BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Marriage is about love, not gender.

Rebuttals: as you said, God created one man Adam and one woman Eve, not two men or two women! There is a reason why he created a girl and a boy! It is to produce humankind. That is the main thing marriage was for, as I've said, it is to produce the next generation. If everyone thinks others can do it, than there would be no heirs for human kind! So here are my points. everyone knows that children needs care, but if there was gay marriage, the child, can be a girl or a boy. Maybe they took him/her from children's home, and stuff like that, but if they got a girl and their selves are boys(or the other way around), How can they take care of the child?
Marriage is about love, not gender.

http://www.gaychristian101.com... From gaychristian101.com: God made Adam and Eve - Not Adam and Steve!? Maybe, but let's look at the issue. As a progressive Christian, I believe the King James Version supports marriage equality. I have done the research, and written this: http://www.writerscafe.org... This list several Bible verses that affirm same sex marriage. Here: https://www.blueletterbible.org... You can use these links to find proof. What are your main Biblical objections to same sex marriage? We've all heard someone say that as if it should be engraved in stone.
Marriage is about love, not gender.

Ok, first, here are my rebuttals. I am a christian myself, and I know bibles too. It was written that when MEN and WOMAN gets married and does some "sexual movements" (sorry if you think this is inappropriate, I think so like that too...) they merge together as one, but it never said two men or two women can. Now, for my points, as for the 1st round of the whole debate match, I will first define what is marriage. According to bible, marriage, is two people from opposite genders merge together as one. Although in America, gay marriage is allowed, but there are reasons why we should not have gay marriage (same genders marrying each other) According to traditions, girl and boy marriage is the true tradition, and we should preserve traditions. We have to preserve it so humankind can truly be the heirs of their past generations, leaving bits and bits of clues of history. We are heirs of the past generations! We should do the way they have. That is simply common sense! If your mom taught you to eat with a spoon while drinking soup, will you drink soup with hands? No! right? same thing with gay marriage. Also, marriage has another use, to create a next generation. If there WAS gay marriage, then how can we produce the next generation? How can we save humankind? You might think like" nah, one or two less is fine" but I highly doubt that. A famous quote from Mother Teresa," The ocean is made by uncountable number of water droplets." If everyone thought that its fine for their selves to marry same gender because there must be someone ELSE to do all the generation producing, what would happen? There would be no next generation, and humankind will be extinct. I hope all these points can let our fellow voters believe that this motion MUST NOT stand.
Allowing Refugees from Syria is an all around bad idea

My opponent has clearly misunderstood the debate topic. He has chosen to attack Christianity instead of debate whether letting in Syrian refugees was a good idea. I have successfully defended my position as well as shut down his arguments against Christianity. Argument points go to me. I am the only one who cited any sources. Source points go to me. My opponent repeatedly gave up conduct points to me (see: DUN DUN DUN lol in the last round). Conduct points to me. My spelling and grammar was clearly better than his, though due to my keyboard malfunctions, this could go as a tie. S&G points to me or a tie. I'd like to thank my opponent for taking this debate. As the audience can attest, I have made the best case.
Allowing Refugees from Syria is an all around bad idea

I would challenge my opponent to find just ONE scripture in Christian text that calls for extermination of a people to advance the white race. He can't. That's because it's not in ther. Not only is it not in there, but his claim that neo nazis are Christians is false. Most hold socialst leanings which eschew christianity and mainstream religion in general[1]. What he may be thinking of is the KKK, which he would still have to reconcile their actions with the tenants of Christianity. "Have you read the Quran, in the actual Arabic language and not a(sic) abridged or translation piece where prejudice and political agenda can color the translation ?" Admittedlym I only speak english, and not arabic, greek, hebrew, or aremaic, so the answer is no. Simply posing this kind of question does not nullify anything I've said. I could easily make the same argument about translations of the bible. I could back my argument up with the fact that the bible is correctly translated. One could make the same argument about the Koran. Just simply making the assertation that something is untrue, doesn't actually make it untrue. You have to prove this to be true ' " Do not judge all by the deranged few " ... Why can't they take their own advice when it comes to Musli(sic) ' Easily. As I've stated, justify so called "radical Christian" actions with corrosponding bible verses. I can do that with Islam and the Koran[2] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://janmorganmedia.com...
Allowing Refugees from Syria is an all around bad idea

First and foremost, I apologize for not seeing this. I never got the email notification. 1. The 9/11 attackers blended in REALLY well for YEARS before they did what they did. It is asinine to assume that Islamic Syrian Refugees are automatically peaceful just because Supreme Leader Obama says so. This is the same thing that happened in WW2. Nazis came over to infiltrate America and join flight schools. They mastered various accents so no one would know theywere German. We figured out who they were by the way they held their cigarettes. How do we know Syrian refugees are not out to harm us? We don't. Shall we really wait until it is too late? 2. Christianification and Islamifcation are RADICALLY different. There is absolutely no comoparison. Islamification calls for forcible conversion or death. In rare cases, if murder does not happen to those who do not convert to Islam,they are forced to pay a special tax. Islam calls for rape of women, Islam or not. Isam calls for gays to be jailed or murdered. Christianity does none of this. Even in the scriptures quoted, there is no call to violence 3. A simple understanding of the teachings of the bible shows that so-called "Radical Christians" do not actually represent Christianity. As stated above, Islam is vastly different. 4. There were four different crusades. about three of them were defensive on the Christians' part[1] 1. www.allenbwest.com/2015/02/jihad-vs-crusades-facts-pain
Allowing Refugees from Syria is an all around bad idea

Can I acknowledge my opponent makes good points without making it seem that I am conceeding anything? I fear I cannot. However his arguments DO infact have some gaping holes. I can acknowledge that not all Syrians are Muslim. But with a crappy vetting process, or no vetting process at all, how do we know this for sure? More specifically, how do we know that the refugees coming into America are not Muslim? If we are to say, "they are Muslim, so what?" then how do we know they are not radicalized? WE DON'T. nd since Glorious Leader Obama refuses to vet these combat aged men (where are the widows and children he has spoken about? The vast majority are combat aged men)[1], it's better to be safe than sorry. Let me ask my opponent a personal question. Going through your profile, I could not gauge whether you were, Jewish, Christian, Atheist etc. I could not gauge whether you were straight or gay. Let's assume then. Let's assume you are either Jewish, Christian or Atheist. Here is the question I would like to ask: 1. Do you enjoy your Judaism, Christianity, or Atheism? If you answer yes, then under Sharia Law you would be in danger if you did not convert to Islam. How does this tie in to the refugees? Simple. We simply do not know what these people want. Do they have an agenda? Possibly. When you look at the Koran, you see that it is VERY evident that it calls for the Islamification of the whole world. And by violent means if necessary. If these refugees were all Christian, there would be no argument, but we cannot take any chances. Not in a post 9/11 world I would like to point out the story of Ronnie Smith. I knew Ronnie. He was a deacon in my church. I did not know him well, but I have talked to him on a few occasions. About two years ago, he and his wife and son were living in Lybia as he taught I belive it was physics. One day he was out for his morning run when he was gunned down. We don't know if these attackers were radicalized or what. Is that a risk we want to take on our own soil?[2] Also, regarding Sharia Law, my opponent does not seem to know what this entails. I'll let radical Muslim cleric, Adjem Choundry speak for me in this link[3] Finally, Must we forget about Paris and my home town of San Bernardino? [4][5] At least in the case of the San Bernardino tragedy, we know the shooters were radicalized before coming to America. I ask again, is this a something we want to risk with the refugees, with no vetting process? 1. http://www.allenbwest.com... 2. http://edition.cnn.com... 3. http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org... 4. https://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://www.latimes.com... I apologize for any spelling errors, my keybord is horribly messed up
Allowing Refugees from Syria is an all around bad idea

My argument for this debate is simple, if you enjoy your freedoms that are bestowed upon you as an American, you should agree that allowing Syrian refugees is a bad idea. They only want one thing: to implement Sharia Law. In order to win this debate my opponent must effectively nullify my claim that Syrian refugees are bent on carrying out ISIS's plan as well as other Muslim extremist groups' plan of implementing Sharia Law everywhere. I will go into greater detail as I argue against my opponent's claims
Free will

But there are others that we can make, Such as going outside. That person who just walked outside. That wasn't the first action they ever did. They can be a man or a woman. Could be going to work. Going to see friends. Going to get groceries. Went outside for a smoke etc. Factors for going outside you have clearly missed out. A person doesn't just go outside instead they have past experiences that give him reason why they should go outside. That person has a job which is why he is going outside. All I have to do to win this debate is prove there is one instance where we have free willIf going outside is an example then you are wrong. You have missed out who the person is, Why they are doing it etc. Leaving this out paints the picture as if the first this person has done nothing up until going outside. That isn't the first thing they have done. They have done other things which led him to going outside. It is never as simple as you are saying it. When you provide an example give me some information about a person. If you can't think of one just think of something you did which you did because of your free will. Do also say why you did it, How etc.
Free will

I am a Christian and believes in free will but I am going to argue that under your worldview, Atheism, We do not have free will. There are only two ways that this universe could have been created; the supernatural, Meaning God, Or the natural, Meaning physics, Chemistry, Etc. Since your worldview does not include God as part of the equation, All we are left with is the natural. Therefore, Your worldview necessitates the working of the natural, Thus, I"m only working within that. The worldview of the natural consists of the physics, Laws of chemistry, Etc. Our brain works on the physics, Laws of chemistry, Etc. If that"s all our brain is, Then we don"t have free will. When one chemical state in our brain leads to another chemical state in our brain, Then our reactions are just those chemical reactions. They are not our decisions, They are just chemical reactions.
Free will

This can be about two things and would like to focus on only one of them. I would like my opponent to choose where this free will debate would go. Free will: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. (Google: Free will define)Round 1 my opponent can also decide a definition. If I do not accept I am sure I can think of a compromise. Option 1:Free will exists. I am Con to this. Option 2:Free will is more beneficial in a society than not having it. I am also Con to this. (With this I am free will is not helpful whereas Pro is free will is helpful. I or my opponent will not be stating its existence here instead stating how beneficial it is in whatever way they see it to being beneficial) I added the category philosophy but it can be Religious debate if the person wants to and would like someone who supports free will to be my opponent. I also would like my opponent to refrain from straw manning my position since I haven't give one apart from against free will instead this will be solely about free will. Not atheism, Determinism or whatever ism it might be. Hopefully you accept this and make the debate centered to free will. Ask questions in the comment section if you are unsure about something.
Christian and being Gay

Let me first begin by thanking calvinknightley for starting this debate. There has been a lot of unnecessary back in forth about the Bible so allow me to try to bring this debate back on topic. Much of the content of my opponent's last round failed to get at the heart of what is at issue here. Moreover, my key arguments have essentially gone unscathed. The resolution is "Christian and being Gay" This could be interpreted in two different ways. 1. It's all right to be a Christian and also be Gay. 2. Christian doctrine is essentially not opposed to being gay while remaining in the faith. Either way this argument fails. Allow me to demonstrate this by briefly summarizing my previous arguments. The first resolution fails because there isn't adequate evidence to validate Christian teachings. Therefore one ought not to be a Christian regardless of their sexual orientation. Moreover, Christianity is fundamentally hostile to open inquiry and gay rights out of deference to its teachings. And to support the religion by being a member is to give tacit support to these prejudices. If we are to interpret the resolution to mean that Christian teachings are unopposed to gay relationships then my opponent's arguments still fail. I have already pointed out that gay relationships are contrary to Biblical scripture. Moreover, my opponent has established this even better than I have so it wont be necessary for me to say anything else.
Living Is Impossible

I will address my opponent's syllogism in two points:1. It is very difficult to prove impossibility. Even if the assertions made in Pro’s syllogism are correct, the conclusion is only that “organisms are not living”. The resolution of this debate, that Living is Impossible, is outside the scope of Pro's syllogism. Proving that organisms as we know them are not living does not prove that living is not possible. The only thing that can negate possibility is “knowledge to the contrary”, per the definition of “possible”. Therefore, unless Pro has knowledge to the contrary, it is possible that alien beings are living, that beings in other dimensions are living, that god is living, etc. Unless there is contrary knowledge (such as the knowledge that all things that exist in all universes are made of atoms), then there is always a possibility that something is living, even if it is in some unknown system or universe.2. Pro’s syllogism seems to assume a definition of “life”, but does not make clear which definition. Pro’s P2 states that atoms are “non-life”, but does not provide proof for such an assertion, nor does it provide the definition of “life” by which that assertion was formed. Let’s look again at the definition of “living”:Living - having life; being alive; not dead. [1]Now let’s look at some definitions of “life”:Life - 1. the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.2. the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, especially metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.3. the animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual.4. a corresponding state, existence, or principle of existence conceived of as belonging to the soul.5. the general or universal condition of human existence:6. any specified period of animate existence.7. the period of existence, activity, or effectiveness of something inanimate, as a machine, lease, or play. [2]As you can see, Pro’s syllogism seems to involve a very narrow definition of “life”, while the actual definitions and implications of "life" are far-reaching. While an atom may truly be “non-living”, Pro has thus far not shown that something made up of “non-living” materials can not have a life all its own, despite the previous state of its parts. On the contrary, the possible interpretations and meanings of “life” allow for both organisms and inanimate objects to be “living”. Back to you, Pro. -----------------[1]. http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]http://dictionary.reference.com...
Living Is Impossible

I only have a single sylogism to provide. P1. Living requires having life P2. Organelles are made up of non-life(atoms) C1. Organelles are not living P3. Cells are made up of non-life organelles C2. Cells are not living P4. Organs are made of non-life cells C3. Organs are not living P5. Organisms are made of non-life organs C6. Organisms are not living. Therefore, life is impossible since this would continue to any of the most complex organisms. According to Con's definition.
Living Is Impossible

I accept. As Pro did not specify when I should supply definitions, I will do so here: Living - having life; being alive; not dead.[1] Is - 3rd person singular present indicative of be.[2] Impossible - not possible; unable to be, exist, happen, etc.[3] Possible - 1. that may or can be, exist, happen, be done, be used, etc.: a disease with no possible cure. 2. that may be true or may be the case, as something concerning which one has no knowledge to the contrary: It is possible that he has already gone.[4] ----- [1]http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]http://dictionary.reference.com... [3]http://dictionary.reference.com... [4]http://dictionary.reference.com...
Maths cannot be proven true it is a human invention

In addressing your first point on definition I would like to say that we may not physically 'blindly' accept maths but we accept it without any proof that it actually exists and is true, with or without human existence. We call an apple an apple because we perceive it to be so and we have given the apple the name of the apple but theoretically we do not know that it is an apple we have just named it so. In relation to maths we have created axioms in which we can base mathematics off. What I would like to say is that we cannot prove maths to be solely true and we can't tell if it would differ on other planets with life (hypothetically speaking) maybe they would have a different concept of maths that is much more efficient. Just because we have defined a thing like an apple does not make the apple and apple. For example imagine on a remote island where the islanders call ,what we call apples, instead they call them rocks that does not make the 'apple' a rock and they may feel that what they perceive and define an apple is true but what we perceive is wrong. I used the language comparison to show that maths is a creation, a human invention to interpret reality and communicate with reality. Trying to prove maths to be true by using our constructed definitions suited to our brains and the limits our minds hold is not substantial in proving maths to any other being than a human thus I argue that it is a human invention and cannot be proven true. I apologise for the late reply and look forward to the final round!
Maths cannot be proven true it is a human invention

Thank you for accepting con. Maths is all around us and in everything that cannot be denied is it true? Well many say that it is true by definition. But why should we blindly accept this. Maths is based on axioms that, as the definition provided states are assumed without proof. Surely we should, as inquisitive beings, question just why we should assume these are true. Arguing that maths is all around us and is there to be discovered which is platonic. It would exist even if humans didn't exist it would be there no matter what. Many mathematicians regard themselves as 'hunters' or 'discoverers' that feel they are finding maths around us. Assuming the above points then maths is no different than faith, in other words people who believe maths is there regardless of our existence they have faith that it is there. But is it true? Obviously in epistemology terms nothing is true we cannot know anything. I feel that maths is a tool or a language that humans have created or invented with a purpose in mind to interpret reality and the world around us. We cannot see the number 2 for example, we can't find some where in the world where we can view the number two just like we cannot find the word apple. This suggests that it's limited within the human brain and any other life on any planets in our universe would have a completely different type of maths regarding that the same physics would apply for our universe. To be clear I am not saying maths isn't helpful or vital of course it is but it is simply a human creation no different than language (respectively). I look forward to your response!
Maths cannot be proven true it is a human invention

I accept.Since the Instigator didn't provide any definition, rule, etc., I will do it instead..DEFINITIONSMaths = Mathematics[1]: The systematic treatment of magnitude, relationships between figures and forms, and relations between quantities expressed symbolically.[2]By Maths it should be meant Math as a whole, not something particular in mathematics. Because if one proves that a theorem is wrong, that would only mean that that theorem is wrong, not mathematics.Prove (v): To establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument.[3]True: Being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false.[4]Invent: To produce or create with the imagination.[5] (I think this is what Pro means by invention.)Axiom: A proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.[6]BOPThe BOP is fully on Pro, since it is their claim. I will refute their arguments, without making any claim.Pro argues that Maths cannot be proven.Con provides rebuttals to refute Pro's arguments.RULES-No restriction on structure of rounds.-The only rule is to follow the definitions.-If Pro disagrees with anything above, we can discuss it under comments and reconsider. Pro can post their arguments in round 2 if they agree to above definitions, rules, etc.CONCLUSIONI look forward to Pro's opening arguments in round 2 and wish them best of luck!SOURCES[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] Def.1 in http://dictionary.reference.com...[4] Def.1 in http://dictionary.reference.com... [5] Def.2 in http://dictionary.reference.com...[6] Def.3 in http://dictionary.reference.com...