BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
sex education for secondary level

i am in favor, because many studendts in secondary level are already engage in sex, and for me it is to late to teach to them about the right and wrong way on how to use properly "sex", because in this age many of them are already matured of what is sex is, and because of that they are becoming ignorant and hyper active about sex and they are trying to do this thing. i would agree if the sex education will teach much earlyer in elementary level in grades 5, 6, or in grade 7, because at this age the childrens or the students can understand already about what is sex is, and i know in this age they are not very matured minded about sex and because of that they have know fighting sperit to do "miracle". that's why its better to apply earlyer the sex education so that they have early guidance.
According to the Bible, Swearing isn't a sin.

"Again, You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, But keep the oaths you have made to the Lord. But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, For it is God's throne; or by the earth, For it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, For it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, For you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your "Yes" be 'Yes, ' and your 'No, ' 'No'-- anything beyond this comes from the evil one. "
According to the Bible, Swearing isn't a sin.

I believe that the Bible never says that swearing is sinful. The only exception I can imagine is when in the company of people who may be offended by it, In which case you should refrain from swearing out of love for them. "It is good neither to eat flesh, Nor to drink wine, Nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, Or is offended, Or is made weak. " Romans 14:21. This verse is referring specifically to food, But I imagine the same principles apply to most behaviors. Let me clarify that I do consider using the lord's name in vein to be a sin, As clearly stated in Exodus 20:7 "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. "
Atheism is irrational

I would like to point out that my opponent is arguing for the Con side when he is in fact Pro. However, I willl not change the resolution or the BOP. Contention 1 "1. One of the most common arguments to establish the existence of God is Thomas Aquinas" First Causer argument, in which he (essentially) states the following: 1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause. 2. A casual loop cannot exist. 3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length. 4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist." However, a supreme being (e.g. God) is not finite because it has omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. [1] Thus, this argument does not apply to a God or a deity that created the universe. Contention 2 "Suppose that Atheism itself were objectively true. If this is the case, is it possible for someone to prove that something is not actually in existence? Of course not " the burden of proof lies on the person that makes a hypothesis and then proves it to be true." However, this is not the BOP of the debate as my opponent has argued for the Con side when he is Pro, and thus this argument also does not apply. "Therefore, I affirm that atheism is in fact aligned with reason, since the belief of a deity is not grounded in rationality." My opponent has helped fulfill my BOP and therefore you should vote Con. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Atheism is irrational

I accept and look forward to our debate. The Merriam Webster dictionary defines ‘irrational’ as the following: A: not endowed with reason or understanding; lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence B: not governed by or according to reason [1].But atheism, the belief that a deity does not exist, is grounded in rationality for the following reasons: Contention 1: There is no definitive proof that a god exists. 1. One of the most common arguments to establish the existence of God is Thomas Aquinas’ First Causer argument, in which he (essentially) states the following: 1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.2. A casual loop cannot exist.3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist. [2]But there is clear irrationality with the First Causer argument. First, there is a special exception made for the First Cause. If there is indeed a Causer, then what caused this Causer to exist? If there is an exception made for this First Causer to ‘cause itself,’ then can one not also make an exception for ‘a casual loop cannot exist?’ Contention 2: There is no burden of proof for Atheism; therefore, it stands for itself Suppose that Atheism itself were objectively true. If this is the case, is it possible for someone to prove that something is not actually in existence? Of course not – the burden of proof lies on the person that makes a hypothesis and then proves it to be true.This is demonstrable from the following analogy. Person 1: There is an invisible pink unicorn in this room (obvious untruth). Person 2: Really? How? Person 1: It can speak to me. Person 1: Science can explain that – there are multiple disorders that exist due to chemical imbalances in the brain. For the invisible pink unicorn to be true, its existence must be clear and demonstrable through empirical testing. It is impossible for Person 2 in this analogy to prove that the unicorn isn’t there if there is no unicorn in the first place to test. If Person 1 cannot prove that there is a unicorn in the room, by default, there must be no unicorn. Therefore, if the religious cannot prove that god exists, by default, there must be no god.---------------------------------------------------------------------------Therefore, I affirm that atheism is in fact aligned with reason, since the belief of a deity is not grounded in rationality.Sources: 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Atheism is irrational

The BOP is on my opponent as I am in the con position. By accepting this challenge, you agree to the following rules: 1. Evolution is not a part of the debate, and thus arguments on this do not have to be refuted by the opponent, unless the reason it is relevent to this debate is given.2. Experienced debaters are reccommended, forfeits are not full 7 point losses, but instead conduct mark losses. 3. Th1s is not appropriate debating FoRmat.
Lutheran vs Catholic

Nice to meet you! Remember, Friendly debate. 1 You really cannot make that claim because we both believe different things. In the end the different branches of christianity are different peoples interpretation of what the bible says. I interpret that the bible says that we are saved by grace through faith, While you interpret otherwise. We still both believe that Jesus died for us, But the details we disagree on. 2 What Martin Luther DID was translate the bible to the common language so that the people would not be told wrongly by the clergy. People should have the freedom to read the bible for themselves. Thats why God gave us the bible. 3 Comparing Islam to Lutheran faith is a very crude judgement. It was actually the catholics who killed former protestants before Luther succeeded. 4 Salvation by faith alone is actually very biblical. If we are not saved by faith alone, What did Jesus do? Lutheranism borrows form catholic traditions because we agree that these are biblical traditions. Having two ideas agree is not a bad thing. 5 We believe that was only human but the spirit of God working through her. Nothing wrong here. Good points! But for now on can we just stick to the core beliefs instead of the history? That is what matters most.
Lutheran vs Catholic

This is the second debate I've taken up. Thank you. Lutheranism was instituted by a (created) man, Whereas Catholicism is instituted by God. Martin Luther's religion is a quasi-manifesto of complaints against the universal Church at the time, Some of which were borrowed from the complaints of others decades before him. Some were admittedly legitimate concerns, But did not warrant disrupting the unity of the Church or the institution of a new heresy. Martin Luther did not fulfill his vows of obedience, Chastity, And the spirit of poverty. Even if he disagreed with these items being necessary for clerics, They still serve useful purposes of grace, And are still binding on pain of sin once taken. Martin Luther was interested in establishing dominance over other protestant sects during his rise, Even if it got people killed. Lutheran's doctrine spread much in the same way as Islam, Where Mohammed would take his followers from village to village and use force to spread it. Often it would only be suppressed in turn with Catholic forces. Part of Luther's doctrine involves the authority of scripture alone the "Salvation by faith alone. " This is anti-Biblical. Lutheranism also borrows from Catholic traditions anyway. Modern Lutheranism is ambiguous about dogmas on the Blessed Virgin Mary, Whom Luther himself otherwise defended vigorously during his career.
Newton's second law is false!

Rebuttals:1) Indeed. According to the laws of thermodynamics (Conservation of energy[1], in particular), energy can neither be created, nor can be destroyed.2) Yes, indeed, energy is finite.3) No.There is radiation between the Sun and Earth, which means that there is transfer of energy through space from the Sun to Earth. That solar energy then turns into heat. How does the Sun do that?Well, what happens is, that Sun takes 2 atoms and both go through a process called fusion. Remember that the Sun is not "producing" its own energy, but rather changing one's form.4) #3 is not true. And even if that was true, mass does not. Solid objects are dense, which means that matter is very compact in which they can not move around. However, for gas, it is not. They have space to move around in which they do. Same goes with the Universe.Also, why did you change the subject?Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Newton's second law is false!

<ins><strong>Rebuttals:</strong></ins>"<em>Newton's second law is not true because an airplane is faster than a car, while an airplane has more inertia and mass!</em>"According to Newton's second law of physics[1], the net force has to be in proportion to, and in the same direction of, the object that is acted upon. That is how an airplane, although having more inertia and mass, is faster than a car.In other words, <em>the net force that a car is acted upon is weaker than the net force an airplane is acted upon.</em><ins><strong>Sources:</strong></ins>[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_laws_of_motion
Newton's second law is false!

Rebuttals: "http://answers.yahoo.com...... is how Big Bang theory is false." Alright. Yes, indeed. According to the laws of physics (Conservation of angular momentum[1], in particular), if something is rotating, and a piece of that falls off, that piece must rotate in the same direction. However, that is not what happens. There was a cataclysmic explosion. Asteroids and mass spread out, and the sound amplifies. At one point, asteroids were to hit against each other, forming stars, etc. How is everything in its position? Well, when the Earth, for instance, orbitted around the Sun, it was compelled to continue doing so at the same distance away from the Sun because of its gravitational pull. It was pulling the Earth towards the center of the Sun. However, because of the Earth's sideways motion, it was resisting. And then radiation happens between the Earth and the Sun, which means that the Sun transfers energy through space to Earth. That solar energy then turns into heat. And so on and so forth. Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
school should abolish co-eduation

As my opponent has not been able to make a point I can counter, I would like to finish off this debate by saying yes, co-education should be abolished. To go over my points again, co-ed schools are not as tailored to fit the different learning styles of each gender, and they encourage focus on the opposite sex rather than on the actual learning material. Thank you to kiry.kong7 for such an interesting topic to discuss for my first debate!
school should abolish co-eduation

An article from the Wall Street Journal quotes the National Institution of Mental Health. The common idea that boys learn slower than girls is, in fact, false. Boys learn COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY from girls. Different areas of their brains develop at different times, so why should they be forced to all attend the same school with the same educational standards that do not cater both types of learning development? To argue my point further, this sort of environment co-ed environment could be seen as a distraction for children. In high school, I was so worried about a boy that liked me that I watched one of my grades drop from an A to a C- right before my eyes. Though this is just an example, it brings up a good point: the distraction of learning in a co-education school. You may argue that in the work world, there will be distractions as well, but it would make sense to say that an adult has more composure and self-restraint than a child or even a teenager. Is it okay to be taught in an environment where distractions from the other sex can be found at every turn? Especially for teenagers, where the hormones are starting to affect the body and the mind simultaneously, an all-girls/all-boys school might allow students to better focus on the learning material instead of the "dating material".
school should abolish co-eduation

Before we start this debate, I would just like to say that I am for co-education schools and I have attended them all through my schooling. However, for the sake of the argument, I will argue "Pro". To start off the debate, I would like to look at Con"s argument. "co-education might help student to compete each other studying". Unfortunately, this argument has no relevance as students can compete while studying with the same gender OR the opposite gender. The level of competition between students would still be the same at an all-girls/all-boys school. However, if you ask many parents if there is a difference between boys and girls, the answer will be "YES". Being so different, the two genders will learn in very different ways. If there were an education program suited to just the one gender, it would be more beneficial for those students rather than a education system made to fit everyone. To repeat, schools should be all-girls or all-boys because it allows for a better education program fit to each sex.
Fat people live longer than skinny people.

Thank you for posting your next argument. Here is a clip from the New York times news, "About two years ago, a group of federal researchers reported that overweight people have a lower death rate than people who are normal weight, underweight or obese. Now, investigating further, they found out which diseases are more likely to lead to death in each weight group. Linking, for the first time, causes of death to specific weights, they report that overweight people have a lower death rate because they are much less likely to die from a grab bag of diseases that includes Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, infections and lung disease. And that lower risk is not counteracted by increased risks of dying from any other disease, including cancer, diabetes or heart disease. " You can read the full report here: http://www.nytimes.com... That is one way of looking at it. Another way is this, people who are overweight do suffer from those sicknesses you listed, but even more people die from starvation in other countries. Nowhere in my arguments did I say I was just talking about the USA. In children alone 15 million will die in 2010 of starvation. And those are the reported cases. Most people who live in 3rd world counties are underweight. 30,000 African children under the age of 5 die today, most of these children are underweight. Therefore, people who are overweight do tend to live longer than those aren't. There are many more statistics I could show, but I believe my point has already been made. I thank my opponent and look forward to his next argument. Sources: (1). http://library.thinkquest.org... (2). http://wiki.answers.com... (3). http://www.nytimes.com...
Fat people live longer than skinny people.

Thanks for the clarification. First of, my opponent gives me a source to a wikipedia article that defines "fat" in an lengthy format. I noticed that in the beginning of it it said that "fat" means " having more body fat than is optimally healthy". Here is the definition of living: living: having life; being alive; not dead; in a healthy state To be alive we all need to have health. My own opponent's source states that those who are obese are not optimally healthy. Here is a list of the top eight oldest people recorded: 1. Jeanne Calment: aged 122 years Was not obese 2. Shigechiyo Izumi: aged 120 years Was not obese 3. Sarah Knauss: aged 119 years Was not obese 4. Lucy Hannah- aged 117 years Was not obese 5. Marie-Louise Meilleur Unknown 6. Marï¿½a Capovilla-aged 115 years Was not obese 7. Tane Ikai- aged 116 years Was not obese 8. Elizabeth Bolde- aged 114 years Was not obese 9. Carrie C. White- Many other claims have been made, and this list does not include those living. In fact, most people on this list were relativly thin. Here is a list of diseases commonly aquired with being overweight: ■Type 2 Diabetes ■Coronary Heart Disease and Stroke ■Metabolic Syndrome ■Cancer ■Sleep Apnea ■Osteoarthritis ■Gallbladder Disease ■Fatty Liver Disease ■Pregnancy Complications Heart disease is one of the most died-from disease in the USA. A disease, often gotton from being fat. Long life, huh? Woman often commit suicide over being overweight. This typically happens at an age between 13-40 years. Thats enough for now. I am too interested to see your arguments than to make more of mine. Type away.
Rap Battle

Whiteout b*tch you blacked out Pick your nose, get that snout Didn't wanna hurt, but I was hesitant But I'm just so persistent Winning gonna be your greatest lie Guess you better go home, take a long deep sigh Undefeated, you just weakin' while I'm saucin' I've been making all the racks while you be droppin' Put my name on the wrist, and you go ice ski Want to pull the rubber, cause you can't see me Pull the trigger but you miss, how'd you miss that's easy I be balling on you b*tch, B*tch I'm cheesy Put I ring on my name you gonna hear it bling Go away and go a sing Catching blues, like you catching L's Being try hard, under that spell Guess what I be doing to you, call it disable I be hrowing money bags at the table, you be watching cable When I be pulling up in Versace Your gonna be real real salty
Atheism vs Christianity

I will be arguing for atheism. Atheism is a far more logical choice than being a Christian or any type of theist. Although I will admit that science does not hold all the answers since it is based on facts and evidence, while religion of any kind is based on faith and belief in something that can't be proven or disproven. Although many theists will argue that since we can't disprove God we should believe. I can't disprove that there aren't invisible unicorns prancing around my room, but I don't believe in that. Also the theory of Evolution disproves the Biblical Story of Adam and Eve. Also just because Evolution is only a theory that doesn't mean that it doesn't have evidence and it is accepted as fact by a majority of scientists. Gravity is also a theory but people accept that as a fact. There are many contradictions in the bible, and they don't follow many old biblical values such as stonings, but they still believe in the same god. Also where did God come from? He had to have come from something. Does god have a god? Also if everyone who isn't Christian will go to hell hlow could you handle living in heaven forever knowing that a majority of people are burning below you? Also there is no evidence for many events that happen in the bible such as the great flood. There is no historical evidence of that and talking snakes, along with many of these miracles are a lot harder to believe than modern science. Also many religions prior to Christianity had gods that followed the same basis as Jesus. Such a Mitras and Horus. They were born on December 25th, had 12 disciples, were there to save humanity, died for 3 days and were born again, were baptaised at age 30. Christianity is basically a recycled from previous religions. Also try have found a roman scroll that says they made up Jesus. The Big Bang theory has a lot of evidence supporting it which I will state later while Christianity's only support is the bible. The bible is not sufficent evidence for Christianity. Also the Bible supports slavery, and requires a rapist to marry the person they raped. Those seem like pretty screwed up morals. God kills millions throughout the bible, while Satan only killed 10. Why would our loving God kill more than the devil? That doesn't make sense. Also God has the power to stop natural disasters, but doesn't. If he was real he doesn't seem all loving to me.
My opponent is a Christian proselytizer.

I do not understand what you want me to say. All you say will change nothing as who are you to change anything? You wake up and live your life and then sleep again. You do not even know why you do that. But you only feel awake and you only feel tired. But you do not know why. You do not know why money is important and therefore why you work. You do not understand why people do not get along. You do not understand why you hate people or hate being around someone. You do not understand anything about the universe. Because all you say will change nothing. But do something and it will change everything. You can only do good or evil. You will serve one more than the other. I say this because I know you will go to hell if you do not change and heaven if you do. Thank you. I hope you enjoyed this?
My opponent is a Christian proselytizer.

I do not defend myself but God as I live for Him. Jesus said go out and spread the gosple. "I am arguing that you are a Christian proselytizer based on evidence I put in my first post rather than a debater, and using The Bible for your argument reinforces the fact to a small degree." "How is this a fact at all? This is more or less your own opinion supported by no facts and faulty logic that assumes "God" did it all, aka a God of the gaps fact aka proselytizing yet again rather than humanely debating me." A structure is something that hold something together. It is also the shape. Jesus did not come to earth to enjoy his self but suffer for us so that we can be saved. God is Jesus in flesh. Therefore Jesus was perfect. "Because Christians have a longer life span than everyone else right?" Who is a Christian? The Bible says you will life longer. So far my friends arugment has not changed my. This would mean go back to sin. Do you want me to sin, because you do. My friend, we live together. On the same planet, why do you choose to make me sin. Is that not why the world is evil?