BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay marriage

This last round is to answer all remaining questions and to finally close this debate. Adam 'knew' EveWell, that may apply as to "yada", the Hebrew form of "know", but can be euphemized. But still that doesn't necessarily mean that all "knew" words in the Bible imply having sex, as what I have told you in the last round.Freedom of religionYou said in your last reply, "...this legalization effort is endangering freedom of religion...", and that's a good thing that you brought up.In my own view, it is conflicting. Why?All religions, whether PRO or CON, want to exercise freedom of religion in their own ways.Arguments that the PROs hold* Homosexuals should deserve the marriage heterosexuals enjoy.* Some words on the Bible doesn't necessarily imply sexual activity.* Equality should be maintained as it was both a civil and God's privilege that was given to usThat's all Evan. Thank you for being my opponent as it was my first ever debate here on Debate.org. If I win or lose, that would still be an experience for me. I hope to have a debate with you again. :-)I wish you all the best.- Ranel Niño
Gay marriage

In direct response to your RemarksI fear that you didn't read my whole argument. In it I shared Leviticus 18:22:aThou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is babomination. I'd honestly be surprised if you could interperet that in other ways than a homosexual relationship. I don't know what you believe, but I believe the God of the Old Testament to be one in the same as Jesus Christ.I could also include Romans 1:27, spoken from an Apostle of Jesus Christ: 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. To know someone in Hebrew, Greek, etc. is often used as a euphamism for sexual desires or intercourse. It depends onthe context of course, but it fits here. In Genesis chapter 4, Adam "knew" his wife eve and bore a son, Cain. Did he "just want to see her" and whoa! A son!?Finally, regarding being "one flesh", of course it has to do with marriage. If it has to do with divorce like you said then it has to do with marriage as well. How would leaving a father and mother to cleave unto a wife not be marriage? Becoming one flesh is what distinguishes the marriage of a man and woman. In additionI agree Bible's are interpreted in various ways, but I'm only going over this because you asked it/brought it up. You are in fact ignoring my real arguments and the questions I've posed to you. I refer you to the previous round, if you read through it all. You should know from my previous arguments that I believe, and I believe many Christian sects also believe this, that I need to do my best to follow God, but I should not compel someone else to righteousness. Sure I believe homosexual relationships are a sin, but I'm not going to force someone to repent or shun them or hate them for their sins; Jesus Christ did just the opposite. My argument is in regards to how Gay marriage is legalized. While you may not believe it's a sin, my religion, and many other religions feel it is. So can you guarantee to me that legalizing gay marriage won't require people of mine and other faiths to perform homosexual marriages? This isn't something like rights of African Americans, it's not just an equality thing. Done the wrong way and you really are trading freedom for equality. Issues like this were never meant to be decided by politics. It's a social, moral thing. Government is administrative in nature, not a culture judge. Awareness should be made that homosexuals are feeling harrassed for sure. No one should feel that way. But this legalization effort is endangering freedom of religion, and that's where I draw the line.
Gay marriage

Hi there. I'll now be comprehensive and more specific.Sodom and GomorrahWell this is the most common type of argument that cons would bring up.My answer: Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction is not about homosexuality, it was a misunderstanding from the other bible versions.I presume this is the argument that the cons hold for this situation:From Genesis 19:4-5 (NIV):4 But before they lay down, the men of the city (Sodom and Gomorrah), surrounded the house [of Lot] round, both old and young5 And they called unto him, and said, "Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we can have sex with them." (KJV and NRSV: may know them, NJB: can have intercourse with them).My question is, are the NIV and NJB reliable enough to have this kind of interpretation?The men are there just to see them.Another one:From Jude 1:7 (KJV):Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.Did the part "going after strange flesh" really imply having homosexual relationship? No.Yes, that part is about sex, but it doesn't really mean having a gay sex. It concerns adultery and prostitution.What would be your views on my views?Argumentum a silentioReally? Some cons also use this argument.Jesus DID NOT say to anybody that he explicitly condemned homosexuality and gay marriage. But some people use this type of conclusion to say that Jesus said that he condemns gay marriage, especially YOU."Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."^ This doesn't concern with homosexual marriage. This concerns homosexual relationships and divorce.But cons, especially you, use argumentum a silentio as a pointless way to show Jesus's disapproval of the gay marriage.My question is: on that statement, did Jesus say to us that he DISLIKE, CONDEMN and PROHIBIT gay marriage? Where? I can't see there! Then you'll use argumentum a silentio to prove your answer, right?To closeCan you provide the closest statement to prove that Jesus strictly condemned homosexuality? Period.P.S.Bibles are interpreted in various ways, but it is pointless to synonymize the word know with sex.See you in Round 5! :-)
Gay marriage

I'm sorry I've been offline these past few days because of personal reasons. Anyway going back to the topic. I am a Latin Catholic (what I'll presume you know as Roman Catholic though), but I agree with the gay marriage with the reasons I stated during the Round 1. First, with my own views, same sex marriages will slightly resolve abortions right? Well don't make a conclusion, I'll explain to you why is that. There have been some gays who marry a girl and make a child. There are also some reports that when the girl knows that the boy is really a gay, she will abort the child. Well I do not generalize, but I state some of them and there have been some reports about them. But I think in your own views that's a little bit unbelievable, so let's shift to another argument. Christ is open, what I mean is he is forgiving, loving and most especially, he treats us EQUAL. Therefore with that argument, I can presume Christ can permit us to marry whoever we want. And note this: JESUS NEVER EVER EXPLICITLY CONDEMNED GAY MARRIAGE, WHETHER IN THE BIBLE OR IN OTHER SCRIPTURES AND WRITINGS. PERIOD.
Gay marriage

Let it be known I understand that homosexual desires exist, are not to be dismissed, and that everyone has a right to make life choices as they wish. The gay marriage debate is a very broad debate though, so we need to find what is exactly the real debate. I would submit that the debate here is not necessarily allowing gay marriages to be performed, but rather the requiring of all those who perform marriages to perform gay marriages upon request. This is where I find issue and it is what I'll begin with. Marriage is an institution that was brought about via religious context and edicts. Since then, rules and administration of marriage have always been interpreted in the religious context. I believe this is why we are having so much trouble with this today. Gay marriages, I find, are of no issue secularly as performed by the state. But if the freedom is to be mandated to all religions who do not believe that marriage is to be extended to homosexual couples, then I find issue. Equality and freedom are at odds (freedom of religion that is). My argument essentially then is that as a more religious function, gay marriages or unions could be allowed, but with a stipulation to not force those who perform marriages to perform homosexual marriages if the performance of such a marriage is contrary to their spiritual beliefs or any other beliefs for that matter.
For Religious people there is no Religious argument against homosexuality.

Other Christians interpret the passage differently. They note that the persons involves in the orgy were former Christians and were heterosexual. Romans 1 condemns them because they went against their nature their heterosexual orientation and engaged in same gender sexual behavior. By the same reasoning, lesbians and gays who went against their fundamental nature their homosexual orientation and engaged in opposite gender sexual behavior would also be sinning. Another interpretation is discussed by Douglas Campbell in his book "The Deliverance of God" Campbell suggests that in Romans 1:18-32, Paul was presenting an argument by other that actually oppose his own beliefs. He this in order to refute the other writers' false teaching. For millennial, Christian theologians have generally interpreted this passage as representing Paul's beliefs. If Campbell's interpretation is correct, then the church has reversed the meaning of the passage and condemned behaviors that Paul would not have condemned. Still another interpretation is asserted by author Jack Levison . He suggests that the start of chapter 2 of Romans is the key message and should be used to interpret Romans 1. Chapter 2 condemns judgmental behavior that causes internal conflict within the Church. Those who judge others are themselves condoned. Now back to the old testament part you most certainly do have to accept all of the Old Testament Law's or you are just cherry picking random quotes because you do not agree with it your self. In Leviticus you can not eat shell fish or mix fabrics commit adultery or curse your parents I should not have to convince you of how the bible is comparing them as equal if it is within the same page and with the quotes I have provided at the end of every paragraph about adultery and cursing your parents as the blood in on their own heads. They might be different acts but have the same consequences are consistent with all of them. Now onto your statement that you turned straight once you hit puberty I would challenge that because if you can turn straight I can turn gay but by this statement you made everyone is bisexual because they can simply switch over and go have sexual relations with opposite or same sex. The reason I asked this question in the first place was because I was asking someone that believes it is a choice to argue for the motion. But anyways thank you.
For Religious people there is no Religious argument against homosexuality.

Alright with respect to the bible I have read it start to finish now the only book that has any mention of homosexuals is Leviticus 20-21 "If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head. If a man commits adultery with another man's wife- with the wife of his neighbor both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. If a man sleeps with his father's wife he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be out to death; their blood will be on their own heads. If a man sleeps with his daughter in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads. If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Ok so the only quote I have been able to ever find in my time of reading the bible is in Leviticus 20-21 and it compares adultery to being gay or cursing your mother and father as the same. Now when it comes to a choice of being gay, straight, or bi for you to say that it is possible for you to switch your sexuality that would then mean you are a bisexual because you have the same feelings for the opposite and same sex. I would also like to ask you this question when did you become straight? Now back to the bible. Leviticus 11: 9-12 "These you may eat, of all that are in the waters. Everything in the waters that has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers you may eat. But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters' is detestable to you. You shall regard them as detestable; you shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall detest their carcasses. Everything in the waters that has not fins and scales is detestable to you." For someone to argue that god or the bible say's something against religion they must also accept everything in the old testament. You kill your neighbor if they work on Sabbath day for one. But who knows maybe you have an argument that the bible say's something I don't know about.
For Religious people there is no Religious argument against homosexuality.

I will keep a brief summary of Pros previous comments and my own for fairness. Pro has conceded the debate but admitting that if I accept all sin as worthy of death then I have negated the resolution. "But you have also stated that by simply accepting Christ you would have your sins washed away to me this sounds like you can do most of what you want repent and accept god and it would not matter you can still go to heaven. "Your sins will be washed away but this by no means you can do anything you want. First off, once you have accepted Christ you will naturally want to follow His teachings, we will fail many times, but we will have that desire always. Secondly, there is difference in wanting to live Biblically and failing too, that was what Christ was for, and a whole different story to just keep living sinfully without a burden and call for repentance. I think Pro for a good debate.
For Religious people there is no Religious argument against homosexuality.

Sense this is the last round I do not want to open up a new argument I am hoping you do not either I will just use this round to respond to the last. I thank you for stating and normalizing homosexuality and comparing it to all other sin's instead of making it the ultimate sin. But you have also stated that by simply accepting Christ you would have your sins washed away to me this sounds like you can do most of what you want repent and accept god and it would not matter you can still go to heaven. I in this entire debate have not mentioned hell and at all within any of my quotes or rounds I have only stated that the punishment would be death. I have definitely not conceded because I said if you would give the same punishment that is stated in Romans that homosexuals, adulterers, thieves, and disobeying your parents deserves death then yes I completely agree that you have a religion that is against homosexuality with extreme consequences for it and many different things it compares it to as well. From my understanding to accept Christ would not save you from dying it is said it can save you from hell but I also never mentioned hell anywhere is this debate. I thank Con for this debate and hope you just respond to this round.
For Religious people there is no Religious argument against homosexuality.

I would first like to apologize to all the readers and my opponent for my last round. I made many typing errors and it can make things difficult to read at times, it may not be the case but I still apologize. As for the debate, my opponent as basically conceded. My opponent showed us a lot of sinful things in the Old and New Testament. He has also stated that, "this is within your own book and if you believe this all to be true then I would say that you sir have an argument that your religion preaches against homosexuality." I may be wrong but to me this equals a concession if I agree with all the things within the Bible, I do. Therefore, my opponent has conceded. Let's address something new here for educational purposes. Homosexuality is a sin and so is, adultery, dis-obedience, and every single thing called sinful within the Bible. My opponent has tried to say I am picking and choosing here, I am not, I condemn everything given these marks within the Bible including the acts I commit which are sinful. The act of homosexuality is not what sends someone to hell. We all commit sin and are worthy of death because of it. The problem lies with not recognizing the sin as a sin and therefore not repenting for it. If we do not repent and feel a burden for the sin that has been clearly described as such, then we are subject to the punishment of hell. One that admits their sin as sin and wrong by God, are forgiven. My opponent wants to play all fields here but knows very little about the Bible as a whole. He has no idea what the purpose of Jesus Christ, it appears. Jesus Christ came and pinned all sinful actions on the cross for all men. When one accepts this sacrifice by Christ then their sins are washed away because of Him. When one does not accept Christ and His sacrifice then they cannot receive that salvation from the sin, they must then go back to the Old Testament way of cleansing, which puts the act of Christ into shame. They reject His sacrifice. We then are to follow the teachings that Christ established in His ministry and not the Old Law. It is not picking and choosing this and that, it is Biblical teaching simple and plain. The act of homosexuality is not what sends one to hell, it is the refusal of Christ and His Word that does, by living willfully, without remorse or confession to Christ for their sinful actions. I await Pros response, Thanks.
star trek

"On several occasions, the fact that the Federation uses no money is mentioned. Either, in the 24th century, humankind, and in fact most of the galaxy, has regressed to a barter system, or, or. . . You begin to see what I'm getting at? You often come across references to 'replicator credits'. 'To Each According To His Needs?' And, since no one ever gets paid, presumably we're also running 'From Each According To His Abilities'. Sounding more and more familiar? The highly evolved residents of the Federation have given up on Religion as yet another superstition. Who was it said 'Religion is the Opium of the Masses'? [2] The episode 'The Neutral Zone' [3] suggests a slightly worrying situation when Deanna is able to trace all of the descendants of a re-animated 20th century cryogenically preserved woman on the Enterprise computer. It seems as though starships are equipped with data files (including addresses and photos?!?) for every citizen on Earth. Worried? You should be... The same episode yields and interesting (though, if memory serves, appallingly delivered) quote from Picard: 'A lot has changed in the last 300 years. People are no longer obsessed with the acquisition of 'things'. We have eliminated hunger, want, the need for possessions. We've grown out of our infancy.' 'THE NEED FOR POSSESSIONS'!?! Where's all this coming from? When Gene Roddenberry designed the Ferengi, they were thoroughly unpleasant individuals. Money grabbing, exploiting, chauvinistic, insular and xenophobic, hung up on the profit motive, their metaphor is fairly clear. They're the ultimate capitalists. And all the time Roddenbery was there, they stayed that way. Well, he died, Rick Berman took over, and Quark happened. But that's another story." http://www.kyradesign.co.uk... I'm to lazy to write up my own argument but that quote is from another site which clearly states that Star Trek is a communist society. Also the bible warns against the antichrist being in control of a one world government so Star Trek is supporting the beast of revelation and thus the anti Christ. Also Star Trek supports multiculturalism, which is bad because Klingons are jerks and I just don't trust them to live in the same society as my children.
star trek

KHANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN khan.
Resolved: A Minimum Wage Should Exist.

This debate is over the minimum wage. Pro may argue from any or multiple lines of reasoning such as fairness, economic growth, living standards, moral standpoint, etc, as may con. There is one definition we need before starting this debate to remove any ambiguity. Minimum Wage- The lowest wage permitted by law [1] Please note that this debate is only over a government enforced minimum wage. This is why I have left out the part of the definition talking about special agreements. Any attempt to argue for a non-government enforced minimum wage is off topic. Also note that the amount of the minimum wage is not in the definition. Pro will argue that some minimum wage should exist (or may argue for a specific amount) and con will argue none should exist. Note that by this setup the BOP is shared. Good luck to pro! Remember the first round is acceptance only and no new arguments may be made in the fourth round. Sources 1- http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Morality is not relative

We do need to take into consideration that people think differently and that due to this is why we can achieve social progress. A society can function without the need of these moral codes since it is the main reason why we do not do the things we did before. Our actions from the pass make us who we are. I think that ethics is relative because since people think different they can learn from their actions to improve their society. We see the world one way. This does not necessarily mean that others should think the way we do. This is unfair for others. For example, a person that has grown in a society where murder is allowed should not be considered morally wrong. This is the only thing the person has experienced and knows. Therefore, we cannot judge the individual based on what we think is morally right or wrong. By rejecting this person we are taking the person out of the world just because we want. Therefore, we should not judge other cultures based on their actions since we do not know their motives for this action. And again I raise my point that ethics is relative since people need to think different according to what they think and what they had experience. It is our evironment that determine who we are as a person. Therefore, we as a society should accept what other people think because is the only way they can be part of society. To say something is morally right or wrong does not makethe action morally right or wrong. Back to my argument about who is to say what is morally right or wrong? no one can say what is morally right or wrong since that person that might say what is morally right or wrong can be wrong. I might think that person is wrong. Then, everyone's opinion should be accepted by others since it is the onoly way in which people can live in peace and harmony. This moral codes are not helpful to the progress of society since people are going to think differently even if they have moral standards that need to be follor. For example, murder. Murder is illegeal. Yet, some people still do it. What im trying to say is that we need to look at the reasons behind people's actions.