BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homosexuality and Religion

Lust is sin. ALL lust is sin. Selecting which lust is sinful and the other being innocent is rather cherry picking. Dubious and suspicious. I hold myself accountable for it all. Your insistence on homosexuality as not a sin is not founded on an objectively logical basis. It is simply inconvenient and the last fortified position Christians have as a stronghold. As long as the desire for the label's removal is based on an offended preference, then the Christians will perceive the defiance as simply immature. Very few groups of people who identify themselves as a type of sinner have such a vehement objection towards their labeling as much as the homosexuals do. They know they have no advantage because they recognize the accuracy of the accusation. Their struggle is not as public as the LGBTQ community's, at least. Only atheists share the homosexual denial of the sin system, as far as I am aware. Since when is a preference not a choice? Semantics. If my personality prefers a certain orientation, it is up to my free will to flip-flop between them at a moment's notice. I choose to be gay; then I revert to being straight at will. Back and forth, back and forth. It's possible. Getting into homosexuality and free will is a different debate altogether... If you wish to separate homosexuality from the biblical system of sin labeling, but leave out other candidates simply because they are not a priority or you only are concerned about one of them, then I do see an agenda. Either ignore the system altogether or defeat it, render it obsolete and make it dramatic. Because, the Christians won't accept anything less than a humiliating failure. As long as there are church gatherings with Christians blind to your future expectations of their dismantling, then the war is not won. Not with an army that fights with incompatible weapons. If the war is already won, why are the Christians going on about as if they have no clue? Their faith is designed for scenarios such as the David vs. Goliath battles where they are flinging stones at the overpowered opponent but keep on missing, for the reason that they are out of practice. Christians will not give up until...well, never. They don't see logic, or trust it. They are very farsighted.
Homosexuality and Religion

I'm not changing the rules of the game, I'm saying that new rules were written, replacing the old ones. It is true that all of us are sinners, but sin is not a genetic mutation or inheritance, sin is a choice that we all knowingly participate in. You can choose to sin or you can choose to not sin, but we are not all perfect. You can't choose, however, who you love. It is a feeling that you have no control over. Being gay is not a sin, it is not a genetic defect, it is not a choice, it is a preference. Much like vanilla or chocolate ice cream. Just because you like chocolate more than vanilla doesn't make you a criminal....the companies that make vanilla ice cream aren't going to go out of business because you eat chocolate, there are plenty of other people in the world that like vanilla. To disprove your claim I must sever the connection between adultery and homosexuality together as a sin? Wasn't the basis of my argument that homosexuality is in fact NOT a sin? So then why would homosexuality and adultery be under the same umbrella if one is a sin and the other is not? You talk of homophobia as a weapon against the Christians, but this isn't a fight that should even exist. If your opinion differs from that of another, you don't fight them to convince them of your views you acknowledge the difference and move on your way. With the decline of Christianity as a religion (although it is still thought to be one of the largest religions), the fact that a small group of people make a ruckus about homosexuality and their beliefs on it shouldn't affect any in the LGBT community because the number of people that support the LGBT or have no opinion greatly outnumber those who are against it. Why would you lead a war that you've already won? Why do you need to fight against a small group that barely makes a ripple in the community? Because someone said they didn't like your boyfriend/girlfriend? They say that to the heterosexuals they don't like either. Homophobia is such an insignificant argument that has been blow way out of proportion because these people feel a childish need to retaliate to nothing more than a common school bully who called you a loser. And we don't think the the U.S. as a Christian nation, we think of it as a nation FOUNDED on Christian beliefs and practices which is in fact true. It's quite obvious that since our founding fathers escaped the crown to practice their religion in peace that we have come a long way and change many of our views.
Homosexuality and Religion

Allow me to elaborate and defend the simplistic phrase I coined. Sinner Pride implies that I concede all sin; that includes hypocrisy. Which allows me to exclude sins I do deem counterproductive to my cause. Your insistence on homosexuality not being a sin is like refusing to play a game on the basis that you want to rewrite the rules. Which is fine by me if you have the logical authority. If you are going to defy the Christian system of labeling immoral acts, you might as well go big or go home. To make an impact on the stubborn Christian mind, you must be willing to look wrong, which is not the same as being wrong. I do not seek approval. I seek acknowledgment that I am onto something. I think Christians compartmentalize the genetic being gay versus gay acts, even though sin is genetic; how else would it perpetuate itself among humanity? Again, I reiterate that Jesus indirectly outed homosexuality as a sin by casting lust under the same umbrella as adultery. In order to disprove my claim, you have to sever the connection between this and gay feelings. Homophobia may not be a legitimate phobia, but it is the strongest weapon against the Christians. Being afraid of homophobia and damage to their reputation and social respect can be essential to countering the bombardment of hate they do not hesitate to spew. Since America is changing its mind about homosexuality, Christians who think the US is a Christian nation are in for a rude awakening. If that's what Christian America is about, we're better off otherwise.
Homosexuality and Religion

(I am new to this site, so if I say something weird or out-of-place forgive me) To say that "Sinner Pride" is your motto is not a very good argument. The word "sinner" encompasses a whole range of actions, not just homosexuality (which again I argue isn't a sin). You do, however, have a valid point in saying that 'Christians are ashamed to be Christians...' in the sense that, yes there are those of us who no longer like to associate ourselves with our religion anymore. But it's not because we are ashamed of our religion, it is because we are ashamed of the extremists that use our religion to fight against the most basic rights of every individual and that is the right to love whoever they choose to love (those accused being the Westborough Baptist Church and its supporters). Using the "Sinner Pride" motto is in fact a disadvantage to the LGBT community because you are voluntarily acknowledging the fact that what you are doing is wrong. But being gay isn't wrong and why should anyone say it is? And if you tell people that you believe homosexuality is a sin and that you take pride in knowing that it is a sin, what is to stop people from thinking of what other kinds of sins you choose to commit let alone homosexuality? I think the term "homophobia" is inappropriately used and considered to be a true term, but phobia doesn't relate to a feeling of hatred or religious beliefs. 'A phobia is a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational.' Hating someone who is homosexual because of your religious beliefs doesn't make you homophobic, it just makes you prejudice which isn't the same thing. Embracing homosexuality isn't the equivalent of embracing a sin and it isn't counterproductive. If you want to prove to the Christian community that you are not a sinner, then you must act in the way you believe is right. Love one another as you love yourself. Embrace your homosexuality, but don't think of it as a sin. If you believe that what you are doing is wrong and you do it anyways, you are never going to convince anyone to approve of your lifestyle.
Homosexuality and Religion

I thank Sincerely_Millennial for the opportunity. Also, I thank the witnesses who will be voting. As for my introductory argument, am I to assume that my position is that homosexuality IS a sin as well as the compatibility of homosexuality and religion? Very well. Sinner Pride is my motto. Christians are ashamed to be Christians, as well they should be. If boring sermons are Jesus' plan for salvation, then it's time for anti-sermon. Homosexuality being a sin doesn't have to be a moral disadvantage for the LGBTQ community. The personality phenomenon of gay culture is a rather peculiar occurrence, therefore something Christians should be researching, not avoiding homophobically. Homophobia is unique to humanity, it would seem. That alone has grounds for supernatural potential. Biblical scale miracles have been absent for two millennia. This relates to my moral advantage argument. Christians are so obsessed about throwing stones at homosexuals that they should be noticing that homosexuals are turning those stones into bread, bread that they can consume for the time being. Embracing gay sin might seem counter-intuitive AND counterproductive, but at least pretending to be the bigger person and cooperating with a homophobic Church would be turning the other cheek. Depending on where you draw the line in this war, using Christian morality against them seems to be the only thing that could make them open their minds. As for rebutting the last points of the PRO's argument, I contend that just because it's a lifestyle, does not mean it is exempt from being classified as immoral. That implies that if a lifestyle were just perpetual sin, then Christians are justified in their supreme disgust of it. Jesus stated that lust counts as adultery; adultery counts as sin, especially now that gay marriage has gained traction. Gay lust is basically gay puberty. I didn't start until I was 22, 23. I am capable of gay lust. I entertain it. So I do have personal authority and legitimacy to speak on this matter.
Justin Bieber has changed

Justin is a great musician. I just want to clarify I like some of his music, and think its straight from the heart. But he himself is not the greatest person ever. First, your argument is difficult to follow. I am assuming you are of this opinon: You liked young Justin Bieber, then when Justin Bieber changed into a difficult convict case, you didn't like that. Now you like him again because he is back to his old self, and has experienced a double transformation. He asked for your forgiveness, so you forgave him and that is that. Am I getting it? I know I am, just wanted to ask out of courtesy.Ok. Here is a string of statements Bieber has made since his "change". "What's weird is I am a Christian, I am a believer, and often people are too conservative and I don't think it's wrong. "I'm stumbling over my words right now because I don't want to offend anybody, but I believe you can go and have a good time, get some drinks and enjoy yourself and can be with girls. "I don't think you need to be serious about it. "Loving God is a separate thing. But I don't think you have to love God and not be able to go out and enjoy yourself. "As long as it's not provocative or intense or mean or evil. If you are living life based on loving God then just keep that in mind."Here is the citation for these.http://www.mirror.co.uk...Beside these statements being totally incorrect on how the Christian Faith works according to the Bible (I promise no religous points), lets remember something.Its Justin's word against everyone else. Justin says he has changed, but is it really true? We don't make excuses for convicts that are not famous, so why make one for him? That is my first argument.My second, is that Justin Bieber is not trying hard to be good. The quote above says he is partying without serious considering of the consequences. That is a direct contradiction, and I have evidence.Third, Bieber's music is not what defines him. This is evidenced by the fact that he literally sings about romance all the time, but cannot hold a solid relationship. So he evidently doesn't hold to his songs. This invalidates your claim that his good music proves his change.Finally, Justin Bieber did more than commit a "mistake". He drag raced through Miami, had drugs in his home, and assaulted his neighbors. All of these misdemeanors endangered the lives of others, a significant problem and one that cannot be pushed to the side and ignored. Read the complaints and charges here. http://www.cnn.com... Anyway I don't want to keep you company, and I am not sorry. So don't love me, and don't ask me what I mean.
Earth is the center of the universe.

My opponent has stated that since every area has equal claim to being the center of the universe, everywhere is the center of the universe. This is false, as your argument proves that the center is a different and singular spot that depends entirely on the reference point. This means that the center of the universe is anywhere, not everywhere. The earth is A center of the universe, not THE center. You have made an objective statement, but you've only provided evidence for an extremely relative assertion. As such, the statement "Earth is the center of the universe" is not misleading but plainly false, and as such I strongly urge you to vote con. . http://www.exploratorium.edu...
Earth is the center of the universe.

I have to disappoint Con,but my arguments will not be about the observable universe,but the whole universe. Ok,so let's begin We all know that the universe is huge and that it is expanding. So the question is asked,where is the center of the universe? And no matter where you are in the universe,in the two different time references,everything will appear to move away from you at the same rate. Take a look at this example at http://www.exploratorium.edu... v Top layer represents 5% expansion. If you were to line up the blue and red dot,it would appear as the center of the expansion (you can drag the layer). You can do that with any other dot,and it will become the center of the expansion,the center of the universe. So basically,the center of the universe is...everywhere. Let's apply that to earth. Since the same can be done with earth,then it is the center of the universe. Earth is scientifically center of the universe. And even you are the center of the universe,we all are. I hope this made you all feel special. Vote Pro. I would like to thank Vsauce for inspiring me to make this debate https://www.youtube.com...
Soccer is the best sport

Soccer is better than basketball for many reasons one is that there is many skills to do in the field like the 360, chilena, rabona and lots more. Second thing is that there are better celebrations than basketball because in basketball you just say good job but in soccer its more epic. Last is that soccer is more played and more popular in schools who would spend time throwing a ball in a hoop if you are not going to enjoy it. So kids dont waste time on a lame sport #basketball play soccer! ITS BETTER!!!!!!
Teaching discrimination to our children makes for a healthy society.

That is your definition, not mine. Discrimination is simply not wanting to be around a person because of some trait.Being unfair has nothing to do with it. I would not want my children around a drunkard, or a sex addict or a homo, or a habitual liar or a thief. That is not being unfair, it is being a responsible parent.I even discriminate concerning what they eat and drink and what goes in their minds through media. Behavioir, actions and words are all legitimate things to discriminate over. NEVER over skin color or height or gender. Those things people have no control over . All the other things are done out of free will choices. On the other hand YOU have the same right to invite all those people in to influence your kids.
Teaching discrimination to our children makes for a healthy society.

Thanks for starting this debate! To begin, I will give a definition: Discrimination: "the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people" To agree with pro, you must believe that treating others unfairly is a good thing. This is completely unfair, and in no way should be taught to our children. And in no way could this lead to a healthy society. Discrimination is what lead to the civil war, which inevitably split our nation. Discrimination did not create a healthy society, rather a perfect opposite. Approximately 620,000 soldiers died, yet you stand here and claim that what so many of those ignorant confederates killed and were killed for would create a healthy society. Thanks
Teaching discrimination to our children makes for a healthy society.

That is not my definition, it is Merriam-webster.com's. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Since you didn't offer a counter definition, mine still stands. Treating anyone unfairly is unjust. Since my definition still stands, you go against your own argument. You are for discrimination, yet you are against the unfair treatment of others. Treating others unfairly because of skin and gender is discrimination, you can't cherry pick definitions. If you believe in discrimination, then you must believe in treating people unfairly based upon skin color, age, gender, and all things that are associated with unfair treatment. It is simply inhuman to discriminate against someone because of their identity. Thanks
God probably doesn't exist.

I did not have enough time for a rebuttal. Which essentially is a concession of that point as my opponent didn’t refute my point. What? How is that a loving god? It basically can be summed up to: Worship me or be killed. This is not at all what it is summed up to. It is loving because God is giving everyone a chance to believe in him before he eradicates evil and takes everyone to heaven. A non-all loving God would eradicate evil whenever he wants and take the people who believe in him to heaven while leaving some people behind. It cannot be summed up to worship me or be killed as God isn’t killing you, he isn’t asking you to worship him, just believing in him. Is that so hard? Bible details are not related to God’s existence. Yes they are. Without a cause. This is self-refuting for the KCA. I had already addressed this point. Some believe that God’s purpose is to create us and lead us to salvation. I DID. Yes you did, and then I refuted your weak refutation. I had clearly rebutted this as I showed how the universe is not ex nihilo, but ex material. Thus, the rules for ex material still apply. Furthermore, you dropped this argument in the previous round! Con dropped many of my arguments and replaced them with fallacious thinking. Yet my opponent has dropped many of his arguments. Ontological argument: I asked my opponent to explain his refutation (which my opponent didn’t). Furthermore, his refutation doesn’t actually tell us what the question it was begging was. Everything has a maker: In the last round my opponent quoted my argument, yet provided no refutation, and failed to provide a refutation in R5. This point has gone un-rebutted the entire debate. KCA argument: this point was dropped by my opponent in the previous round. Suffering: this point was also dropped by my opponent in the previous round. Adam and Eve: this point was also dropped in the previous round My opponent has dropped the majority of his case and has failed to refute any of the arguments I have brought forth. Furthermore, my opponent has failed to prove his BOP.
God probably doesn't exist.

I consider this to be a concession of that point.Which was a Red Herring. I did not have enough time for a rebuttal, besides it was a red herring. God will save everyone, but only when everyone believes in him. He will eradicate evil and allow everyone to join Him, but only once everybody has turned to him.What? How is that a loving god? It basically can be summed up to :Worship me or be killed.How can that be moral? This is very related. Please show how it isn’t related. I also take this to be a conceded point. Bible details are not related to God's existence. First of all, God didn’t create himself out of nothing. If you look at my arguments, it clearly states in both my arguments and the Bible that God simply existed. Without a cause. This is self-refutting for the KCA. Secondly, just because an argument for God is refuted (not saying that the KCA was adequately refuted as my opponent DIDN’T refute the argument and instead dropped it) I DID."The issue with this is because we only can witness ex materia creation, not ex nihilo. We can't take the rules for "ex materia" and then sic them to "ex nihilo""You did not rebut this. doesn’t mean that God doesn’t exist. There are so many arguments for God, just because one is false doesn’t mean the rest are.Never said this. Con dropped many of my agruments and replaced them with with fallaious thinking.For that reason, VOTE MA
God probably doesn't exist.

Yes. But this is not the point. I consider this to be a concession of that point. An all-loving god would. God will save everyone, but only when everyone believes in him. He will eradicate evil and allow everyone to join Him, but only once everybody has turned to him. This is unrelated to the debate. This is very related. Please show how it isn’t related. I also take this to be a conceded point. I ask the votes to take my arguments as dropped. This is the 3rd dropped argument. What is that cause? If he created himself out of nothing, then you just proved that the KCA can and was refuted. First of all, God didn’t create himself out of nothing. If you look at my arguments, it clearly states in both my arguments and the Bible that God simply existed. Secondly, just because an argument for God is refuted (not saying that the KCA was adequately refuted as my opponent DIDN’T refute the argument and instead dropped it) doesn’t mean that God doesn’t exist. There are so many arguments for God, just because one is false doesn’t mean the rest are. Note how it has a clever way of hiding the fact it is begging the question (The premise is basically the same as the conclusion) My opponent posted this in the last round, yet has not explained this point as all. I invite my opponent to explain how this refutes the Ontological argument. In my opponent’s final point, he simply quoted me and had no refutation.