BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Can Christians be gay

Here is my main source. Please read this before reading the rest, if for nothing other than fun. Also note I was challenged to this debate. http://www.debate.org... Romans 1:27 says "And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved." However just a few pages past that, and probably the same page in most bibles it says in Romans 3:23 "For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God's glorious standard." You don't become a Christian by being sinless. The bible states this is impossible. You become a Christian by accepting Jesus Christ as your lord and savior and asking for forgiveness for your sins. John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." You can be a homosexual, serial killer or any other deplorable thing in the world and be a Christian, because Jesus has been sacrificed in your name.
Tat, you are rationalizing my stuff. Scatterbrained

Tat. You make good fast points but your arguments are too long winded. I like to read them. But others on this debate forum may lose interest after the first sentence. If you want to debate issues, give me a call. I have some issues of my own-- like how to take care of a stepson with a sever physical disability. My wife died 3 years ago of lung cancer. I'm an ex-Marine, but a wife dying of cancer is an azz-kicker. Compassionate people fall away. 440-350-1904
Gay couples should not be allowed to adopt children.

I stand in affirmation of the statement: Gay Couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt children. === Definitions === Gay Couple-two people of the same sex (two women, two men) who are recognized as being in some sort of union by law. Adopt-the act of legally assuming the role of "parent" for someone who is not one of your biological children. === Arguments === a) While exceptions occur, the norm in nature is that offspring are nurtured by mother and father. To legally allow adoption by gay couples is to encourage what is an unnatural upbringing. b) Homophobic language and behavior is still common in society. Placing a child too young to have an opinion of their own in the care of a gay couple exposes them to this prejudice, and subjects them to ridicule or violence. Whatever ideal we might have, the psychological and physical welfare of the child must come first. c) A child's primary role models are his or her parents. Bringing a heterosexual child up in a gay household gives them a distorted view of a minority sexuality, just as a girl brought up by two men would fail to benefit from a feminine influence. I thank whoever accepts this debate.
Gay couples should not be allowed to adopt children.

Unfortunately Pro has failed to respond or provide a sufficient rebuttal in the third around. As such, I'll provide a quick re-cap of the debate: 1) Pro posited that nature intended for offspring to be raised by their mother and their father. I responded by noting that this is not true for all of nature's parents, not to mention that animals do not have the cognitive abilities of humans and therefore cannot suffice as a suitable basis for comparison. I also mentioned that very often human children are not raised by both of their biological parents, and since everything that humans do IS natural, then therefore it can be said to be a natural thing for humans to find care takers for their children, even if those care takers are not their biological parents. 2) Pro mentioned that gay people shouldn't have children because their kids will be made fun of on their behalf. I responded by noting that ALL kids get made fun of at some point for a plethora of reasons; if it weren't for their parent's sexuality, it would be for another reason. We cannot use the cruelty of children as a reason to punish adults, nor can we say "Black people can't have children because black people get made fun of. " Moreover, I noted that the only cure for homophobia is exposure. In other words, the more kids were exposed to homosexuality, the less likely they would be to discriminate against this lifestyle in the future. 3) Pro supposed that a lack of heterosexual influence in a child's life would promote that child to be homosexual as well. I responded by noting the ridiculousness of this claim; merely being exposed to a homosexual will NOT make you homosexual -- Just as straight parents don't always raise straight children, not all gay parents would raise gay children (in fact, statistics show quite the opposite). Additionally, I pointed out that children can find same-gendered role models in family, friends, etc. and would not be missing out on any aspect of parenting or nurturing by having two gay parents. 4) Again, Pro did not respond to ANY of my following arguments: Exposure is the cure for homophobia; Kids with gay parents would still have role models of both genders in their lives; There are plenty of kids in orphanages who need parents, and who would be better off with gay parents than no parents (not to mention that it'd be beneficial to the state to let them be adopted); Kids with gay parents don't suffer - they excel (! !! )
Gay couples should not be allowed to adopt children.

I will start by attacking the rebuttals put forth by my opponent. a) My opponent states that not all animals in nature are raised by their biological mother and father. But at least as far as we know, it is natural for a HUMAN CHILD to be raised by its mother or father. This has been the norm since the beginning of time and is still the norm, but maybe not so much since the 1970s. If evolution is true, than the evolutionary science supports human children being raised by a man and woman. If the Bible is true, it supports that a child should be raised by their mother and father. It is natural for HUMANS to be raised by a man and a woman. b) My opponent states everything a human does is natural. Something is not natural if it involves a choice. I can choose to either go to school or not. Something is only natural if if there is no choosing involved: breathing for example. c) My opponent says that 33% of Lesbian households and 22% of Gay households have children. She makes the fact of gay child adopting seem more prevalent. It is not. When combined, this accounts for less that 1% of total U. S. Households. It is by no means "normal" in the United States to see a gay couple with children. My opponent also tries to inflate the statistics because probably more than 75% of these children are one of the homosexual's biological children from another marriage. d) My opponent does not care about the welfare of adopted children It is true that children with overweight parents or poorer parents might get made fun of. However, children of gay couples are more likely to be exposed to VIOLENCE rather than just playground bullying. Homosexuals are maybe the biggest targets of violence and discrimination in America since the African Americans of the 1960s. Several gays are murdered every year just for being gay. Let's not put innocent children in the way. The VIOLENCE towards blacks, fatties, or those who are poor doesn't compare to that homosexuals receive. I yield back to theLwerd
9/11 was a false flag event

Saudi Arabia being an ally since WW2 has had no clear benefit to the 911 incident considering they made literal fortunes from our relationship. Saudi Arabia holds the worlds largest reserve of crude oil and also happens to be our top provider, certainly a country that has nothing to gain by damaging U.S. relations." "This is a tactic referred to in Islam as "taqiya" and maruna, and the overall foundation of their tactic is called "stealth jihad". Taqiya is to lie about your identity or loyalty to destroy your enemy from within. The Prophet of Islam, Muhammed, said, "War is deceit"." While my opponents response to my paragraph is accurate in regards to terminology it is unclear whether he is accusing the Saudi government or just the alleged 19. Yes, Islam does want chaos in the west. It would seem my opponent and I agree a great deal when it comes to the intention of radical islamics but I would ask that he stick to the events of 911 such as providing tangible proof it was not a false flag event. 1. The Pentagon: -Pillars are still intact where the wings are claimed to have impacted. If the wings were ripped off, there would have been a massive amount of debris to support the claim. - There should be craters where the planes engines dug up the front of the pentagon but there are no craters. - The roof of the pentagon maintained its general outline despite the planes tail supposedly slamming into it. - The last hole reportedly created by the plane is still very circular in shape suggesting that the plane maintained its cylindrical shape and yet no such debris was found. - Exit hole has burn marks indicative of rocket propulsion. https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com... Flight 93 -There was virtually no debris that would indicate a large plane had crash (see examples of real plane crashes) - There were virtually no bodies found (this has never happened) - It was reported that the plane did a nose dive and buried itself in the ground (this has never happened) https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com...
9/11 was a false flag event

"Saudi Arabia being an ally since WW2 has had no clear benefit to the 911 incident considering they made literal fortunes from our relationship. Saudi Arabia holds the worlds largest reserve of crude oil and also happens to be our top provider, certainly a country that has nothing to gain by damaging U.S. relations."This is a tactic referred to in Islam as "taqiya" and maruna, and the overall foundation of their tactic is called "stealth jihad".Taqiya is to lie about your identity or loyalty to destroy your enemy from within.The Prophet of Islam, Muhammed, said, "War is deceit".https://islamqa.info...----Islam wants the West in chaos-Black Lives Matter are not African Americans in the sense of being the descendents of the slaves. They are the descendents of Islam. The founder of BLM? Muslimhttp://www.barenakedislam.com...Dallas cop killer? Islamhttp://m.clarionproject.org...Baton Rouge cop killer? Islamhttps://news.vice.com...---The general construct of this philosophy is:1)Become the citizens of the nations considered non-Muslim 2)Outbreed them. 3)become their influential people, such as tv personalities, politicians, etc.4)Destroy them from the inside. In this case it is:A)Break them financially.B)Put them in a state of fearC)Use political correctness and liberal politics against them. Use freedom to destroy freedom.QUOTE:Walid Shoebat, ex Muslim-"What the West does not understand about Islamism is that Jihad is very systematic. It has stages. If Muslims have the upper hand, then Jihad is waged by force. If Muslims do not have the upper hand, then Jihad is waged through financial and political means. Since Muslims do not have the upper hand in America or Europe, they talk about peace in front of you while supporting Hamas and Hezbollah in the back room. The whole idea of Islam being a peaceful religion emanates from that silent stage of Jihad.""Although the word Jihad standing by itself means "struggle," what Westerners need to focus on when reading the Hadith regarding Mohammed"s Jihad is similar to the focus needed when reading Mein Kampf by Adolph Hitler."https://www.goodreads.com...So...what did Adolph Hitler say on the matter?"Demoralize the enemy from within by surprise, terror, sabotage, assassination. This is the war of the future."Adolf Hitler-"Mein Kampf"http://mobile.brainyquote.com...----So...what is happening in real life?Well...something that looks like this:Video:http://youtu.be...----Obama's America 2016 trailer-http://youtu.be...In this clip Dsouza talks later about how he guessed it right. It wasn't a guess...-http://youtu.be...And now we have Hillary's America. The Democratic leadership are preparing to steal the greatest thing the world has ever produced. Hillary's America-http://youtu.be...And who do you think Hillary's campaign is being paid for by? Saudi Arabia.---http://www.islam-watch.org...https://www.jihadwatch.org...This isn't immigration. It's an invasion. This slow, silent jihad has turned Denmark and Sweden into the rape capitals of the world. We are next.http://www.independent.co.uk...http://www.frontpagemag.com...http://www.breitbart.com...
9/11 was a false flag event

Firstly let it be said that despite the undeniable recent attacks by Islamic extremists it is not plausible to believe that 19 terrorists could have successfully committed the attacks of 911. 2nd, my opponent did very little to show proof that terrorist had anything to do with 911, instead providing character references and stating their obvious objectives. However intent alone is not proof. 1. Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi were said to have trained at a flight school in Florida in a single propeller plane. Their flight instructors described them as having "average" or even "very poor" piloting skills. http://shoestring911.blogspot.com... 2. Veteran pilots of every conceivable background have stated that it would be impossible for two amateur pilots trained in a single engine plane to maneuver a 767 the way that was reported. http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org... 3. The F.B.I. supposedly found a passport of one of the terrorists a couple blocks away from the twin towers. This proposes that a paper passport somehow managed to get outside the plane that was supposedly incinerated in the initial impact and then flew a couple blocks away in almost mint condition. It's important to note that not one body aboard either flight was found. So this passport magically flew out of the terrorists possession and then out of the fireball to land safely on the ground. Its also important to not that the black boxes were "never found" Black boxes are almost as indestructible as the engines of these planes. Built to withstand a crash with a full load of fuel. http://911research.wtc7.net... 4. According to the 9/11 commission report (supported by NIST and FEMA) the Twin Towers fell due to fire. However, hundreds of engineers and architects have come forth stating that it is not possible. History has examples of skyscrapers that were ablaze far longer and were more consumed by fire but did not collapse. The WTC engineers specifically designed the Twin Towers to withstant multiple planes striking them. Its important to note that no skyscraper in history has collapsed due to fire, but we were told 3 did in one day. http://www.ae911truth.org... 5. WTC 7 was not struck by a plane and only had minimal fires and yet it collapsed at free fall speed into its own footprint. This is indicative of a controlled demolition as many demolition experts have spoken out. Since this is a 5 round debate ill save more points for later rounds but I would ask that my opponent stick to 911 specifically.
9/11 was a false flag event

Pro: "There is a devastating lack of evidence to support the claim that radical muslims carried out the attacks of 9/11." (Clue 1) Since 9/11, Islamic extremists have went on a terrorism spree in the West. http://mobile.wnd.com... https://en.m.wikipedia.org... In 2015, 450 of 452 suicide bombers were Islamic. http://www.theblaze.com... Islamic extremists seem to have destruction and devastation of things in the West on their minds. (Clue 2) Osama Ben Laden and Al Queda took credit for the attack. http://www.foxnews.com... (Clue 3) Muslims attacked the twin towers 8 years earlier in 1993. http://www.cnn.com... (Clue 4) The 9/11 hijackers underwent flight training school in the United States, 9/11 happened, and they are now nowhere to be found. Many of these hijackers were caught on camera in verifiable 9/11 planes' related locations and verified by name by hotel records. http://www.wanttoknow.info... Security camera footage- http://youtu.be... (Clue 5) The 9/11 Report shows that Saudi Arabia helped fund 9/11. Even Barack Obama, who plays patty cake with Islam at every turn and protects it, never denied this being true. He DID mention that the victims could not sue Saudi Arabia because a precident would be set that allows other countries to in turn sue us. http://m.washingtontimes.com...-/ http://www.breitbart.com... http://www.independent.co.uk... (Clue 6) Hijacking planes is rather normal Islamic extremist behavior. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... http://www.breitbart.com... http://www.express.co.uk... http://shoebat.com... http://m.disclose.tv... https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com... During one hijacking of an Egyptian plane, Muslims in mass, took to twitter saying they "wished they had been on the hijacked planes". http://www.aljazeera.com... (Clue 7) The Quran, Sunnah, and Hadith are full fledged "hate speech" of commands to kill non-Muslims. http://worldmediamonitoring.com... http://sunnah.com... -"Verily the strongest handhold of faith is that you love for the sake of Allah and that you hate for the sake of Allah." (Ahmad 4/286) www.bakkah.net/en/shaykh-ibn-baaz-on-love-and-hatred-for-the-sake-of-allaah.htm (Quran 3:151) "We will cast into the hearts of the unbelievers terror, for that they have associated with Allah that for which He sent down never authority; their lodging shall be the Fire; evil is the lodging of the evildoers." -- Seeing no other groups practice suicide attacks, it is safe to say that Islam is a heavy suspect even if they hadn't admitted anything. --
Abortion should be legalized

If a woman does not want/isn't ready for/cannot raise a child, then why should she have to go through giving birth to it? An unborn child doesn't have a birthday, a name, and depending on how far into the pregnancy the woman is, not even a gender, let alone a conscience mind or emotions. If we refuse a woman to choose what happens to her body, we are stripping her of a right that all people are entitled to.
Abortion should be legalized

Thanks for your concluding statements, Pro. Now onto mine.Introduction At the beginning of this debate, I said that I was going to be defending two contentions. The first is that abortion is immoral, and should therefore be illegal. The second is that Pro's justifications of abortion are not satisfactory, and should therefore be rejected. With that said, I will now respond to some of the justifications and criticism put forth by Pro in support of abortion. Earlier in my first round of arguments, I said that adoption was a peaceful and nonviolent alternative to abortion, and that putting a child up for adoption doesn't deprive it of its right to life. However, Pro challenged this claim and said: "Adoption seems to be a better choice than to abort the child. However this is not the case. There are estimated to be 153 million orphans worldwide, and there is simply not enough people to take care of them all. This means the child being given up may never find parents, which can have a severe psychological impact on them later in life." -Pro What Pro doesn't seem to realize is that this argument by him could be used to morally justify euthanizing infants that have just been born. To demonstrate this, let me quote him again but this time switch out the word "abortion" with the word "euthanize." "Adoption seems to be a better choice than to euthanize the child. However this is not the case. There are estimated to be 153 million orphans worldwide, and there is simply not enough people to take care of them all. This means the child being given up may never find parents, which can have a severe psychological impact on them later in life." You see what I did there? Pro's argument can be used to morally justify extremely immoral things. So it should therefore be rejected. Later on Pro states that abortion is not murder because a fetus is not a person with memories and feelings. It's true that the fetus has no memories and feelings. However, I don't see why that matters. The reason for that is this. While the fetus has no memories and feelings, it still has a future-like-ours, and therefore to deprive it of this valuable future is immoral. Conclusion In this paper I have argued that because a fetus has a future-like-ours, it's immoral to end its life, because you would be depriving it of all its future pleasurable experiences and other enjoyments that come with being alive. Pro has failed to debunk the FLO argument, and has not provided good reasons for the permissibility of abortion. For that reason, we ought to reject his arguments and accept that because abortion violates a fetus' right to life, it should be illegal.
Abortion should be legalized

Before I start: Hello. I just wanted to compliment the structure of your argument and how well presented it is. I'll try my best, but this is my first ever debate, so I'll probably lose, but that's okay. Anyway, I'll get to it. Abortion is a choice that is frowned upon in our society. So let's look at some of the reasons why someone would want an abortion. Some of them include: - The woman was raped and is carrying the rapist's child. - The woman is in a poor financial state and is unable to raise the child. - The woman is under the age of 18 and is simply too young to have a child. - The woman and her partner simply did not try for a baby and the methods of birth control failed. We have the reasons why someone would want an abortion. Now why does society disapprove of it? Well, here are some reasons why: - It is considered immoral - The mother can give the baby up for adoption - A fetus is a human and terminating it is the same as murder. Adoption seems to be a better choice than to abort the child. However this is not the case. There are estimated to be 153 million orphans worldwide, and there is simply not enough people to take care of them all. This means the child being given up may never find parents, which can have a severe psychological impact on them later in life. Abortions are not violent, brutal things. They are safe, clean and performed by medical professionals. I stated this earlier: "An unborn child doesn't have a birthday, a name, and depending on how far into the pregnancy the woman is, not even a gender, let alone a conscience mind or emotions." When I said this, I meant that the unborn lack what all human beings have. This means abortion is not murder, because technically a fetus is not a living, breathing person with memories and feelings. A fetus cannot speak, move, experience, think, feel or do anything that human beings can do. They cannot even survive without their mother. If we outlaw abortion, we would be forcing women to go through pregnancies they do not want or otherwise are not able to cope with. Could you imagine having to give birth to the child of a man who violated you and put you through a horrible and traumatic experience? What if the mother was only 14? Or if they were living out on the streets? Outlawing abortion may lead women to find other methods of terminating their pregnancy. They could seek illegal and unethical ways to do so which may cause further harm to both the woman and her child. I conclude with the following statement: Abortion is a choice all women should have. It is a choice that we cannot deny. Those who consider going through with one are finding the strength to do so and the negative approach from society does not help with their conscience. We should allow abortion to be legalized.