named Christ who lived in the first century (Annals 15.44) Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian, wrote a book called Antiquities, in which in a part of it(18:3) it says "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats....He was [the] Christ...he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him." Another version says, "At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." Plus, wouldn't the Jews have just said that He didn't if He didn't? They acknowledged His existence, while blaspheming Him, but nonetheless acknowledged Him. BTW, do you not believe in the disciples and Jesus, just Jesus, or what? Who do you think He was made up by, along with His disciples?
It's more logical to believe in the Resurrection of Christ Jesus of Nazareth

Can you please clarify the resolution of this debate? It states, "It's more logical to believe in the resurrection of Christ Jesus of Nazareth." What are you comparing it to? It's more logical than what? Or do you mean to say, "It is logical to believe in the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth." ? Either way, before we delve into the specifics, you first need to prove or provide adequate evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Because it isn't logical to believe in the resurrection of something that doesn't exist. Also, even if some of the new testament events are true, that does not by any means prove the other ones. That would be like saying that the absence of evidence for all the miracles in the old testament, (like the creation of the earth by how Genesis describes and Noah's flood) proves that the rest of them never happened.
It's more logical to believe in the Resurrection of Christ Jesus of Nazareth

Well, first off I would like to point out that we have recently found evidence that the New Testament is (for the most part) historically accurate. The John Rylands manuscript, Chester Beatty Papyri, and Bodmer Papyri II have shown that the New Testament was written within a generation of Christ Jesus of Nazareth. Sir William Ramsay was out in Asia Minor, and thought the New Testament wasn't historically accurate until he realized the Book of Luke's accurate details. He believes that Luke was a historian of the first class. A culture in Israel at that time was to memorize their teacher's words, and that includes the disciples of Jesus. There is also more evidence of the New Testament in other ways than all the classic literature combined. So, therefore, if Jesus was a liar, He would not have resurrected. In it, the disciples all doubted Jesus after the crucifixion and were doubting Him(Sorry, don't have the verses for it, but I know I read it). Jesus must have Resurrected and showed Himself to them, or else why would they be martyred? Peter, Andrew, Bartholomew, Philip, James, Simon-Crucified James, Matthew-Sword Thomas(the logical one)-Speared Thaddeus-arrows John was the only natural death. If the other disciples knew that the Resurrection was a lie, even after Jesus told them it would happen, then why would they die? This same thing goes with lunatic, except, if He was a lunatic, then how did He have such wise sayings? Plus, the prophecies of going with Him are 10 to the fortieth power! Just 8 of them would be covering 2 feet high of silver dollars in an area the size of Texas, going up to one of them, and on the first one, it being a marked one(red X). Thats not even the full thing! Now, may my opponent answer wisely and smart.
It's more logical to believe in the Resurrection of Christ Jesus of Nazareth

1. So.... if he did write something it would be good evidence for his existence but he didn't, don't you think he should have? Did he not write anything because he just didn't or because he wasn't there? 2. That doesn't counter my point at all.... just because they said so doesn't make it logical, and that is what we are discussing. 3. Excuses? My argument still stands. AND there are no writings about Jesus written while he was alive.... isn't that odd? 4. And it was still copied, the virgin birth, resurrection after 3 days thingies, those aren't original at all. 5. The point was that the lack of knowledge about him during this period of his life suggests his non-existence. All of the details were filled in later and not confirmed by the earlier writings. 6. 98% accurate? How do you know that? And as covered in my number 3, you have no unbiased sources other than the bible.
It's more logical to believe in the Resurrection of Christ Jesus of Nazareth

1. So? There are plenty of people who haven't wrote anything and we know to exist. 2. The prophecies said from the house of David, in the the city of Bethlehem. 3. Because of the Pharisees and others, plus the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 would have killed eye witnesses. 4. The Judaism religion was here long before all other religions, at least in all the senses, the actual start was with Abraham and the covenant, and Judaism predicts these things. 5. So? This doesn't prove much, however I do understand where you are going. There is one verse, however, that is when He was 12, and it just says he asked questions and gained wisdom when His parents forgot Him cuz He wandered off 6. Nope, its about 98% accurate, we have alternate sources for the Bible as well.
Scandals can be useful in politics and academia or other areas.

Scandal: A scandal can be broadly defined as an accusation or accusations that receive wide exposure. Generally there is a negative effect on the credibility of the person or organisation involved. Society is scandalised when it is made aware of blatant breaches of moral norms or legal requirements. In contemporary times, exposure is often made by mass media. Such breaches have typically erupted from greed, lust or the abuse of power. Scandals may be regarded as political, sexual, moral, literary or artistic but often spread from one realm into another. The basis of a scandal may be factual or false, or a combination of both. from: https://en.wikipedia.org...
Scandals can be useful in politics and academia or other areas.

My opponent has not made any statements towards such actions being "useful", so i will have to try to start the argument, with not knowing any examples of "useful" ness, towards any politic. In most scandals, whether it's for greed,power, or enjoyment/fulfillment, the people have to find ways to cover their tracks, to say. They are not capable of wining, or receiving the object, they find ways to cheat, or brake the very Laws they preach to their people, in order to get the prize, without working for the right to host it. There are Scandals that people have gotten away with (ex Bush election in Miami) but there are several that don't, and then the name of the person(s) are now ruin, and have little chance to do anything in their life because of their sinister actions. It is an act against everything Justice exclaims, and is an lie to the people, and hurts everyone, because these so called politics, are selfish, and in the end get them nowhere, so please tell me, how is committing crimes, useful in long ran, to anyone?
Abortion Ought To Be Illegal

-Abortion Ought To Be Illegal- The primary topic of this argument shall reside in the legality and morality of abortion as it relates to United States law. In the first round, I kindly ask for the Con to articulate his/her argument and then respond to mine.Definitions: Fetus: An unborn offspring, from the embryo stage until birth. Life: A characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not. [1] If the Con has a reasonable and logical problem with these definitions, please say so. The Argument:Primary Point: A fetus is living and human. The fetus grows, develops, responds, and maintains homeostasis. These are the primary distinctions from living organism and inanimate material. For example, from weeks 9-16, “The 4 chamber heart is finishing developing and the embryonic tail goes away. Breathing-like movement of the fetus is necessary for stimulation of lung development, rather than for obtaining oxygen” [2]. The human fetus, is well - human. Obviously it can’t be a whale fetus or a canine fetus. Living things begat after their own kind. Humans begat humans. It’s a principle of biology - it’s biogenesis [3]. This point might sound silly, even self-evident, but you will be amazed by the number of individuals that will deny it. Secondary Point: If it is accepted that a fetus is a living human being, the legal ramifications are dire. In the very same amendment that was cited as justification for the Roe v. Wade decision, i.e. the 14th Amendment, there is the Equal Protection Clause that requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction [4]. If fetuses are accepted as human beings, then the untold millions of babies aborted in the United States alone, were unjustly murdered [5]. An estimated 44 million induced abortions are performed each year [6]. In two years from the time this debate is finished, more fetuses will be aborted than the total death toll of WWII. The amount of deaths in numbers like these are incomprehensible to the human mind and our emotional capabilities. You don’t know if you ought to cry; respond in anger; or, like many, remain in a hazy cloud of emotional emptiness.Third Point: On the assertion that women retain the right to terminate a fetus is unjustifiable, with the exception of the endangerment of the mother’s life or other critical complications.Sources:[1] Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] Ibid.[3] Biology-online.org: “The process in which life forms arise from similar life forms.” http://www.biology-online.org...[4]Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] Cdc.gov: “Results: A total of 857,475 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC for 2000 from 49 reporting areas,” http://www.cdc.gov...[6] http://www.guttmacher.org...
religious beliefs or science

Pro has missed the point. My argument was that following a subject with reason and accepting religion isn't mutually exclusive. Furthermore, he has failed to touch upon my argument that some religions do incorporate science into their belief systems. As I've shown with Buddhism. He has also not bridged the is/ought gap. He has yet to show that depicting what's true means we should take that action. He states the help the development of the human race, yet this again is stating what is, not what ought to be done. Pro doesn't talk about the problem of criteria that shows science and religion are both ultimately based on faith (unjustified propositions). He fails to answer the problem of underdeterminism. He states that scientists come up with different theories and they discusses which one is the best. He hasn't told us what the method for selection is nor how it's sound. The fact that there are other theories that explain the data just as well as any other means we have no reason for selecting one or the other. He claims that science still should be followed because it can explain things. But the problem of underdetermination shows that science can't do this. It shows no theory is falsifiable, since we can just deny that the theory entails the flawed results or posit something to explain the experiments. And since there are a multitudes of interpretations, then no theory is verifiable, as any evidence for one is just as much evidence as the other. I conclude that there is no reason to favor science over religion as there is no duality between them, they both fundamentally rely on faith, and science itself is flawed.
religious beliefs or science

Con states that religion focuses on supernatural. Yes this is agreed but what should the people follow. They should follow a subject with reason rather than following a process just because it is said so with blind belief. For everything there is a reason and as long as it is not proved that god exists people should avoid it. Science depicts what is true and what is not . Taking this as reference we can figure out what to do rather than following a command sent by 'god'.There is a reason why science is looked into with great interest . It is because they help in the development of the human race and give us answers to unlock the secrets of our surroundings. Religious beliefs give reasons for a particular saying but where is the evidence that the reasons told are true rather than a wide range of belief. secondly, scientists come up with different theories for a particular data but the so many different theories help the scientists to increase their range of perspective and after many discussions there is an ultimate theory placed which results in giving us even more clues and keys about our surroundings. Whereas religion has its own beliefs and such beliefs can disturb a normal persons lifestyle. People who seek astrologers look for good dates to start a business join a company but what if the date said is very far from now then the person will lose any opportunities that he or she might get in that period whereas a practical person would join the company right away and avoid any loss (loss of pay, company regulations etc). I conclude that science should still be followed because it can explain things which we can see and not just imagine.
religious beliefs or science

Pro is presenting a false dilemma that we can either accept science or religion. Science adopts methodological naturalism [http://chem.tufts.edu...] which states we should only focus on the natural. Most religion focuses on the supernatural, of which science makes no claims. Pro's other error is that he is assuming all religions are dogmatic. Dalai Lama XIV has said "If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."[http://www.goodreads.com...] This again shows Pro's false duality between science and religion. He claims that science provides us with strong reasons for claims, however this doesn't entail what he's attempting to prove. Strong reasons for something about the world tell us what is true, they don't tell us what we should do. He hasn't demonstrated that we should accept science. Furthermore, Pro is stating that we should favor science over religion because science provides strong reasons for claims whereas religion doesn't. However, any reason for a claim must itself be based on something that is unjustified. Reason must give as a criteria of knowledge (X is true if and only if) as opposed to faith which just claims X is knowledge without telling us how it is knowledge. The problem is, in order to justify any method of reasoning, it must derive that from actual cases of knowledge. Which without a method is simply faith. Lastly, science itself suffers from the problem of underdetermination. Differing theories can explain the same data, so how can we know which theory is true? Certain consequences either imply that theories aren't falsifiable or are unverifiedable [http://plato.stanford.edu...]. The refutes the idea that " science follows a theory supported by reasons".
Conservative Principles

First on the issue of gun control. On a recent terrorist attack on Paris by ISIS, over 150 people died. This is one of the most liberal cities in the entire world with very strict gun laws. Why are we taking guns away from law abiding citizens who can prevent attacks like these from happening? Now, I'm all about background checks and I am against allowing mentally ill people and terrorists to obtain firearms. The guns do not kill, people kill. When we take guns away from people that can protect our citizens in times of tragedy, we are creating a unsafe country. Just because we have stricter gun laws does not mean criminals will all of the sudden follow the law. Not to mention our founders instated a 2nd amendment for a reason, but that's another argument. Social issues, we conservatives are all about them. We believe that there is a God in heaven and that we must live by his word in the Bible. Whether it is abortion or same sex marriage, we have to live by the word of God and both of these go against it. Immigration is a problem. Thousands of Americans are out of work and under President Obama we allow illegal immigrants to cross our border. This needs to end. Our countries citizens come before any other countries. I'm all for allowing citizenship if they come legally, but it's against the law to allow people to come here without obtaining U.S. citizenship. Liberals are all about Bernie Sanders apparently. Why are we encouraging socialism? Are we stupid? Many nations are failing because of the crippling rules their government is forcing on its businesses. We need to open our eyes and realize that raising taxes is not the answer, it will create more distress. And taxing the rich more to help others that need money and do not work because they are lazy will cripple our nation. Those rich people will move to another nation, where they can live happily without being taxed to the extreme. Then what will we do? Our economy will be destroyed.