BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible is against gay marriage.

In his previous argument, Con argued that Genesis 2:23-24 does not make marriage exclusively heterosexual. A careful reading of the verses, however, shows this to be mistaken.Let's revisit verse 24, which reads: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." The phrase "cleave unto his wife" clearly denotes male-female complementarity. The Hebrew word for cleave is "dabaq" which means "to be joined together." But joined together for what? Genesis 1:28, which tells the creation narrative from another perspective, gives us some insight into this by tying procreation into it. In it, God tells Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply." But that is only possible within a procreative framework, which heterosexuality satisfies. So it's clear that the "one flesh" referred to in verse 24 is that of a type of relationship ordered around procreation with its end goal. And of course, since homosexual relationships are intrinisically non-procreative in nature, they cannot satisfy the Biblical definition of marriage. Since only relationships which have procreation possible as part of their intrinsic nature can qualify as marriages, this defines marriage in terms that are exclusively heterosexual. Therefore, the Bible provides a positive condemnation of same-sex marriage (Marriage is X...) as opposed to a negative condemnation (Marriage is not Y...).As a further argument, consider the fact that at the end of creation, it is revealed that God said that it was good. "Good" here is a normative term, denoting the fact that the way God originally created is how creation ought to be. Thus, since homosexual relationships is not mentioned in God's original design plan, it can be inferred that therefore that such relationships are not normative. This too consistutes a positive condemnation of same-sex marriage in Genesis. Interestingly enough Jesus himself affirms that marriage is exclusively heterosexual. In Matthew 19:4, he says: “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female"At the beginning" denotes God's original design plan for human relationships. Coupled with the fact that procreation is also mentioned as the purpose of marriage, and that homosexual relationships are excluded from God's explicit design plan for human relationships, it can be inferred that the Bible does not lend support to same-sex marriages.I now turn it over to Con for his arguments.
The Bible is against gay marriage.

I in the preious round stated two ways in which my opponent would be able to conclusively show why the Bible explicitly states that it is against same sex marriage. I wrote that either the Bible must specifically condemn the idea of gay marriage or specifically advocate marriage being exclusively heterosexual. My opponent has stated that he will argue the latter. My opponent argues that because his verse states that Adam stated that his wife was the flesh of his flesh and then showed an example of a man leaving to marry and become one flesh. This again does not specifically make marriage exclusively heterosexual. Adam in the first verse stated that Eve would become the flesh of his flesh because they would be married. There was again absolutely no reference to marriage needing to be exclusively heterosexual.
The Bible is against gay marriage.

In response to my request for clarification, Con has stated that "Any mention of gay marriage or explanation of why marriage should be exclusively heterosexual" will do. He has thus outlined two possible ways in which he may be engaged. I can either show a passage which explicitly mentions gay marriage, or show a verse which outlines why marriage must be exclusively heterosexual. My approach will, and has been the latter. Recall Genesis 2:23-24And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. These verses are structured in the form of a logical argument, with "Therefore" denoting the conclusion in verse 24. The argument presented, of course, is that marriage can only be between a man and a woman because (For reasons outlined in verse 23) only a male and a female satisfy the criteria of "one flesh" found in verse 24. Thus, Genesis quite clearly outlines why marriage must be exclusively heterosexual. Con's response to me can be completely ignored. His own statements (Especially the first paragraph) indicate that a verse need not specifically mention homosexuality or even why they should not be allowed to marry. Ironically, Con's own criteria helps to defeat his reponse to me.
The Bible is against gay marriage.

My opponent asks for clarification as to what kind of standards are to be used to decide if a verse is actually against gay marriage. Any verse in which the Bible actually condemns the idea of gay marriage will do. Any mention of gay marriage or explanation of why marriage should be exclusively heterosexual. Now after this needed clarification I shall examine my opponent's single verse of supposed condemnation of same-sex marriage. Genesis 2: 23-24Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. Now in this verse there is absolutely no mention of reference to homosexuality or whether or not they should be allowed to marry. Other rules found in the Bible that are against certain practices deemed 'immoral' condemn the activity instead of advocating the opposite. This is especially common in the Old Testament. People should be pacifistic----Thou shalt not killEveryone should be straight--Homosexuality is an abominationThe Bible has yet said absolutely nothing about whether gays should be able to marry each other or whether marriage should be exclusively heterosexual.
polygamy is beneficial to soety

you know what? i am looking for a serious debate which means a serious argumentation, sound logic etc. you are not doing that. you are simply telling me about your BLIND FAITH which i don’t want to hear OK?now let me give you my rebuttal:1. polygamy WILL abolish adultery/bigamy etc. i have shown you why and how. i don’t want to repeat it anyway. please see my argument and try to UNDERSTAND.2. you can rape a thousand woman to satisfy your sexual hunger but that will be a RAPE and a crime. but if you marry a thousand woman and satisfy your sexual hunger,that will be a normal MARITAL OBLIGATION and not a crime. 3. polygamy will teach kids how to share things in life. how it is flat wrong? if you have any step brother or sister, won’t you share your things with them? if not, then of course your character is questionable.this guy is the next big conservative on earth.
polygamy is beneficial to soety

polygamy will abolish extra marital offenses like adultery, bigamy etc. the root of all these offenses is that you can take one wife at a time. then there comes mistress or other woman. but if you can marry as many woman as you can, then there will be no mistress at all. so this way polygamy will abolish all extra marital affair.Are you serious? polygamy will satisfy people"s sexual hunger. nobody will remain unsatisfied in life.Oh ok. If I mass-rape women, that will satisfy my sexual needs, right? polygamy will teach kids how to share everything in life. thus it will make kids less selfish.This is just flat out wrong. This guy is the next Nobel peace prize winner.
polygamy is beneficial to soety

polygamy = man can have more than one wife woman can have more than one husband benefits: polygamy will abolish extra marital offenses like adultery, bigamy etc. the root of all these offenses is that you can take one wife at a time. then there comes mistress or other woman. but if you can marry as many woman as you can, then there will be no mistress at all. so this way polygamy will abolish all extra marital affair. polygamy will satisfy people"s sexual hunger. nobody will remain unsatisfied in life. polygamy will teach kids how to share everything in life. thus it will make kids less selfish.
polygamy is beneficial to soety

if the burglary is made legal then why people should not do it? making any act illegal means discouraging one to do that act. conversely, making any act legal means encouraging one to do the act. if polygamy becomes legal why people should not do it?No. Just no.your attitude clearly shows who are you? you don’t want to share things with your step brother or sister but that is your problem. others may want to share. for them polygamy is beneficial.I am MilitaryAtheist.it seems that you are playing “belief” game. i am not interested in beliefs. if you have any sound reasoning why polygamy is harmful, please state those reason.Goodbye.Vote for me for the most obvious reasons.
polygamy is beneficial to soety

if the burglary is made legal then why people should not do it? making any act illegal means discouraging one to do that act. conversely, making any act legal means encouraging one to do the act. if polygamy becomes legal why people should not do it?your attitude clearly shows who are you? you don’t want to share things with your step brother or sister but that is your problem. others may want to share. for them polygamy is beneficial.it seems that you are playing “belief” game. i am not interested in beliefs. if you have any sound reasoning why polygamy is harmful, please state those reason.
polygamy is beneficial to soety

Damn man. you know what? i am looking for a serious debate which means a serious argumentation, sound logic etc. you are not doing that. lol. Looks like we got a new ScottyDouglas.you are simply telling me about your BLIND FAITH which i don’t want to hear OK?Im an atheist? 1. polygamy WILL abolish adultery/bigamy etc. i have shown you why and how. i don’t want to repeat it anyway. please see my argument and try to UNDERSTAND.2. you can rape a thousand woman to satisfy your sexual hunger but that will be a RAPE and a crime. but if you marry a thousand woman and satisfy your sexual hunger,that will be a normal MARITAL OBLIGATION and not a crime. lol. Thats like making burglary moral by making it legal. 3. polygamy will teach kids how to share things in life. how it is flat wrong? if you have any step brother or sister, won’t you share your things with them? if not, then of course your character is questionable.Mates are yours and your alone.
Nuclear weapons kept the peace during the cold war.

I remember as a child, I was picked on by this neighborhood bully (he was bigger much older) however I finally stood my ground and smacked him in the face, out if fear of the continuation of being bullied. Well it worked!!!! For a week, until his bruise was gone and he wanted revenge, so if you mean to say that it keeps and maintains the peace? or do you mean it made the peace (and the loser had to accept) If a country is anything like a bully they will eventually want revenge once they are all healed up and patched up. So say it keeps the peace? I don't think thats agreeable at all. It merely forces your opponent to succumb to the brutal power that a nuclear weapon would have caused. However, there is no peace involved
Nuclear weapons kept the peace during the cold war.

I stand as stated above , nuclear weapons kept the peace in the cold war . the cold war , which in case causes any confusion , the one I am referring to is that of the u.s.a and the u.s.s.r ... please do not knit pick at this , I would appreciate a nice debate ... I will leave my opponent to enter his claim , you must be prove that nuclear weapons did not keep the peace ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I will define what a nuclear weapon or "nuke" is and .. "A weapon of mass destruction whose explosive power derives from a nuclear reaction." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear weapons kept the peace during the cold war.

You make the case, that nothing had happened, which is fair and true. I make the case that using WMD to deter a war did not keep the peace, it still only forced their opponent to succumb to the very idea of a WMD war. A threat in most cases is exactly the same doing the action itself. Just like if i called your house and started threatening you with WMD. Once you licked your wounds and perhaps became a stronger person you would want revenge on me to make me feel the way you did when i was threatening to you. Also in court threatening someone is punishable by law, because there is no peace involved when you threaten someone or actually go through with the threat. I stand by the fact that using WMD to stop the cold war was not peaceful. Thanks for finishing the debate ranger.
Nuclear weapons kept the peace during the cold war.

sorry for not posting a response ! could not get a hold of a computer ! You say that with your example of punching the bully on the face that , a country would want revenge . however in this argument , nobody has taken any action yet remember ? Neither Russia or the U.S took any direct military action on each other excluding some cases which you could argue like the Bay of Pigs or Korea etc. but no country threw a punch at each other because of thing called mutual assured destruction. definition - Severe, unavoidable reciprocal damage that superpowers are likely to inflict on each other or their allies in a nuclear war, conceived as the heart of a doctrine of nuclear deterrence. because of this countries did not invade , because think about it . If Russia invaded the U.S and likewise , each country would have launched a retaliation against one and other , but after the first country's launched a nuke , the other would have done the same , causing almost all country's with nuclear weapons to launch them. Leaders realised quickly that , they could not destroy there enemies without destroying themselves and everything with it. I stand to the resolution above Nuclear weapons kept the peace during the Cold War , I have not stated at any point that nuclear weapons are the way forward etc , I simply argue my case , if there was no nuclear weapons during that period of time , these two countries where going to go at each other like crazy sheep.
Atheism is Stupidity and Based on Imaginings having no Basis in Facts.

Since my opponent didn't offer a definition of atheism, I shall do so now.Atheism: "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." [1]My opponent claims atheism is stupidity and has no basis in facts. However, I contend that the most logical position to have on a specific topic when there is a lack of evidence, is to have a lack of belief. I have never seen any evidence presented in my lifetime of a god, so it is most logical to have a lack of belief in all gods. Unless pro can offer up some evidence of a god, it is not stupid to have a lack of belief in a god. All of the arguments in round 1 from my opponent don't seem to make any logical sense. Atheists can have hope and faith in a lot of things, they just don't have it in a god. Atheists experience forgiveness from other people all of the time when they have wronged someone. Sometimes they don't, as some people are unforgiving, but I'm sure most atheists have experienced it when someone forgave them. Source:[1] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
Atheism is Stupidity and Based on Imaginings having no Basis in Facts.

Soooo Sad, Athiest are like ..... Deer caught in the Headlights! What a lonely state to find oneself! Attend me brothers and sisters, hear the plight of those to whom all pity is to be given. This is a people, without hope? Without Faith, Without Forgiveness? Without common sense? With no visible nor foreseeable lifeline whatsoever! More is the pity, let our hearts be humbled for so too were we all, once upon a time. Let us turn our eyes to Heaven in utter thanks to Him who saves. Let us stand encircled around the damned and cast our lines into the tank of hopelessness which is the Life of atheism, and God willing let us snatch up and set the hook of reason, in a final attempt to shake them loose from their long slumber.To you who accept this debate, you shall defend that which cannot "be" defended, the lunacy which is atheism. I of course shall demonstrate and define your madness.If all goes as usual I shall lose this debate because the doomed will as history has shown, fail again to ascend to the elusive state of reason, choosing instead to "remain in their comatose state" still, if I can awaken even 1, the loss is well worth it.
ban islam

Actually...what Muslims do is quite relevant as a Muslim is someone who practices the religion of Islam. You are suggesting that we ban a religion, which is completely contradictory to what the US Constitution states. The reason I brought up Islamic involvement in terrorism is because that is the only viable reason people argue that we should ban Islam. I simply proved that to ban Islam due to the extremely low percentile that actually are involved would be extremely illogical and would be to completely ignore the roots and infrastructure of our legal system. I disproved the stereotype that Muslims are the main source of terrorism to prove that by this logic we should ban all religion; which brings me back to the original point that to ban any religion would push us towards an oppressive state and would oppose the Constitution; which also discredits the claim that laws are made to limit religion.
ban islam

While it is true that the terrorists that carried out major terror strikes like 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombing are Islamic, it is not fair to say that most Islamic people are terrorists nor is it fair to ban any religion. Laws do not exist to limit religion. The first amendment of the US Constitution reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." {1} This completely contradicts the statement that laws limit religion, as this amendment prohibits the creation of any law that limits religion. The laws in America must uphold the freedom to practice any religion. Moving on, when all of the terror attacks, small or large, since 1980 in the US worldwide are compiled, according to the FBI (information via a Huffington Post article) 94% are committed by non-Islamic people. Furthermore, there have been about 140,000 terrorist attacks of all sized worldwide since 1970. According to the same article, less than 2% were committed by Muslims. Even if they were all committed by Muslims, this would represent about 0.00009% of the Muslim population. When focusing on just the USA, "A study carried out by the University of North Carolina showed that less than 0.0002% of Americans killed since 9/11 were killed by Muslims." (Alnatour) So what you are suggesting is to violate the US Constitution and cruelly punish the 99.9998% of Muslims who haven't killed any Americans because of the 0.0002% that have. {2} While what that video displayed is a horrible act and Muslims have admittedly been responsible for terrible things like 9/11, they are few and far between and nowhere close to justification for the banning of Islam and the actions you are suggesting. {1} https://www.law.cornell.edu... {2} http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
ban islam

you can not fight the law.. this is a war that can only be fought by law.. laws exist to limit religion.. becomming like muslims i might as well kill myself to end them.. ban islam what you gonna do in jail.. a lonley killer i like to give them an option, muslim men get their nuts cut off or leave, and muslim women and children also the men must all make an argument for why to not believe in islam.. and leave islam to get to stay. problem with slavery is submission by submission.. if they get to make arguments they all have a good reason to discuss against islam amongst themselves ban islam.. guns dont work against the law
High Schools should have a designated smoking area

Welcome to the site. Thanks for posting the debate. 1. Free Choice While all smokers have the right to choose whether or not to smoke, it does not seem logical to have an institution dedicated to enhancing the knowledge, health and well-being of its students to condone and enable an obviously unhealthy addiction. Even though 18 yr olds have the legal right to choose, the school, as a learning institution, should not support a poor decision, even a legal one. 2. Purpose Designating a smoking area will permit and encourage students to smoke and smoke more often by providing an arena for peer pressure. While younger students may not be allowed to smoke at the time, seeing older kids do so will encourage more smokers. 3. Addiction The last thing a school should do for a student struggling with an addiction is provide them an area to satisfy it. I'm assuming we both agree that smoking is hazardous to health, especially the health of young developing students. So, encouraging a harmful and dangerous habit is all a smoking section would do. Making it incredibly difficult to smoke for an eight hour period of the day cuts down on student smoking by simply cutting out a large portion of the smoker's day. With the ability to smoke at will, youth smoking will become a regularity. A few smokers who manage to sneak cigarettes would not outweigh the fire hazard of a large portion of the student body carrying lighters and the massive increase in smoking would offset the second-hand smoke from a few scattered dissenters. 4. Legality Most states have new smoking bans in public places; assuming this is in a public high school, a smoking section would be against the law. Your resolution contradicts the very nature of a school. A school is meant to educate and supporting a harmful addiction discredits the anti-drug and pro-health message schools send and is a detriment to the health and well-being of the student body; assuming we want our youth to be healthy and make advisable decisions, a high school smoking section is a bad idea. Thanks. Looking forward to your reply.
High Schools should have a designated smoking area

Hello and good morning, afternoon or evening. This is my very first debate of this kind so, as many others on this site seem to plead, be gentle with me. My argument is about tobacco use, albeit tailored to a more specific issue. I wish to argue that a high school where students from the ages of 14-18 attend, and some of which smoke, should have a designated area for those people to smoke. More details will be revealed in my list of arguments, which follows: 1. The first issue, as it always is, is of free choice. One thing I will highlight for my opponent to use is that some of the students are not of legal age to buy cigarettes, but I am still arguing for the smoking area. For me to succeed, I must prove that, not only should the students have the choice to smoke, the school they attend should support them by providing the facilities. 2. Secondly, the purpose of having the area must be defined and defended. I will wait to see what my opponent has to say on this subject before revealing myself. 3. Thirdly, and lastly, for now, is the issue of the psychological addiction that is gripping the students. A great supporter to my cause is that the school grounds are quite extensive – a student must walk at least ten minutes to leave them, and then they would only reach forest – therefore, without a designated area within school grounds, children with cravings that they wish to subdue would surely smoke on school ground, perhaps even in the school (in one of the less monitored hallways or stairwells) resulting in an increased threat of second-hand smoke and fires, along with the garbage that will be spread around instead of contained. I will await the reply of my opponent.