BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
King's Jesus command that man execute sodomites should be obeyed!

Without petty finger-pointing (and I'm done posting arguments after this), you're confused about the whole 'Jesus was man but God at the same time'. I believe He was God, hence I take His Word in the New Testament (the new understanding of God) as the Word of God. The previous understanding of His Word in the Old Testament was wrong, and his mission was to tell people (who largely rejected Him) about the new understanding. Quoting from the Old Testament, therefore, makes you come across about 2000 years behind the rest of the Christian world. 'You're ignoring Matt 5:17-19...' Again you are mistaken because I didn't ignore it, I answered it subtly. No surprise that you missed my meaning again, all too common from PRO . In Matt 5:17-19, He tells us not to abolish the law and the prophets, but says something radical: he has come to FULFIL them. Until His mission has been fully fulfilled and 'all is accomplished', everyone should keep the commandments. He adds later (and how much more explicit can God be): "On these 2 commandments depend all the law and the prophets"... Matt 22:36-40. His mission is partly (half-way) fulfilled in the resurrection, the rest comes at the end of time, when all humans called to follow Him will be judged according to His Will. So we're almost there (half-way) and people can relax their 'to the letter' Old Testament understandings in favour of the new Covenant between mankind and God. I'm not sure what persuasion of Christian you are, but Christians mainly find their answers to questions of justice in the New Testament. (Read Matt 22:23-40 for Jesus' rebuttal to Sadducees who question Him about Old Law and understandings)
King's Jesus command that man execute sodomites should be obeyed!

You confuse Jesus' humanity with His divinity. Jesus has always existed as God, including when He commanded man to execute sodomites. This is why James 4 calls Jesus the Lawgiver. Your ignoring Matt 5:17-19 because it contradicts your thinking is telling. Jesus said follow the OT Law to the letter. I believe Him, yo do not. Do you have any Scripture to share or I am stuck with your vain theology?
King's Jesus command that man execute sodomites should be obeyed!

'No, Jesus is the eternally-existent God. See John 1:1.' There is no pre-God, but of course there was a time pre-Jesus; from which we get B.C. (Before Christ). Your argument that His life on earth was not constrained by time is silly. No one can deny that he was born and died, these are historical facts. Jesus is God's Son, one part of Himself come down to save mankind from eternal damnation. That's his MISSION, and he fulfils scripture in that sense as well as to refute old ways of thinking about the scriptures. Again, you miss the point with your next point. Jesus breaks down the rigidity of the laws of the Old Testament and set up a new covenant between God and mankind. These are rules by which men are trying to live their lives and missing the point like you are. By saying, "On these 2 commandments depend all the law and the prophets" he puts the rest to bed in relative terms.
King's Jesus command that man execute sodomites should be obeyed!

No, Jesus is the eternally-existent God. See John 1:1. There is no pre-Jesus. And you err again when you say Jesus commands His followers to turn from a literal understanding. In Matt 5:17-19 He commands just the opposite. Ironically, when Jesus commands us to love God and love neighbor, He is LITERALLY quoting the OT (See Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18, respectively). You indeed do not know the Scriptures.
King's Jesus command that man execute sodomites should be obeyed!

No you're quoting the Old Testament, pre-Jesus Christ. While Jesus endorses much of the Old Testament, he commands his followers to turn away from a literal understanding of the Old Testament part of the Bible. His spoken word is evident in the New Testament part of the Bible, you see. That's where he says, 'Love God with all your heart, soul and mind' and 'Love your neighbour as yourself. On these 2 commandments depend all the law and the prophets"... So like Jesus said to the Sadducees, 'You know neither the scriptures nor the power of God."
King's Jesus command that man execute sodomites should be obeyed!

I accepted this debate to end it as quickly as you understand that Jesus never 'commands this'. You're quoting Old Testament scriptures, but not Jesus. Jesus preaches something else, wait until you get to the New Testament! Then I'll debate you on the subject of 'just killing' according to Christian teaching, which holds that it's wrong unless you're about to be killed yourself by the person in question!
Smoking should not be banned.

You are correct smoking is not good for your health and I have nothing to prove that it is. However smoking is a choice, it should stay this way, I commonly complain about the government structure of England and America, one of my reasons is: who are you and I to vote away someone else's right to make decisions about how they treat their own body? I, myself am not a smoker, but I accept the fact that other people make the decision to smoke and I see the benefits of it. We, as a society are constantly looking to improve everyone else's lives, let them decide what they want to do, warn them of the dangers if you must but stop taking away our rights. It is a common fact that obesity is a problem commonly effecting Western society and causing lots of death through heart disease, diabetes and all sorts of other health problems. www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB4549.html As you can see in the above page, obesity is a bigger problem than smoking, drinking or poverty. Should we ban fatty foods, fast food restaurants? After all, you people seem to want to make everyone else more healthy, perhaps we should ban red meat altogether, ban alcohol as well, ban driving because it poses a potential risk of injury? There are risks everywhere, banning people from doing these activities is not the way to solve the problem. I would also like to state that a smoking ban is not practical. If you tried to ban smoking you would be encouraging more crime and slave labour as the tobacco producers abroad turn to criminals to sell their product. People will smoke regardless of the law, lives will be ruined because people will get a criminal record for smoking a leaf and they will consequently find it near impossible to get a job. I have only scratched the surface, I have many more arguments I am saving for later rounds but so far I have explained why banning smoking is impractical, unfair and unjustified.
I should be a Sikh

SIKH AFTERLIFE:You are leading me to believe that the Sikhs believe that a person will not achieve Olam Haba unless he has lived a moderate life. If he is evil, he will be reincarnated, to try again. In that case, they do not believe in any divine punishment. A person is evil, he dies, he comes back, he lives a righteous life, and he merits a portion? He needs to be punished, hence the concept of Gehinnom.SIKHISM PER SE:The fact that Sikhs do not publicly recognize the Seven Laws and the G-d of Israel makes the whole thing separate from the rest of the Noahides. I am unfamiliar with the religion but even if it is monotheistic, you can say the same of Islam. Thus, a Muslim will convert to Judaism and continue to believe in Muhammad. It simply does not work.TEFILLIN:The tradition of tefillin, like all other traditions, all originate from Moses on Sinai. Many of the Biblical commandments are vague. For example, we read in the Torah that a Jew must circumcise his son when he turns 8 days old. What if that Jew is not a surgeon? What if there is no father, but only a mother, does she have to do the job? What if the baby is ill and cannot undergo the operation? What if the circumcision is on Shabbat or a holiday? Many many laws. Such laws are not written in the Written Torah, but we know them only through the Oral Torah, which was NOT written down, but it was passed down from generation to generation by memory; teacher to student, father to son. Eventually, people were becoming less and less scholarly. Thus, the rabbis feared it would be forgotten. Ergo, they wrote it all down over a period of about 200-300 of years, if I remember correctly. The rabbis who wrote it down are known as the Tanna'im (singular: tanna) Rabbi Judah the Prince, the last tanna, gathered together all of this tradition that they wrote down and compiled, organized and wrote down in an orderly and precise fashion. The work of Rabbi Judah is known as the Mishnah. After Rabbi Judah, rabbis known as the Amora'im (singular: amora) wrote a commentary on the Mishnah. Their commentary is known as the Gemara. In the Gemara, you'll also find additional tradition from Moses on Sinai which was not included within the canonical texts of the Mishnah. These traditions are known as Baraitot (singular: Baraita). The amoraim did a stupendous job explaining confusing concepts in the Mishnah. The Mishnah and Gemara together can be referred to as the Talmud, or the Oral Law.Shalom.
I should be a Sikh

"IDOLATRY: Idol worshipers generally have no share in the world to come, but there are exceptions; those being a tinok shenishba, as I explained above, in the case of the brainwashed Hindus." The way you phrased it and used the term "Idol worshiper," made it sound like you were refering to people of other religions. SOURCES: - As for a gentile who abides to the Seven Laws, see Maimonides' Mishneh Torah; Hilchot Teshuvah 3:5 "The righteous of the non-Jews also have a portion in the World to Come" There is an ancient tradition that three kings and four commoners have no share in the World to Come, which is recorded in the Tract of Sanhedrin's Chapter of Chelek. The commoners are: Balaam, Doeg, Ahitophel, and Gehazi. The kings are: Jeroboam, Ahab and Manasseh. Notice the first one, Balaam. Balaam is said to have no share in the world to come. Balaam was a gentile. Thus, we can conclude that gentiles do have a share in the world to come, as evidenced by Balaam being the exception." I know that, we have no problem here. "- As for people being judged differently based upon the environment in which they are raised, this is simple common knowledge. I don't think a source is required, but if you will be stubborn, see Tinok Shenishba." I never contested this. "- As for the reincarnation, that's actually a deep thing. It's all recorded in Rabbi Isaac Luria's Shaar Hagilgulim (lit. gateway to reincarnations)" I don't know how this came up, but now that you mention it, this is another thing that the Sikhs have in common with the Jews, if you live your life right, you go to heaven, if you don't, you get reincarnated until you get it right. "- As for the Jewish afterlife being greater than that of the gentiles, see the famous Mishnah in Avot 4:17, "And one hour of pleasure in the world to come is better than all the time in this world." OK, thank you! "SIKHISM: They worship a different god then. Hashem never said that we should be vegetarians and wear turbans. Completely different god. For the gentiles, perhaps it's okay, but certainly not for a Jew." The Guru Granth never "orders" it, it just recommends it, just like the Nazarene vow is never "ordered" it is just recommended. And this is actually very similar, no meat, don't cut your hair, plus, the Torah does not say you should wear a turban, it says you should cover your hair, just like the Guru Granth says to cover your hair, it's just that by tradition, Sikhs chose to do this via Turban, whereas Jews chose to do this via- I can never remember the word for it, those "Jew-cap" thingy's. "TEFILLIN: Why's it hard? Just by a pair online." I know, I was just wondering what it is, and where the tradition came from.
I should be a Sikh

IDOLATRY:Idol worshipers generally have no share in the world to come, but there are exceptions; those being a tinok shenishba, as I explained above, in the case of the brainwashed Hindus. SOURCES:- As for a gentile who abides to the Seven Laws, see Maimonides' Mishneh Torah; Hilchot Teshuvah 3:5 "The righteous of the non-Jews also have a portion in the World to Come" There is an ancient tradition that three kings and four commoners have no share in the World to Come, which is recorded in the Tract of Sanhedrin's Chapter of Chelek. The commoners are: Balaam, Doeg, Ahitophel, and Gehazi. The kings are: Jeroboam, Ahab and Manasseh. Notice the first one, Balaam. Balaam is said to have no share in the world to come. Balaam was a gentile. Thus, we can conclude that gentiles do have a share in the world to come, as evidenced by Balaam being the exception.- As for people being judged differently based upon the environment in which they are raised, this is simple common knowledge. I don't think a source is required, but if you will be stubborn, see Tinok Shenishba.- As for the reincarnation, that's actually a deep thing. It's all recorded in Rabbi Isaac Luria's Shaar Hagilgulim (lit. gateway to reincarnations)- As for the Jewish afterlife being greater than that of the gentiles, see the famous Mishnah in Avot 4:17, "And one hour of pleasure in the world to come is better than all the time in this world."SIKHISM:They worship a different god then. Hashem never said that we should be vegetarians and wear turbans. Completely different god. For the gentiles, perhaps it's okay, but certainly not for a Jew. TEFILLIN: Why's it hard? Just by a pair online.
I should be a Sikh

I have to address this, Talmid thinks that all non-Jews are going to hell, so I have a question for him; Is that in Judaism? Talmid acts as if it is in this debate: http://www.debate.org... As we know, I admitted that I was wrong about Christianity in this debate for the following reason: I like not to think of myself as a hypocrite, if this is so, and with Muslims I would advise them to ditch Islam because of this moral fallacy, then I cannot remain a Christian and not be a hypocrite for it because it is present in Christianity. If this moral fallacy is in Judaism, tell me now, because then I will forget about it and never consider it again, I will convert to Sikhism, I will buy a turban and a Guru Granth and become a vegetarian. I cannot have a double standard, this moral fallacy is evil enough for me to look at no further evidence than its presence in the New Testament, and for that to be enough to drop Christianity all together. I must apply that to Judaism too, or I would be a hypocrite. But if it is NOT in Judaism, tell me now so I don"t make the mistake of leaving a good religion. Say it publicly that it was not in the Torah and you made it up.
The death penalty is archaic and should be abolished.

Ha ha ha, I can already tell that I should have made this debate longer than 3 rounds. My statistics about the death penalty came from The Death Penalty Information Center (www.deathpenaltyinfo.org). Please do not accuse me of making up statistics as I find it to be horribly insulting to both my intelligence and my integrity. It is true that the murder rate in states without the death penalty is lower than in states with the death penalty. I also agree with you that many ancient practices are good. But of course when I think of good ancient practices I think of all the wonderful innovations that the Ancient Greeks and The Romans gave us. Some ancient practices should be disregarded such as burning heretics at the stake or crucifying people. I said "However, it is far better to keep a murderer locked up like an animal than to murder and become animals ourselves." You said "Have you ever experienced either of these things? I doubt it; so how do you have the authority to say what is better? " I am of Jewish Heritage and many members of my family died in the Holocaust at the hands of the Nazi menace. My great aunt is a survivor and towards the end of the war in Europe her concentration camp was liberated by allied forces. A group of allied soldiers led her and some other Jews into a field along with some captured german soldiers. A soldier gave my great Aunt a hand gun and gave her the chance to shoot one of the Nazi prison guards but she could not do it. As much as she hated the Nazis she could not bring her self down to their level. I, like her, think that death should not create more death. To punish death with death is to become a murderer yourself. Like I said before, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind! I am not saying that we should let murders run free but I am trying to say that it is hypocritical to punish murderers by murdering them. You don't see anything barbaric about that? P.S. Being that I mentioned something as touchy as the Holocaust (and family of mine who were victims/survivors of the Holocaust) please be tactful with your rebuttal. Thank you.
The death penalty is archaic and should be abolished.

Firstly, just because capital punishment is an ancient practice, does not mean it is ineffective. How would our society have reached the point it is at today, had we not borrowed ideas and inventions from ancient societies? Having said that, I believe that the death penalty works and we should not abolish it, but we should enforce it. We punish people in society for crimes like theft and assault, by taking away time from their life. Is it not the same to take away all of the time from their life at once? "The murder rate fell 60 percent since Texas started using the death penalty seriously in the 1990s." -ncpa.org How can you say taking someone's life humanely is barbaric, but keeping them locked away from society is not? You said: "States with no death penalty actually have lower murder rates than states with the death penalty." Have you any evidence or statistics to back that up? That sounds to me like you just threw out your own "statistic" to prove your point. I have actually tried to find statistics to support your statement, but I have come up empty handed. You said: "However, it is far better to keep a murderer locked up like an animal than to murder and become animals ourselves." Have you ever experienced either of these things? I doubt it; so how do you have the authority to say what is better? I would love to suggest a wonderful short story I read in my English class a while ago, it is about capital punishment and you will be surprised by the outcome. It is called, "The Bet" by Anton Chekhov.
The death penalty is archaic and should be abolished.

The death penalty is archaic and immoral. We are no longer living in the dark ages and as such our society should be at a point where we don't punish death with more death. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Not only is the death penalty crude and barbaric but statistically speaking it does not even deter crime. States with no death penalty actually have lower murder rates than states with the death penalty. Some people are bad, there is no getting around that. However, it is far better to keep a murderer locked up like an animal than to murder and become animals ourselves.
Money Is Corruption

Hello, and thanks for posting this debate! I will get right to your arguments. "Money is corruption." Money cannot be corruption, because it is an inanimate object. It is incapable od posessing any trait of that sort. It cannot "be" anything but a piece of paper or a coin. "Everyone Know that with money comes power" I know several people that are rich and are not powerful. My dad's boss is by NO means short of money and is not only one of the nicest guys I know, but he is no significant position of power. He is simply one of the lesser bosses at St. Croix Electric. Not anything special. "with power comes corruption" Many rulers with power are corrupt, but not all. Some rulers said to be corrupt were sinply doing what they thought was best for their country, but it did not turn out so good. Just because a ruler's laws have a bad effect does not make the ruler himself corrupt. I go to an Orthodox Presbyteran church, and I will tell you without hesitation and with full confidence that the rulers of my church are not corrupt. The rulers of my church have as much power as the church can have, and they are by no meas corrput. Corruption does not necessarily follow power. Thanks! Renzzy
This Scottish poet says this poet is Australia's leading erotic poet

"just because you dont like his poetry it does not mean he still cant be Australia's leading erotic poet"Its not just me though, NOBODY LIKES THIS GUY'S WORK. "all you have given is people who dont like Deans poetry but that does not mean he still cant be Australia's leading erotic poet"Yes it does, he cant be Australia's leading erotic poet if nobody knows him or even likes his work!"if I could give people who hate Shakespeare can I then say Shakespeare is not a great poet -you would say I cant say that or draw that conclusion"You cant though because Shakespeare, unlike Colin Dean, has MASSIVE support and world praise for his poetry. Yes many people dont like Shakespeare but just as many people do like and value his work which means that Shakespeare is a great poet even though many people dont like or care for his workColin Dean on the other hand has NO support or praise from ANYONE, yet anyone who has had the misfortune to encounter and read over his sh*tty work unanimously agree that hes simply terrible.
This Scottish poet says this poet is Australia's leading erotic poet

con says "t kinda does..... Colin Dean is so terrible, that literally nobody has ever heard of him, and those who have and have seen his work thinks he is the worst poet ever. That means he surely cant be Australia's leading erotic poet" wrong the logic is flawed just because you dont like his poetry it does not mean he still cant be Australia's leading erotic poet con says ""1-jim hogg is real just google him 2-his poem is real it is in front of you" Ive seen the poem, and its f*cking terrible. Its not as bad as Colin Dean's work but its pretty close. " just because you dont like the poem does not mean he still cant Australia's leading erotic poet I have given evidence to back up my claim all you have given is people who dont like Deans poetry but that does not mean he still cant be Australia's leading erotic poet to refute my claims you need to give proof not just quote those who dont like his poetry if I could give people who hate Shakespeare can I then say Shakespeare is not a great poet -you would say I cant say that or draw that conclusion likewise giving people who dont like Deans poetry you cant draw the conclusion Dean is not Australia's leading erotic poet
This Scottish poet says this poet is Australia's leading erotic poet

'being a horrible terrible poet does not mean he still cant be Australia's leading erotic poet'It kinda does. .. .. Colin Dean is so terrible, that literally nobody has ever heard of him, and those who have and have seen his work thinks he is the worst poet ever. That means he surely cant be Australia's leading erotic poet"1-jim hogg is real just google him 2-his poem is real it is in front of you"Ive seen the poem, and its f*cking terrible. Its not as bad as Colin Dean's work but its pretty close. Also as ive said before, Jim Hogg doesnt determine who is the best poet or not, society as a whole does, and so far, all of society thinks that Colin Dean is a f*cking terrible poet. Colin Dean is terrible, end of story.
This Scottish poet says this poet is Australia's leading erotic poet

con says "Point is Colin Dean is a horrible terrible poet who if he were to die tomorrow, nobody would notice at all since nobody knows him sicne his poetry is so f*cking awful" that is just poor logic being a horrible terrible poet does not mean he still cant be Australia's leading erotic poet I have given proof that he is regarded as Australia's leading erotic poet 1-jim hogg is real just google him 2)his poem is real it is in front of you all you have given is evidence that your sources dont like him but again just because they dont like him is no proof that he is still not Australia's leading erotic poet