BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Divorce is not a sin

Matt. 19:3-10 "3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason? Havent you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator "made them male and female," 5 and said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?" 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined [syzeugnymi] together, let no one separate [ch!3;riz!3;]. 7 Why then", they asked, did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away? 8 Jesus replied, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces [apoly!3;] his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." 10 The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." "apoly!3;" in Greek word which means to set free or separation. In other words, Jesus is saying that if you just lack the responsibility to officially end the marriage by the Law of Moses, your committing adultery. Jesus makes a distinction between that word and "Chorizo" meaning to depart. Based on the original intent of marriage between a man and woman, a man and woman ought not to depart from the long-life commitment, but according to the law of Moses, divorce is permissible under very grave circumstances and as a last resort. I think you would agree that if your spouse prevents you from totally serving the Lord, you would have to divorce right? (although that is very unlikely to happen)
Divorce is not a sin

In Mark 10:1-9 it says, "Then He arose from there and came to the region of Judea by the other side of the Jordan. And multitudes gathered to Him again, and as He was accustomed, He taught them again. 2 The Pharisees came and asked Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" testing Him. 3 And He answered and said to them, "What did Moses command you?" 4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her." 5 And Jesus answered and said to them, "Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God "made them male and female." 7 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh"; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." 10 In the house His disciples also asked Him again about the same matter. 11 So He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. 12 And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." In Matthew 19:1-10 it says the same thing. Whatever situations the Bible possibly gives for divorce, that does not mean God wants a divorce to occur. Instead of asking "is ______ a grounds for divorce," the question should be "is _______ grounds for forgiveness, restoration, and/or counseling?" Marriage is sacred to God. He never wanted divorce in the first place, except because of the hardness of our hearts, divorce happens.
Divorce is not a sin

Deut. 24:1-4 clearly makes divorce permissible. Most people quote Malachi 2:13-16 to say that divorce is wrong, but the context says otherwise: Malachi 2:13-16 "13 And this is the second thing you do: You cover the altar of the Lord with tears, With weeping and crying; So He does not regard the offering anymore, Nor receive it with goodwill from your hands. 14 Yet you say, For what reason? Because the Lord has been witness Between you and the wife of your youth, With whom you have dealt treacherously; Yet she is your companion And your wife by covenant. 15 But did He not make them one, Having a remnant of the Spirit And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth 16 For the Lord God of Israel says That He hates divorce For it covers ones garment with violence Says the Lord of hosts. Therefore take heed to your spirit, That you do not deal treacherously Sane in Hebrew is used in terms of not preferring a thing (God said "Jacob i loved, but Esau i hated", he was saying he'd prefer Jacob over Esau for the inheritance"). With that in mind, God prefers that people do not divorce. The Hebrew word here for divorce is shalach which means "to send away" and is quite different from kriythuwth in Duet. 24 which is the official cutting of the marriage bond. The reason God was against this because there wasn't an official cutting of the marriage bond according to his Law, but simply a sending away of the spouse. 1 Cor. 7:10-11 "10 Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. 11 But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife." Paul clearly allows divorce and remarriage as permissible actions.
Should there be a law that restricts citizens from imposing their religious beliefs in public situat

Probably in the job application it said that things may happen that you don't enjoy. We aren't telling you to enjoy but just tolerate it . Nowadays people are really stereotypical so they just judge because of anything they definitely now about you. FOR EXAMPLE: Majority of people think all Muslims are terrorists and are being treated terribly because of it. I'm not sure why but maybe its because the just feel uncomfortable with someone the don't know and the get skeptical about them
Lyrical Challenge III

Thank you L! Hopefully my Aussie lingo makes sense. (For instance, off your 3KZ is off your head. It this weird slang-rhyming thing, anyway, I could easily have just rhymed head, but I think it sounds better, moving on.) I chose candy and wrote a sort of internal monologue of some thoughts about candy. It's a weird, sporadic type of rhyme style but, that's kind of how thoughts are. Enjoy, At the supermarket, gotta pick up some milk and bread. Been smoking cones for days, stoned off my THREE-KAY -ZED. Wondering around dazed, these places are like a maze. Phase in and out of a haze, till I'm walking down the candy aisle again. Greeting me like a friend, ten types of bars, Mars and gummy bears. Theres no chance I'm leaving without an armful. Harmful repurcussions completely miss my brain. Insane amount of calaries, skittles are shouting "buy me please". Freeze frame, me drooling, supermarket cooling at the perfect degree. Open up my skinny wallet and a fvcking faded feather flies free. You a broke b!tch baby, bread and milk is the only purchase. Fast-lane merchant, smiles and asks me how was my day. "Good thanks," I answer, but it's sh!t without some candy. Next day sober, hung over like a jacket on a chair, Fair's fair, though, what goes up must come down from there. Frown and stare, car needs petrol, feel like I'm death row. Lining up to pay, say, no way, what confronts me today. Twix bars and M&Ms; a wall of items I fancy. Still broke, I empty my change out. No joke. 5 cents short on the thing I would have bought. Think quick, dip stick, maybe just buy up some gum. No-one else left in the line, time to make up my mind. "Just the fuel thanks", stuffing coins back into my pocket. Don't mock it. Tightened up my socket, rocket out the shop. Don't stop, crumple up your fuel docket. Lock it in a win. Free temporary from the consumers impulse sin.
Lyrical Challenge III

I will present a rap pertaining to the theme my opponent assigned, and include in the next round a topic for him to rap about as well. This will continue until each of us has done 3 raps a piece. In the final round, I will present a short analysis and/or comparison of our raps, essentially explaining why I think I have won the challenge (as something for the audience to consider when voting). In his final round, my opponent will do the same. Thanks also in advance to the readers and judges -- Hope you enjoy it :)
Lyrical Challenge III

I'm going to be honest L, I'm completely uninspired rap wise of late and tonight is no exception. I'm challenging you right now to another one in the future, when I'm feeling inspired. You seem to be enjoying the challenge of this, so I'll give you a final topic. I want to hear a rap about a man named Michael, who has works in a Post Office. He is married to Heather, but is having an affair with Carol. He is tall, left-handed and color blind. He likes Lego, Mad magazine and facebook. He dreams of becoming a chef. He has a cat named Trever. Go.
Lyrical Challenge III

Damn, TV... that sucks! But just to be a giant tool I'm going to submit my next verse within the next 30 minutes because I want to challenge myself again by writing something super fast :P *** -- JAPAN -- Yo listen up I'm about to tell with a mellow flow The story of a well known zoned archipelago A terrific bunch of islands grouped in the Pacific They're strictly business: nothing short of prolific Don't mean to get so specific but damn they're impressive Forget their horrific past which seems so aggressive Cuz now they're all about output and productivity Visited dismal cities there to see what it is to me: More than a bunch of ninjas and some sushi rolls Though I've been convinced to just binge on those They've got a phenomenal exemplary culture And a nominal emperor to help run their country Their people are good but genuinely different The popular opinion's adopting a system of minions I guess they enjoy a nice little hierarchical structure A rich a$s boss at the top employs some boys under And they're equipped with a healthy competitive spirit Whipped in shape to get wealthy, no repetitive beer guts Like we've got here in the western hemisphere But they've got their own menace - a helpless fear A paranoia of failure, sometimes they commit suicide Admit they're unfit to be alive and split without a goodbye Just a suicide note apologizing to their family Agonizing, "Sorry I'm not the man I could be" Just cuz maybe they didn't make a zillion dollars But hey let's not hate and concentrate on the horrors So yeah, their eyes are squinty but don't call em Chinky Yellow but white on the inside like a Twinkie Guys advise for a wild night the girls they're kinky Small in size but could bend those thighs like a slinky You with me? And their dudes are small but nothing to f*ck with The Asian mob might gut you, turn ya into a puppet Still if on you're next vacation you're planning to fly Then consider staying and playing in the land of samurais *** Bam! That didn't take as long as I'd thought :P So anyway your topics for the next round are credit cards, Halloween or Scientology.
Male domination is necessary for a society to have net gender equality.

Hi! First of all I would like to point out what exactly we mean by gender equality. "Gender equality, also known as sex equality, sexual equality or equality of the genders, refers to the view that men and women should receive equal treatment, and should not be discriminated against based on gender, unless there is a sound biological reason for different treatment." It means that everyone regardless of his/her gender, when in the same situation, should get equal opportunities. Your notion of women influencing the society by being the limiting factor in reproduction is fundamentally flawed. It is true that investment by a mother is much greater than that done by the father during reproduction. however, it doesn't provide women any real influence in the society. According to your line of thought the only thing women can influence is the population, which we already have enough! Gender equality is not limited to reproduction. It has a much broader sense and significance. Back in ancient and medieval ages, strength had more value than wisdom did. Men being naturally superior to women in terms of physical strength dominated the society and curbed the voices and rights of women. men grabbed all the freedom and leisure's of life while women were restricted to the household chores bound by the command of their master. however, dawn of the nineteenth century resulted in the empowerment of women. they were given the right to work, the right to vote, the right to property and in the true sense of the word, right to freedom. Today, women have accomplished great things in all walks of life. They have demonstrated the immense potential they carry. Therefore, for the betterment of the society, that potential should not be curbed by an authoritarian male dominated society.
Male domination is necessary for a society to have net gender equality.

I am a woman and I oppose gender equality on the grounds male domination is required for a society to have net gender equality. The equal influence of men and women on society is desired. Men and women have an intrinsic forms of influence on society due to biological factors. Social constructs, such as relative degree of social equality, represent extrinsic forms of influence on society. Net equality of influence on society between men and women requires the sum of their influence resulting from intrinsic forms and extrinsic forms to be equal. All else being equal, women tend to expend greater physiological resources than men in developing offspring "in utero" due to the carrying and nurturing of offspring during pregnancy. All else being equal, someone with greater incentive to act in a certain fashion will tend to do so to a greater extent than someone with a lesser incentive. A more limiting factor of a society influences that society more than a less limiting factor. Reproduction and the results thereof, both in terms of experiences and offspring alike, influence society. Before allocating extrinsic forms of influence on society by means of developing social constructs, an accounting of intrinsic forms of influence must be assessed, with extrinsic forms allocated in such a way as to result in equal degrees of total influence. All else being equal, women tend to have greater incentive to act as a limiting factor with respect to reproduction. All else being equal, women tend to act as a more limiting factor with respect to reproduction than men. All else being equal, men tend to act as a less limiting factor with respect to reproduction than women. All else being equal, women tend to influence society more than men. The greater tendency of women to influence society via reproductions and the results thereof, as compared to the lesser tendency of men to do the same, must be considered before allocating extrinsic forms of influence on society, such as relative degrees of equality. A certain degree of social inequality, outside of reproduction and the results thereof, between men and women must be maintained in order to achieve the desired equal net influence on society. The greater influence reproduction and the results thereof have on society, the greater the degree of social inequality is required to maintain equal net influence on society. Therefore some male dominance is required for a truly gender equal society.
Male domination is necessary for a society to have net gender equality.

Setting aside your "digressions" I would address the rest of your statements. Sexual intercourse and reproduction are two different things. While a disparity exists in the level of selectivity in the former case, it is considerably reduced in the latter. If someone doesn"t gain a greater societal status or any kind of benefit from an action, it does not provide him/her an advantage. Aristotle and Alexander did not lead to a patriarchal world system. It was already predominately followed during that time. I brought up Indus valley civilization to prove that patriarchal system existed since the beginning of civilization. Since there were conflicting views on its validity on the internet. I gave the example of Mesopotamian civilization since it was also one of the first civilizations on earth and were confirmed to be a patriarchal society. I hope your other concerns will be alleviated by the points made in my conclusion. Conclusions My adversary argues that, women have a lesser tendency towards reproduction and since they are the deciding factor in process, they in effect decide the fate of an unborn child by deciding if they want to reproduce with a particular man at a particular time. In an example she demonstrates the influence a woman can have over a society by enunciating the importance of the mothers of prominent figures such as Marie Curie and Adolf Hitler as how they wouldn"t have existed if their mothers had not chosen to have a child at that point of time. Because of this power, men should have an added advantage over women so as to achieve an equality of power. I disagree with her based on the following points: "Men too have the power to abstain from reproduction. They just don"t use it as often as women tend to do. It"s the choice of using that power that results in changes in the society. However, everyone have several choices to make in their lifetimes which effect the society in its own way. "Men are cautious about reproduction too. Having a kid is a great responsibility and requires commitment. I concede that women have to endure the physical aspects of it. However, the disparity is not very great. In fact there are several cases where a woman wants to have kids while a man doesn"t. In a survey it was found that out of the total subjects, 59% of men and 63% of women wanted kids. Source: . http://psychcentral.com... "Women do not gain any considerable advantage by it over men. Had this been the case then women would have dominated men in the past which is clearly not the case. So, the idea of giving men more power on account of this is absurd.
Male domination is necessary for a society to have net gender equality.

Well you can be surprised or not but the rules of the debate stay the same. I did not accuse you of misquoting me or changing my claims, just that you have quoted me out of context. I agree to the fact that men are more open towards sexual activities than women. However sex and reproduction are two very different things. If you think that men are any less apprehensive about having kids than women then you are simply mistaken. Your notion of influence on the society does not empower women or lead to a higher societal status and benefits in any way. Women have been giving births to great men and women even when they were treated as slaves. Still they are not said to have influence over the society. If you want to know he position of women in medieval times you may refer to http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... Even with the word primarily, your claim is false. Patriarchy was predominant in Aristotle's time. He was not the cause of it, he just offered a causality for the same. you can verify my claim about the Indus valley civilization from the following link: http://www.halfmantr.com... . If you are not convinced by Indus valley civilization you can also read about Mesopotamian civilization who were also one of the first civilizations. http://history-world.org... I think that it is common sense that men are equally cautious and selective when it comes to reproduction. In earlier times when men didn't really take responsibility for their wards, I would agree with you. But in today's societal structure this is not the case. Your assertion towards the imbalance in power regarding the same puts the burden of proof on you. Furthermore, if women are more resistant towards sex, its their nature. Its their personality. Imparting more power to men on the basis of personality of women sounds quite hollow.
The Walking Dead is the best show produced by AMC, if not the best on television.

Thank you for your response. 1. The constant locations result in repetitive boring and stale locations. Also like I said, if the show is going to continue reusing the same locations, then in order for this to be successful it has to make us love the locations, which I don't feel it does at all. You have not addressed this aspect yet. 2. Again like I said, I am talking about when the show introduces characters just to kill them off shortly after. That way, there is no way of us identifying with the strength or weakness of that character as there is little development of those characters for us to formulate an opinion. It is therefore just killing for the sake of killing/action. 3. I know the show isn't intended as humorous but having next to no humour in the show again makes it bland and often unappealing. Best Show on AMC I was a little confuse by your addressing of this aspect. Are you conceding that Breaking Bad is a better show than TWD and therefore TWD is not AMC's best show? It certainly sounds like that is what you are saying. For example, you say "I might agree with you in the fact that some AMC shows have something on Walking Dead" And then you go on to talk about how great Breaking Bad is so this leads me to believe that you are including Breaking Bad as a show that has "something on TWD". If this is the case then you have conceded the debate.
The Walking Dead is the best show produced by AMC, if not the best on television.

1. I think the lack of locations is not really a con to the show. The group held onto Herschel's farm for as long as they could, but the walkers came and conquered. From the estimated gap (roughly 8 months) from the end of season 2 to beginning of season 3, they did A LOT of moving around. I mean, this very first shot is of them taking a random house and searching for supplies. Then, they find the prison. The prison serves them well for a very long time, until the Governor tries (and fails) to take it, but instead destroys it. 2. Killing off character's is something that I think adds to the storyline. We meet the group of prisoners holed up in the cafeteria, and they are all killed within a few episodes. This helps demonstrate how those who are aren't prepared for the apocalypse are doomed. I mean, look at all the women in the show. Amy was dead in four episodes because she was defenseless and weak. Shane was a cop who knew how to shoot and survived until the end of season 2 (he would have survived longer if it weren't for Rick stabbing him). The people of Woodbury quickly died because they weren't ready, with everything being given to them on a platter by the Governor and his men. Michonne has survived this far because she was self-suffcient. I think a great question to ask (and one that Carol has to live by) is "could you survive on your skills or do you need someone else to help you?". 3. Sure, but the show isn't intended as humorous. It is intended as a show where people kill eachother to survive, although we have had some comedic relief. When the Governor killed a walker with a golf ball, I thought that was pretty funny. Also, both Dixon brothers (Daryl and Merle) confused Glenn's nationality which was pretty funny. Best Show on AMC I might agree with you in the fact that some AMC shows have something on Walking Dead. Breaking Bad (which I have seen as well) did quite a great job in just everything. Bryan Cranston was a great actor, which showed his gradual descent into madness from getting lung cancer. There was many aspects in the show, it showed how drugs were ruining every character's life, I think every character who had more than 3 appearances was affected in some way.
The Walking Dead is the best show produced by AMC, if not the best on television.

The Walking Dead, starring Andrew Lincoln, Norman Reedus, and Steven Yeun, is one of, if not the best show on television. It stars excellent character development, it shows that a loving, compassionate Rick in Season 1, who now leaves other group members behind because of their choices. After losing everything in the mid-season finale, he needs Carl to be a man and provide for him. This is a show where characters don't have plot armor, we have had 5+ main characters die and are still going strong. I would like someone to prove me wrong, if that is possible.