BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jesus was gay and so was Paul

Hello.All instances of homosexuality in the Bible refer to sexual intercourse between people of the same gender, not to feelings of attraction to other people of the same gender.With that being said, there is no Biblical or extra-Biblical evidence supporting the assertion that Jesus or Paul were homosexual (in the modern sense of the word, i.e. sexually attracted to other men) or in support of homosexuality. On the contrary, the Bible is against homosexuality.(All from the KJV) Concerning God's default position on homosexualityLeviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.Concerning what Paul had to say about homosexualityRomans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,20 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.1 Timothy 1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;Jesus said nothing on the matter of homsexuality. However, because he was sinless (2 Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:15, 1 Peter 2:22, 1 John 3:5) and validated the law (Matthew 5:17-18, Luke 16:16-17), it stands to reason that he was not homosexual.Pro, being on the affirmative, has the burden of proof; pro must prove Jesus and Paul were homosexual (see definitions below). I, being the negative, must refute pro's case. If pro's case stands, Pro wins. If Pro's case fails, Con wins.Pro has the floor, or rather the space, in round 2.Definition(s) [1]Homosexual: adj. Of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The childrens' TV show Peppa Pig does not showcase a fair representation of reality.

The resolution is "The Childrens' TV show Peppa Pig does not showcase a fair representation of reality. ', so I will argue that this statement is true and Con will be arguing that the resolution is false. He has yet to present arguments supporting his case, and without further ado, I shall present my arguments. #1: Peppa Pig is misleading when showing what sort of jobs animals can do. If we just look at one episode of peppa pig [1], we can see that animals have the opportunity to do a lot of jobs that we in reality see humans doing, but if we look at a factual article on the list of jobs that animals do [2]. these jobs we saw animals do in Peppa pig are nowhere to be seen. This means that Peppa Pig does not showcase a fair representation of reality. #2: Peppa Pig makes a phenomenal underestimation of the complexity of a real job. Even if we look at a list of the easiest jobs to do, there are still a lot of jobs that are more complex than the jobs seen being done in Peppa Pig, such as plumbing, repairing and being a sports agent [3]. We can then compare this to the jobs seen being done in Peppa Pig [1] and see that Peppa Pig does not showcase a fair representation of reality. #3: Positioning of housesIf we do a google images search for 'Peppa Pig houses', we see a lot of houses on hills [4], but if we do a google images search for 'houses', we see that in reality, the vast minority of houses are positioned on hills [5]. Even if we do a google search for 'houses on hills', we see that the vast majority of houses on hills are on the side of hills [6], not on top of hills like in Peppa Pig. This means that Peppa Pig does not showcase a fair representation of reality. ConclusionI have presented three arguments that even if presented on their own, would demonstrate that Peppa Pig does not showcase a fair representation of reality. Con has failed to refute my arguments are present arguments supporting his case, that the Childrens' TV show Peppa Pig showcases a fair representation of reality. I urge a vote for Pro. Sources[1]. http://www.channel5.com...[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...[3]http://www.iretireearly.com...[4]http://goo.gl...[5]http://goo.gl...[6]http://goo.gl...
The childrens' TV show Peppa Pig does not showcase a fair representation of reality.

Greetings, Peppa Pig is a cartoon. It isn't a documentary. Children's shows, which are a majority of the time cartoons, are not created to represent reality. Five year olds don't even know what reality is. Children watch cartoons because they are entertaining and cartoons spark imagination and creativity. Children don't grow up and become upset when they realize that everything they watched in that one cartoon when they were five years old had nothing to do with real life. That's not how things work. I understood, as a 4 year old, that while I watched Tom and Jerry, my cat wasn't chasing a mouse with a knife. As I grew up and continued to understand that animals don't chase each other with weapons, I was not disappointed.
The childrens' TV show Peppa Pig does not showcase a fair representation of reality.

As comforting as it may be, I will be arguing that the childrens' television programme Peppa Pig does not showcase a fair representation of reality.When my little sister turns over to watch Peppa Pig, I do worry that her expectations of reality may cause her to feel disappointed when she has to grow up and face the real world.For this debate, I specify that semantics or trolling will result in an embarrassing 1-point loss and that the burden of proof on each side shall be equal.I thank you.
should prayer be allowed in schools

No, they should never allow it in schools. Prayer in schools mean that they will pressure the other people that don't believe what the majority believes in. This also will mean that it will be allowed inside of school events and that will influence those that don't to try to get there own in, but if they are part of a minority, they will be left out. Also, when it had been allowed, it was taken out of hand and anyone that didn't do so was either punished or outcast from the majority. Prayer should never be allowed in schools to allow others to have their own beliefs as they want without interruption to it.
True Straight lines are impossible to create

Because you made the debate about a subject that you cannot refute. The point is, you made an argument that everyone agrees with generally. That you can make some sort of line that's perfectly straight, you can't do it with today's technology, I'm sure maybe sometime in the future when we can manipulate something that small in such a way. You're not going to make a breakthrough discovery in physics in a 3 round European debate website. I say you rather should go to a website like this: https://physics.stackexchange.com... I personally like this article because paradoxes are cool to me. But yeah, What you asked was kind of like, "I want you to tell me why some people get a disease that we don't understand yet."
True Straight lines are impossible to create

the shape of atoms isn't circular - its just orbiting points of charge like a solar system. casting its structure into another shape is impossible as its components aren't stagnant rather ever moving - electrons orbit in energy levels and protons decay even in stable states after a certain amount of time (half-life) and I believe the closest would be to somehow bond atoms in a structure with 90-degree interactions (lattice) such that the surface of the compound has an entirely flat surface.
Term Limits

IntroductionI am appalled. In the first round, I specifically said that round two was only for arguments. This round (the third one) was for rebuttals. My opponent simply went ahead and tried to refute my argument. As my opponent has ruined the entire structure of this debate and also misinterpreted me, I believe he has lost the conduct points. His rebuttals are noted, but they will be ignored for now. He can restate them if he pleases. Right now, I will refute his arguments. RebuttalsDemocracy, where the people choose their own leader. Logically, it makes sense. Different countries have different needs, and different leaders have different needs. Therefore their needs should be the similar to benefit the country and its people as a whole, as both parties want to do, but together. For this to happen, the population therefore chooses who fits in with their need the most. That is the basis of democracy. If a country wanted a leader, who they think would benefit them, they elect the leader. If after the first term, they feel like said leader failed, then the leader is out and the next person they feel who is the most beneficial, they elect. If the leader did very well, or the country still feels as he is the best, he is elected, and has another term, and the cycle continues ad nauseum." This argument is valid. In fact, I never specified the term limit would have to be two terms. I am simply arguing that unlimited terms are simply undemocratic. "Term limits, after the first two terms, infringes upon democracy. The voter now, cannot vote for who he truly thinks will benefit the country. The people as a whole, are now forced to pick someone who is their second choice, someone who doesn't necessarily have the same ideas and opinions as him. The leader's are second rate unless they want to switch. Term limits would only cause harm, in times of prosperity, if there was a very good leader." All leaders, no matter how great, have alternatives. In the United States, a President's alternative would be a member of his cabinet or colleages from the same party. "The point is that democracy is already self-regulating, self-fulfilling and self-correcting. The idea of democracy in itself is expunged by not allowing people to vote for who they want to. There is no problem with people really enjoying a leader, and the moment they don't, they have the power to get rid of the leader. Term limits are anti-democratic, and do not serve any practical use." Term-limits are not anti-democratic in any way. In fact, they prevent behavior resembling dicatorship. All great leaders have alternatives. Also, it is not the majority that is most important: the minority has a voice as well and that voice must be heard. If the minority's voice cannot be heard, that is anti-democratic, my friend. I do not quite understand my opponent's arguments. First of all, all leaders have alternatives. Secondly, term limits do not automatically mean two terms. Thirdly, term limits are no anti-democratic at all. Forgive me if my rebuttals are short and not fleshed out well. I am very busy.
Term Limits

IntroductionOn January 20, 1941, Franklin D. Roosevelt delivered his third inaugural address, marking the first - and last - time in United States history that a President shall have had more than the traditional two terms. Later, he would assume a fourth term, only to die shortly after. Then on March 21, 1947, the twenty-second amendment was passed, setting a limit of how many terms a President can serve (two terms). It was finally ratified on February 27, 1951.Franklin Delano Roosevelt was one of our greatest presidents. This may sound biased, but it is supported by facts. He saved us from the Great Depression. He led us through a global war, in which millions and millions have died. His legacy is great and that is undeniable. FDR was one of the rare cases that did deserve more than two terms. The same cannot be said about the political leaders of today. Allow me to make my case. ArgumentsTwo terms as President - 8 years - are enough. In 8 years, you can inspire recovery from an economic collapse, end wars, start wars, create alliances, destroy alliances, create hope, and create chaos. 8 years is nearly a decade. That is enough. There are a few rare cases - like FDR - that indeed require a third term in order to finish the work they have started. However, you cannot repeal an entire amendment just because of these rare cases. In my personal view - please do not attack me on this - Barack Obama deserves a third term. However, I do not believe that term limits should only be in the United States. I think it should be law in al developed, secure countries. If a President, Prime Minister, Chancellor, or any other political leader, were allowed to have as many terms as they pleased - and they won all of them - that would resemble dictatorship and it definately would indicate that the person in question is desparate and hungry for power. In times of crisis, like an economic depression or a global war, a political leader - if worthy of the office - may have a few more terms than others. However, these terms should not be unlimited. Even FDR would not have deserved a fifth or sixth term. He would be very desparate. May I ask, how is running for unlimited terms not a sign of desparation? My argument is short, I am aware. However, I have limited time. Please understand. Thank you. Works Cited1. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Term Limits

I, unlike CJKAllstar, support term limits. I would like to challenge him to a debate about this topic. I hope he accepts my challenge and acknowledges the rules I have put in place. Forfeiture will result in the loss of conduct points. Spelling and grammar will be accurate. All sources will be cited. In the first round, my opponent will accept the debate and acknowledge the rules. In the second round, we will provide our arguments. In the third round, we will offer direct rebuttals and expand on our arguments if necessary. In the fourth round, we will offer counter-rebuttals and conclusions. I look forward to this debate.
Academic qualification affects success.

In his speech, my opponent mentioned that according to IB learner profile, learners are supposed to think and conduct research. While it is arguable how well this is integrated into most educational bodies, lets have a look at the situation assuming every learner on planet Earth think and conduct research. At the Internet age, conducting research is very easy. Writing one line on a search engine such as Google will give you countless answers. Indeed, conducting research is very easy, and that's why it is a problem. It is already hard enough to dig important and correct information out of the sea of knowledge, and when a learner picks up the correct information,it is often the same as another learner picked up. This makes the results of most researches strikingly similar if not completely the same, thus eliminating differences between two learners. The current educational systems are similar to bakeries that make the same type of cake every day. Sure it tastes good, but it is all the same. Even if students do research, they end up with the same results. However, everything until now was optimistic thinking, the truth is, most educational bodies (namely schools) at the moment cannot make learners willingly conduct research and think. They force learners to learn exactly what they are told and give tasks such as homeworks for them to memorize the "knowledge" completely, and even go as far as punishing people for not memorizing the "knowledge" they provide. Therefore, no matter how good a person is at memorizing knowledge he or she is being given, there is a limit to what they can achieve. A cake from the same bakery can only taste so good the next time it is made. The people mentioned are just a few examples, as most of the successful people studied and conducted research on their own to get where they are. On a last note, it is fair to say that while times are changing, schools have failed to do so. They force people to do as they tell them, and they are more of a burden to learners than a helping hand.
Academic qualification affects success.

First of all we have to define quality education. According to a report from UNICEF quality education includes students which are healthy, well-nourished and ready to participate and supported in learning by their families and communities and the environment should be healthy, safe, protective and gender-sensitive.[1] Outcomes that encompass knowledge, skills and attitudes, and are linked to national goals for education and positive participation in society. The impacts of education reflect to the succession on job interviews. The aim of education is to develop the children's talents, personality and mental and physical abilities.[2] That's why academic qualification will affect job interviews even though the tasks are similar in job interviews. According to IB learner profile [3] learners should be knowledgeable and thinker. That's why students will not be the same if they can reach to the quality education even though the education is the same students will research and reach to more knowledge. That's why "machine" metaphor argument is invalid. The people who manage to get out of the educational system while doing their own studies are not much more successful. Those are really exceptional examples since those people "invented" something different and that's why they managed to earn money. Although in real life you have to be qualified a successful college to enter a good job. Einstein could be a drop out but in fact he entered to Zurich University afterwards.[4] That's why it is quite understandable that academic qualification affects success. Bibliography: 1- http://www.unicef.org... 2- http://www.unesco.org... 3- http://www.ibo.org... 4- http://en.wikipedia.org...
Academic qualification affects success.

My fellow debater, While education is a big part of our life, it is by no means imperative for success. The current educational systems over the world standardize people as if they were machines coming from the same factory. People are being taught the same things, given similar tasks and going through similar job interviews. On the other hand, people who manage to get out of the educational system while doing their own studies are much more successful. Some examples for this would be Steve Jobs, who dropped out of Reed College; Bill Gates, who is a successful businessman and enterpreneur who dropped out of Harvard College. Some other examples like Mark Zuckerberg and Albert Einstein could be given. These people got out of the educational systems of their countries but they still managed to achieve success. In fact, it is fair to say that they are much more successful than many people who had completed their education. Therefore, I believe that education can only achieve its own definition of success, which is having a relatively standard career without much actual success in terms of earnings or progress.
does movies give messages or not

Well, since you asked this in a question, i guess i can agree and debate this with you. I am curious however. What kind of messages are you talking about? bc i can be against some. There are certain messages that are on accident, some that are creativity put in on purpose, or (i can take this further) and say there are spiritual messages as well. Let me know if i didn't include something, but what type of messages are you talking about?
Nonverbal clues as evidence in a case

I agree that it is a great tool and you can gain lots of information about a person from nonverbal clues but it won't be enough to convict a person as guilty because there needs to be more evidence in order to be sure. If you can give an example of a nonverbal clue that is convincing enough to be used as evidence then I guess what you say is true. However I doubt that nonverbal clues are enough to convict a person as guilty of a crime.
Nonverbal clues as evidence in a case

Nonverbal behavioural clues is much more accurate in telling which emotion is aroused, the polygraph only tell you that there is an emotion arousing, not which one. I believe if the investigators can't find some evidence, not enough to convict a person, there should be looked at nonverbal clues, its much more accurate than people think. In a few years when people have been studying nonverbal communication for quite some time, i actually think it will become a powerful tool that will be used in most countries.
Nonverbal clues as evidence in a case

In my opinion I don't think you can use nonverbal behaviour as evidence to prove someone as guilty. If by showing signs of anxiety or lying results as evidence for commiting the crime then what about people who are just intimidated when people ask them questions directly. By being confronted they could be anxious but still innocent. Maybe the suspect is lying because of personal fears like the real criminal coming after him and taking revenge if he told the jury the truth. Polygraphs are great for telling if a person is lying but that does not conclude the person as the criminal. Concrete and solid evidence is what really determines whether a person is guilty or not.On to pro.
Nonverbal clues as evidence in a case

Do you think it should be possible to use nonverbal behavior as evidence in a case to convict a person guilty or innocent? Have you seen the tv-show lie to me? its kinda like that I'm talking about. If a person shows a lot of nonverbal clues which, if you put them all together would fit a guilty person, could that be used as evidence? Many investigators who use the polygraph also look at nonverbal signs, if you combine them it can turn out to be a really power full tool to detect who is guilty and who is innocent. Would really appreciate all opinions because this is for a school assignment.
Nonverbal clues as evidence in a case

I don't think it will be likely because the suspects in court almost always have lawyers that protect them from accusations based on nonverbal clues that do not gurantee a suspect as guilty. And if it does become a reliable evidence tool, people will be very upset and scared to be involved in any crime scene because there might be a chance they will be put in jail for up to a month. It could lead to people violently protesting against the idea. People will be happier if they know that they are safe from being sent to jail unless they really have done a crime and there is empirical evidence.Good to know that, I hope you do well in your presentation.
Nonverbal clues as evidence in a case

Wow i haven't thought about that. but maybe in a couple of years if it would be a legit reason to convict a person based on nonverbal clues, they could make a law that prevented people from suing the person who convicted the suspect. Like say u are allowed to give a person one month in prison based on nonverbal clues, but not a day more. Very good we have a presentation on friday, i think it's will turn out great.