BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
most states should not yet legalize pot

for more on the mental health effects... http://www.health.harvard.edu... http://www.justice.gov... when people are mentally ill, they can start drawing on social security. this is welfare, causing the government dole to be spent. if con wants to insist bodily autonomy he must state what he thinks of government welfare going to people because of pot. is it just part of life, a good thing a bad thing etc. con probably just views autonomy so high that it doesn't matter. in which case we could be having this debate about cigarettes and alcohol and other drugs too.... there's nothing special about pot.
Homosexuals should not make straights feel bad for who they are.

I understand, but is cyber and physical bullying necessary? Does she have the right to talk about me on websites, claiming that I don't support homosexuality? Homosexuality is a big thing. It defies one of the only main messages God gave us which was to reproduce and make offspring: Genesis 1:28 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV) 28 God blessed them and said to them, "Have many children. Fill the earth and take control of it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the air. Rule over every living thing that moves on the earth." Regular version "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground." Obviously homosexuals can not reproduce. That is why it is a problem.
Homosexuals should not make straights feel bad for who they are.

Only twice in the bible does God condemn homosexuality, while condemning eating shellfish 8 times. The reason why you seen like a homophobe is because you are choosing what to believe and what to throw out. The God of the bible also condemns eating of swine, animals with web feet such as birds and reptiles, wearing clothing of multiple fabric, allowing people of different faith living in your village, and working on the day of the Sabbath, all of which is punishable in the same way homosexuality is published. I believe that straight people who disagree with the homosexual life style are truly against the life style for other reasons. Other wise, they would follow every letter of the law, which is what Jesus instructed you to do. He did not change laws and he did not come to bring peace, "but the sword" as quoted in Matthews. Straights do not deserve to feel bad, but straights who disagree should. They do no good for their peers
Homosexuals should not make straights feel bad for who they are.

I had a friend who was homosexual. She believed that once she told me, that it would be okay for her to tell me all about homosexuality. She told me about fan fictions and all and I did not like it. Being religious I told her about how I felt. She said she wanted to be religious also. I told her that God does not support the idea of homosexuality. She then made me feel bad by calling me a homophobe, and talking about me on a website that supports homosexuality. She has told people about me not liking homosexuals, and has caused me to get cyber bullied, and verbally bullied.
travel ban should be used and is very helpful

Since Christianity was brought up i would just like to say no one said Christianity was perfect.. But i would like to make some key points that you might not know about the bible 1st- God chose "PAUL" to play a vital role in Christianity.. who happened to be murdering Christians for becoming a believer 2nd - In the bible it simply states "Love your enemy" where as the Quran it says Destroy them 3rd- The bible says "Do not Judge" 4th- also "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." 5th- Jesus chose Thieves/Murderers/Cheaters/Whores/Etc... to walk and be with him Where as Muhammad Killed them. .......-No one you mentioned in the Comments was killing in the name of Jesus -No one said judge because some caused trouble The Subject of this debate was a travel ban being right or wrong... so now my conclusion -Every country that has accepted refugee/migrants from these countries has seen an significant increase in Rape/Murder/Crime whether you want to believe it or not. -You cant simply make a judgement call without thinking you are putting an entire country at risk.. you cant be an optimist.. but more of a realist. - I completely understand where you are coming from and you are right it is just simply not fair to everyone who does have good intentions.. but i just have one statement "As soon as a crime/rape/murder happens to a love one of yours it will change your perspective completely because now it has become personal" -We should take a different approach and rather then bring them here we help them over there, to anyone who is just trying to simply better their life. Thanks for the debate, RJZ
travel ban should be used and is very helpful

so your saying we should judge all Muslims because a couple of them caused trouble verse of the bible In this verse, Samuel, one of the early leaders of Israel, orders genocide against a neighboring people: "This is what the Lord Almighty says... "Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."" (1 Samuel 15:3) it seems Christianity is a religion of peace when dealing with a Christian So enough of the hypocrisy also the stuff you cited are part of the stories sent to the prophets, telling them what to do. It is only for muslims to read.
travel ban should be used and is very helpful

1st- I have never said that i read the Quran several times i just stated that i have read it 2nd- You cant compare the KKK with ISIS the KKK did not commit violence in the name of Jesus. 3rd- Islam IS a peaceful religion, only when dealing with another fellow Muslim brother (will put scripture on the bottom look for a *** symbol). 4th- No one said all Muslims believe in the same as ISIS, but ISIS is more committed to their religion then others. 5th- Since you dont believe me and would like to see a few cited passages from the Quron im just going to choose a random section and copy paste you what i find... i HAVE read the Quron but many years ago... 6th- I noticed in the comments you also pasted some scriptures, i am a firm believer that you looked up "good scriptures in the Quron" you dont have to do that all you have to do is pick it up and read it being polite/nice/loving is all over the Quron... but of course only towards other Muslims CHAPTER 3 : FAMILY OF IMRAN 12. Say to those who disbelieve, "You will be defeated, and rounded up into Hell"an awful resting-place." ***28. Believers are not to take disbelievers for friends instead of believers. Whoever does that has nothing to do with God, unless it is to protect your own selves against them. God warns you to beware of Him. To God is the destiny. 56. As for those who disbelieve, I will punish them with a severe punishment, in this world and the next, and they will have no helpers. *****151. We will throw terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they attribute to God partners for which He revealed no sanction. Their lodging is the Fire. Miserable is the lodging of the evildoers. 157. If you are killed in the cause of God, or die"forgiveness and mercy from God are better than what they hoard. 158. If you die, or are killed"to God you will be gathered up.
travel ban should be used and is very helpful

the Quran actually does not tell you to kill non-believers. what many people fail to realize is that the Quran was sent to a man named Mohammed a prophet in Islam and when he is told to fight against the non-believers it is the ones that live in mecca with him. The ones that wanted to kill him because he was against their ideology. Their god was telling him to fight for his life before it was token, to protect his life. you said "When you have a group of people who believe in the same ideology which is "Kill the non-believer" it completely changes the story" not all Muslims believes the same thing of isis. To say that is like saying because of the KKK al white people are racist and a danger to black people.
travel ban should be used and is very helpful

As much as i do agree with you i must disagree also. you have made a very valid point clarifying that every terror attack since 9/11 has been by a American citizen. but what you have failed to do is look at it from the other side.. Regardless of what one side looks is you have to understand that it is still considered an act of terror (Domestic terror attack). When you have a group of people who believe in the same ideology which is "Kill the non-believer" it completely changes the story. Foreigners are by no means a danger to society if they are willing to adapt and come with good intentions and not try to dictate their ways/beliefs. You have made a clear statement that Trump has not done his research and i believe you have not either. I have read the Quran "Islam version of bible" and have realized many things that i suggest you go follow up on. The main one is all non-believers should die. with that being said i agree he should ban every country who has bad intentions against the United States, but this is a start! By the way you try to convince someone who is promised an eternal life in paradise not to act a certain way! Thanks, RJZ
travel ban should be used and is very helpful

The travel ban is meant to keep Americans safe by Trump deciding to ban the 6 countries he did but not the ones that we know were involved in the largest terror attack in America such as Egypt and Saudi. This shows that Trump is willing to jeopardize with these countries because of the business between them even though between 1975- 2015 those countries are where most of the terrorist were coming from. Also by Trump introducing the travel ban he is reinforcing this idea of foreigners being a danger to society, it shows he hasn't researched much either because if he did he would have realized that "Every jihadist who conducted a lethal attack inside the United States since 9/11 was a citizen or legal resident,"( New America reports).
Jesus Christ had an earthly father

In closing, Jesus Christ had a genealogy, He came from the seed of man. The seed of man defined in the Bible is a males sperm. Leviticus 15:16 - And if any mans seede of copulation goe out from him, then hee shall wash all his flesh in water, and bee vncleane vntill the Euen. Seed (sperm): From speiro; something sown, i. e. Seed (including the male "sperm"); by implication, offspring; specially, a remnant (figuratively, as if kept over for planting) -- issue, seed. So I defined “seed”. Now let’s get the definition for “copulation”. Copulation: sexual intercourse. Acts 2:30 [30] Therefore being a Prophet, and knowing that God had sworne with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loines, according to the flesh, hee would raise vp Christ, to sit on his throne: Loins: the region of the sexual organs, especially when regarded as the source of erotic or procreative power. “according to the flesh” – means a man’s flesh. Look at a man’s flesh…what is his loins? It’s his sexual organs. 1 John 4:3 [43] And euery Spirit that confesseth not that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God: and this is that spirit of Antichrist,whereof you haue heard, that it should come, and euen now already is it in the world. Acts 13:23 [23] Of this mans seed hath God, according to his promise, raised vnto Israel a Sauiour, Iesus: Moses said that Deuteronomy 18:15 The Lord thy God will raise vp vnto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like vnto me, vnto him ye shall hearken, - “like unto me” meaning that Christ came into the world just as Moses and the rest of us have, through a man’s seed or sperm and the woman’s eggs. Each individual on this planet has two genealogies, from the father and mother. Matthew gives the genealogy of Jesus and Joseph and Luke gives the genealogy of Mary and Jesus. Jesus had an earthly father, according to Scripture. There is nowhere in the Bible where it says Joseph adopted Jesus or Joseph is the step father of Jesus. Those are lies being taught in the Catholic and Christian churches. I asked CON many questions and he ignored most of them and didn’t answer them. Also, CON didn’t try to refute too many of the points I made, he only used a few Scriptures and misinterpreted them with his own thoughts instead of letting the Bible interpret the Scriptures. All in all, CON ignored much of the evidence I revealed and stated my evidence was “meaningless”. I refuted many if not all of CON’s points. I thank CON for the opportunity to debate this talking matter, good luck to you CON in your future debates.
Jesus Christ had an earthly father

Hello everyone. This debate is open to those who believe Jesus Christ was born of a virgin and the Holy Spirit ONLY, typically speaking, Catholics and Christians.Rules:1. Challenger must believe in Jesus Christ2. Challenger must believe that Jesus was born of a Virgin and the Holy Ghost only.3. Challenger must prove his/her side using the Bible as evidence.4. Challenger must stay on topic, else wise he/she automatically loses debate.5. If CON forfeits, he/she automatically loses this debate.R1 - Agreement to rules and acceptance only R2-4 - Arguments and Refutes R5 - Closing statements Good luck to you CON and thank you for accepting.
THW abolish the death penalty

Sir, you have not answered my question, and as this is the last round, I will not be able to rebut your answer.I invite the voter to look back, and realise that sir clearly avoided my question.In this last round, I will be analysing this debate.I have given you 3 arguments.1- Unfair to poor people (not rebutted at all!!!)2- These criminals are a burden to the state (not rebutted at all!!)3- Proved that death penalties make righteous people in the state feel saferMy opponent, however, has done nothing but cling on to the childish idea that lives are "oh so important" while I have leaded you into reality. I have shown that even if lives are so important, we need to look at the cost of it: taking away the rights, needs and luxuries of the poor and the society as a whole.I invite the voters to look back and see how clingy, dependent on the"life argument" Pro is. He has based his whole case on the "Importance of Life" Argument, and I have already destroyed it. He is unwilling to accept a simple question, has many grammatical errors, and has done nothing else, but to say: Life is important.I believe that my opponent has done absolutely NOTHING to deserve to win.I rest my case.
THW abolish the death penalty

Life is precious because all people only live once and so do criminal. Resources like money and food can be refilled but lives cannot. 'An eye for an eye' only creates hates, not forgiveness. It is a tragedy when people believe that you killed a man and you have to be killed. No one has the right to take away others' lives. Are all the criminals found guilty? No, It might not. Some of the criminals are found innocent finally. So if they were suffered from death penalty, they have no turning back. Our house believes that giving criminals a chance is the respect of human lives.
THW abolish the death penalty

I thank sir for his first rebuttals, I will be defending today, and arguing. toowings4u: If our world treasure resources more important than lives, it is absolutely heartless. Sir, we accept that lives are much more important, when compared to resources, but we need to look at the cost of resources. Resources for criminals- we refuteResources for righteous people- we acceptThese criminals have hurt people, then, they go and use tax to take away resources from people, those good people, who have worked hard for resources. These criminals are like leeches. Taking the best of the society, and harming the best of society. Lives should be treasured, sir, we wholly accept that but we need to look at the costs and benefits of keeping these disgusting people alive. To finish off my rebuttals, I would like to ask my opponent a question: Is it okay for a policeman to kill a culprit, perhaps during a chase? I await your answer. I will add an argument: Sir, my previous arguments have been focusing on the impact on the society, as a whole. Let us focus much more precisely, on individuals. Let us move from the bigger picture, to the details. Let us change, from a macro perspective, to one of a micro. How does the criminals and death penalty affect individuals? Let me answer that. Serious Criminals: These Criminals often take away the most basic right of all, the right to life. They also hurt individuals, people close to their victims, such as friends, or family. Death Penalty: Makes individuals feel safer, knowing such a huge punishment may be in store for serious crimes. It can also make criminals think twice before committing a serious crime (e. g. raping, murder, torture) Thus ends my 3rd round speech, I eagerly await your proposals. I rest my case.
THW abolish the death penalty

Are resources more important than lives? No, definitely not! If our world treasure resources more important than lives, it is absolutely heartless. If resources are more precious than lives, then the so-called-criminal should not be punished, he should be rewarded instead - because he lessened the burden of other people. Is it really 'one man died, the world is better? No!! We abolish the death penalty because we want to convey a value - lives should be treasured - to the people, including the criminals.
THW abolish the death penalty

Sir, the global poor struggle to survive everyday, looking for food, shelter and water. And yet, proposition want criminals, disgusting people to go into a jail with free healthcare, food and water. On opposition side, he wants the criminals to be given such privileges that righteous people are not given. I find it absurd, that disgusting people, who do not follow laws, who harm people (because the death penalty is often used for large and serious crimes) should be given basic rights that they have already violated. Thus ends my first argument. My second argument is that the state's responsibility to improve the state. That includes eliminating the bad parts of the state. Those people who have been deserved to have a death penalty, are rotten, and can: 1. Hurt the righteous people of the state by: a) Their crimes can hurt people b) Their being in prison is unfair and unjust c) their resources being given to them must be obtained by tax, found from the righteous and just people of the good community I have showed that these people are hurting the community, economy, and how that prop's argument of morality, stands no longer, because prop are withholding rights from good men, and giving those rights to disgusting people. I rest my case.
All parents should be required to attend parenting classes before having a child.

A few things.. Who will force an expecting parent to go to a class especially if they're having a child they did not even plan for? What if they were planning on adoption? Would they need the class then? "This can be offered online" What if there is no internet available? "at a clinic setting," What if there is no way of transportation? "or through outreach in home visits." How much is that going to cost? If the consequences don't include refusal of delivery and medical services, getting arrested, or paying a fine, then what would happen if someone decided not go to a parenting class? How is there "no way to opt out of the program" when there is no way to make sure that every is put into the program? What about expecting parents that don't rely on any sort of professional help for their entire pregnancy? Are we going to go to developing countries and require parent classes? "Eventually, when the mother goes into the hospital to deliver her baby a shortened more condensed version/overview of the class will be conducted." The first thing a mother going into labor is going to want to hear is a lecture on how to best raise her child. No, she's going to be screaming in pain. If they offer this "shortened more condensed version/overview of the class" then why wouldn't everyone wait till then? I'm sure that parents are not going to pay attention to this stuff while a woman is about to give birth. Also, who would pay for this overview? The parents? Why would someone want to go to a hospital and pay for a class they didn't even care for? HealthDay said "The percentage of U.S. women choosing to give birth at home or in a birthing center rather than a hospital has grown by 56 percent in less than a decade, according to a new government report." (1) This means that there wouldn't be a way someone could force parent to learn. While a parenting class might help a parent on the road to raising a child, there are also very individual ways to raising a child. Parents often have a natural instinct to raising their child. Requiring parent classes is as irrational as requiring cooking classes for cooking at home. Parenting classes should be strongly encouraged, but not required. Parents will raise their kids however they want to raise their kids. (1) http://consumer.healthday.com...
All parents should be required to attend parenting classes before having a child.

A person who has an "Accident baby" is a perfect example of a person who NEEDS the parenting class. At least a person who has pre-planned a pregnancy has considered life with a child- as opposed to a "surprise" baby. People will be offered multiple opportunities to complete the parenting course during the gestation of the pregnancy. This can be offered online, at a clinic setting, or through outreach in home visits. Consequences for not completing the parenting class will not result in refusal of delivery and medical services, getting arrested, or paying a fine. That would be irrational. There is no way to opt out of the program. Eventually, when the mother goes into the hospital to deliver her baby a shortened more condensed version/overview of the class will be conducted. The class is meant to enlighten and encourage healthy and positive behaviors for people who have children.
All parents should be required to attend parenting classes before having a child.

I accept the Con side of the debate "All parents should be required to attend parenting classes before having a child. " I believe that it would be beneficial for expecting parents to take a class, but a requirement is extreme. What if there was difficulty in the circumstances-- such as "accident babies", parents who do not have the time nor money available to take classes, and parents who just don't feel like going (would they be refused delivery service at the hospital or arrested or have to pay a fine)?
All parents should be required to attend parenting classes before having a child.

People should be required to attend parenting classes before having a child because it will provide a realistic view of all the challenges involved with parenting. Many people don't realize all the challenges that come with parenting. Guest speakers, like current parents could provide valuable insights for couples who want to have children. The parents could describe a day in the life of a parent and go through scenarios to make people think about what they do to handle difficult situations.