BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage

If you google the definition of marriage https://www.google.com... it says the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship. You say that it will create a problem for society but there are 147-210 million children who are in orphanages. And since gay people can't have kids, they will help kids get a better home instead of continuing to overpopulate the Earth. And still, they will have a family. But what is the definition of family? https://www.google.com... A group consisting of parents and children living together in a household. So two men get married and adopt a child, they will live in the same house. By definition, it does create family. If you are still stuck on the fact that they can't have kids, science has made it possible for women to reproduce without men. You say marriage was created for a man and a woman to produce offspring. What if the woman or the man can't create a child. http://www.parents.com... http://www.menshealth.com... Should they not be allowed to get married because they can't have children?
Gay Marriage

Thank you for instigating this debate, it will be interesting to see how it will end. It is easy to side with the argument of "Gay people don't hurt anybody" or "You can't help it", because it is generally morally right. I understand that there is no problem having gay people in our community, neither is it to interact with gay people. The problem is gay marriage itself, hence why we are debating here. Here are my beliefs and reasons to why I am con to gay marriage in this debate. Gay marriage is unnatural: The definition of marriage itself derived from Middle English which appeared around 1250-1300 CE, marriage is a bond created between a man and woman, mean't to interlock a man and a woman with a great chance to form offspring later on. "This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin marītāre meaning to provide with a husband or wife and marītāri meaning to get married. The adjective marīt-us -a, -um meaning matrimonial or nuptial could also be used in the masculine form as a noun for "husband" and in the feminine form for "wife"." -Oxford English Dictionary Marriage was created for a man and a woman to produce offspring, not for those of the same gender who cannot produce offspring. This is simply how marriage was made, this is how nature intended marriage to be, twisting how gender and marriage works is unnatural. Gay marriage does not create a family: Gay marriage attempts to create a family, yet ultimately creates a sterile union that does little more than to encourage the creation of more sterile unions. Natural marriage was mean't to create families, gay marriage is mean't for those gay to feel "Normal", yet unintentionally creates a problem. Conclusion: I do not have a problem with gays, but a problem with gay marriage, considering it is destructive, unnatural, and will only create a problem for society. That is my argument, good luck.
Gay Marriage

Gay marriage is okay. People say they are harmful to the community. How are they? They don't go shooting other people for who they love, their religion, or peoples beliefs. Some say that kids of gay parents will grow up gay. No, they will grow up being able to love whoever they want. Strait parents usually force their kid to be strait at a young age. Like, when their son is hanging around a girl in preschool they say "Oh is she your girlfriend?" People don't chose to be gay. Like you don't chose to be strait. You were born that way and that's how it is. My best friend is strait and she has two moms.
Gay Marriage

Thank you for continuing this debate. Gay marriage is unnatural continued- As I have said before, marriage was created for a man and a women to interlock and create offspring. Gay marriage does is unnatural not only to nature, but our society in general. Of course definitions will change over time to suit the paths our society is taking, but this doesn't change the fact marriage was initially created for a man and a women to eventually create offspring. Gay marriage does not create a family: What I mean by this statement, is that Gay marriage does not create a natural family. Gay marriage is unnatural and does not create a proper, strong family. Gay marriage is the assurance of a sterile union to create more sterile unions, natural marriage is the making of a new generation to make a new generation, this is the difference. As for your "Can't get pregnant" and orphan argument, a proper family needs a mother and father figure, this is what creates strong future generations. Those who cannot create offspring don't even follow in line with the definition of marriage in the first place. Conclusion: My argument stays the same, gay marriage is unnatural and fails to create a real family. Pro has failed to list points, switched arguments from the actual issue, failed to counter many of my points and reasoning, failed to list sources to back up their statistics, etc. I have proven Pro to be wrong, and organized my arguments and points while doing so.
Catholicism is not Biblical (2)

This is the second debate I have started on this topic. My previous one has turned out to be a dud, as my opponent does not seem to be willing to argue. My resolution is that Catholicism is not based on what the Bible says. The previous debate can be found here: http://www.debate.org... I will not restate my arguments here, so whoever accepts will argue against the points I made in the second round of the previous debate (link above). PLEASE NOTE: in creating that debate, I misunderstood the Catholic position of baptism when making sub-resolution 4. I cleared up my position in the comments. I instead posted an argument against infant baptism in the third round. Here are the four sub-resolutions: Res. 1- The Bible does not authorize a papacy. Res. 2- Mary, the physical mother of Jesus, is not holy Res. 3- The Apocrypha is not Holy Scripture. Res. 4- Salvation- The Bible does not authorize infant baptism.To summarize, whoever accepts this debate must argue against my points regarding the first three sub-resolutions from the second round of the previous debate. For the fourth, you must argue against the points I made in the third round of the previous debate. Rules are the same as before. 1. Both sides are expected to treat each other with respect. No profanity or personal attacks.2. Please accept this debate only if you are Catholic. Don't accept just to play devil's advocate.3. I invite anybody to comment and vote on the debate, but remember the first rule. Keep your comments clean, and please no derogatory remarks or insults against religion, religious people or any group of people. Such remarks are uncalled for and do not prove anything. My opponent's first argument will be in the first round, and we will proceed from there. I ask the Lord's blessing on both of us, so that His truth will be revealed in this discussion.
Mormons are Christians

This is a wonderful starting point. If I understand the Mormon theology correctly, it is that, they believe Jesus to be a god but not the One True God, also known to be the Father. He is the god of this earth. A quick blanket search on Google will define a Christian as, "a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings". https://www.google.com... Jesus Christ teaches something very profound in Matthew 4:10 when being tempted in the wilderness. Context real quick, He has been out in the wilderness being tempted by Satan and Satan says, "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me". Basically, 'Bow down and worship me, and I will give you all that you can see. Now its also my understanding Mormons believe the KJV of the Bible is the "closest" to accurate so I will use that version to share Jesus' response in Matthew 4:10; "Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve" Jesus has some strong conviction over this statement, being that He is using it in defense to the Devil himself. In this moment, to those who do not believe that Jesus is God, and is separate from God the Father they might say that Jesus is referring to the Father only in this moment. 'You are to worship and serve the Lord your God, only'. If that was the case, why then does Jesus allow people during His ministry to fall to His feet and worship Him, or why do people feel so inclined to do it before His ministry? We see one early example of this in again in Matthew 2:11 "And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh." Key word is worship there. Lets say that He was just a baby and couldn't do anything to stop such blaspheme. Lets move down further in his life. Matthew 14:33 "Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God." Matthew 28:9 "And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him." John 9:35-38 "Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him." As seen clearly, Jesus thinks more of Himself then some demi god, sent by the Father. This is one of the many flaws in the Mormon faith, that creates a vast separation between the Christian faith and I am very interested in your response on that statement.
Mormons are Christians

The main critical word to consider here is what is the definition of a Christian. The dictionary defines a Christian as, "a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings." Thus any person believing in Jesus Christ and His teachings is a Christian. Mormons believe in Jesus Christ. They believe He died for all of mankind, and that because of Him, all man have the opportunity to live with God again. To put it simply, they fall perfectly within the definition of the word.
Mormons are Christians

In debate the following will be available to counter either person: The Bible, Book of Mormon, Prophets, Prophecies, Manuscript, Archaeological Evidence, and so forth. As you can tell there is very little that should not be considered "fair play". Being a Christian, my primary source of information will inevitably come from the Bible, and I will do my best to focus on the contradictions between the Bible and Book of Mormon. In short, the opposing party will do their best to convince me that, the Mormon religion, theology, key players, and Book is true and that the claim to be Christians is true and I will do my best to counter that. In this round I hope it was made clear my intentions for this debate, and I would like the opposing party to begin with an opening argument, and in the next round I will do my best to retort, and we will go from there. In this I know there will be times that our colors may shine too brightly, but the ultimate goal of this debate it to shed some light onto Truth for not only my opponent but those looking in. I don't want our emotions to get too involved, and I hope we can have a good wholesome conversation. I look forward, for whats to come.
Mormons are Christians

I'll respond with 2 answers. The first answer is to simply go back to your first question. Are Mormons Christians? Nothing you have mentioned refutes the fact that Mormons believe in Jesus Christ and His teachings. It seems, in fact, that you have accepted that fact and are more interested in Mormons' beliefs in the NATURE of Christ and God. This is too is a wonderful question! However, I feel the initial debate has been satisfactorily answered. Perhaps a better question would be: Do Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is a god alike and equal to God? (I'm simply posing a hypothetical question) My second answer will be addressed more towards that question and more to where I think you'd prefer this conversation to go. You have used wonderful examples from the Bible to present a perplexing conundrum about the nature of God. Why do people worship both the Father and the Son? Mormons believe that the godhead consists of 3 separate beings: God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. The 2 former have bodies of flesh and bones and the Holy Ghost is a spirit. Mormons also believe that Christ is the god of the Old Testament. Thus when Moses, Elijah, Jeremiah, and many of the other prophets communicate with the "Lord", this is in fact Christ himself. Moses and the children of Israel proclaim in Exodus 15:2, "The Lord is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father's God, and I will exalt him." I would hardly consider this worship of a "demi-god"! But rather, this is worship of their savior and redeemer, of which Mormons happily participate in. In the Book of Mormon, Christ appears to the ancient inhabitants of America. While here, the people also worshiped Him as their Lord and Savior. 3 Nephi 19:18 states, "And behold, they began to pray; and they did pray unto Jesus, calling him their Lord and their God." This too is a wonderful example when the people prayed and worshiped directly to Christ himself! Christ states in 3 Nephi 11:36, "And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one." This doctrine proposes 2 things: the first is that they are separate, each bearing record of one another. i.e. someone can feel the Holy Ghost (a spirit) that bears record that God exists. The second is that they are one in purpose, in mind, in principle, in doctrine. Christ will never do something that the Father himself wouldn't do. Remember too Christ's famous words to God before this world began, "Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever." (Moses 4:2 found in the Pearl of Great Price) Christ desires God to receive the glory of helping and saving His children. So do Mormons then believe that Christ is in some way inferior to God? No they do not. They believe He is the the Only Begotten Son of God and as such, worship Him as their Savior and Redeemer. I hope this makes more clear what Mormons believe about the nature of God and Christ. I hope too that there is little, if any doubt that Mormons believe in Jesus Christ and as such, Christians.
Not implementing a nationwide curriculum makes success less attainable.

Not implementing a nationwide curriculum makes success less attainable. *Note that I am referring to the curriculum of the public education system of the United States, therefore everything that I talk about should be understood as in the public education system of United States. **Also note that I am not inferring that success is an unattainable goal, I am simply suggesting that without a nationwide curriculum, success is LESS attainable. First I would like to define success. Success - the attainment of wealth, position, honors, or the like. Given that, we note that success can be attained. Next I would like to explain what part of the curriculum I am referring to. The part of the curriculum that I am emphasizing is the courses offered at each school. I think that implementing a nationwide curriculum would give every student the same opportunity to achieve their goals, therefore giving everybody the same chance at success. But with the various courses offered at each school, the bigger schools end up getting more courses, and most of the time leaving smaller schools without some of the courses required for certain career goals. There lies my biggest concern. When a student has to go outside of his/her public school system just to take a special class, it requires much more work than if the class were just offered, therefore making success LESS attainable.
Illuminati

"What about Sandy Hook in the Dark Knight Rises?" The elementary school in Connecticut isnt the only thing in the world with the name "Sandy Hook"..."What about folding $20 bills. I've done that before and I can promise you it shows the Twin Towers." And if you turn it sideways it looks like a cigarette, does that mean the tobacco industry is behind 9/11? NO, IT DOESNT ITS A COINCIDENCE. "Surely it is not a coincidence that 9+11=20?"Your stupidity is truly breathtaking.... Will you ever give actual evidence or keep wasting everyones time?"I have quite a bit of evidence. I just do not provide it because I didn't put enough characters to type it all out, silly me"In the same amount of character space you have Ive provided 5 videos showing how all of you 9/11 conspiracy theorists are the dumbest people on the face of the Earth. You have more then enough space to give ANY evidence you could have, but clearly you dont know the difference between 'evidence' and 'coincidence'...
Illuminati

What about Sandy Hook in the Dark Knight Rises? What about folding $20 bills. I've done that before and I can promise you it shows the Twin Towers. Surely it is not a coincidence that 9+11=20? And as for 9/11 being my only evidence, that's not strictly true. I have quite a bit of evidence. I just do not provide it because I didn't put enough characters to type it all out, silly me.
Illuminati

"Far too large to be kept a secret? Lies. Anything can be kept a secret."If a conspiracy did exist, it would have to have been a collaborative effort from the NYFD, NYPD, American Airlines, Delta Airlines, FAA, NORAD, American Society of Civil Engineers, FEMA, CIA, FBI, NYC Port Authority, Everyone in the Pentagon (at the time of the crash and after), the 1600 widows & widowers (and no money wouldn't shut all of them up), the Media (US Mainstream, BBC, Al Jazeera, etc.), the Photographers (from all over the world), NY Governor Pataki, all of the NYC Scrap Yards, Structural Engineers Worldwide, Installers of the Demolition Devices into the buildings (and there would have had to been hundreds of them)... And that's just off the top of my headIf Con is only going to keep playing with money as his evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, then there is no hope for him or for this debate. Coincidences are meaningless, give some facts con.
Illuminati

Far too large to be kept a secret? Lies. Anything can be kept a secret. What about the politician that spoke out about the Illuminati in front of a large crowd and shortly after was killed. Coincidence? Maybe, but not something to rule out. What about the 20 dollar bills being folded a certain way to show flaming twin towers? I have done this myself so I have witnessed this. What about in the dark knight rises movie, there is a scene where they hold up a map and the only words that you can make out are "Sandy Hook" Is this a coincidence? And yes, I seen this on YouTube but then went and put my own DVD of the dark knight rises in, paused it at the same part and oh guess what? "Sandy Hook" nothing else...
Illuminati

Youre only proving why conspiracy theorists are complete idiots if this video is your main argument.... Let me save everyone from wasting 15 minutes of their life on this video. The video is nothing but a collage of scenes from movies in which the numbers 9 and 11 appear in random places, like on a clock, a watch, or on a poster. The movies that came out after 1993 that refer to a world trade center attack are not referring to the attacks on 9/11, they are referring to the attacks on the world trade center that occurred in 1993. I forgot to mention that apart from using discrepancies in reports as their evidence, conspiracy theorists also draw heavily on stupid coincidences to imply a conspiracy. Coincidences that involve the numbers 9 and 11 =/= an illuminati conspiracy because 1) The Illuminati doesnt control Hollywood 2) COINCIDENCES HAPPEN 3) The sheer number of people that would have to have been involved in such a conspiracy is far too large to be kept a secret...
Illuminati

1000 characters max. Its been proven numerous times over that 9/11 was the work of Al-Qaeda who exploited the lax security of the US to hijack airplanes and turn them into missiles. There are tons of records of the terrorist suspects training within the US, boarding the planes, hijacking them and making demands over the intercom, etc. http://www.popularmechanics.com... http://www.debunking911.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Anybody who thinks 9/11 was an inside job is most likely a typical dumba** who cant accept the fact that little people can change world history, and that there is always a secret government plot behind it. They have no evidence, they usually just take discrepancies in reports, assume the worst possible scenario, and preach it as the truth.
Use of the Death Penalty as punishment for capital murder and sex crimes.

Hello. May I start out by saying that I greatly appreciate you being polite and debating without getting emotionally involved, as you are the type of person that makes debating fun. Now to my counter thesis. While test results have been found to be mostly inconclusive, Ernest van den Haag, a Professor of Jurisprudence at Fordham University, has studied the effect that the death penalty has on felony rates, and he believes that, as people have a great fear of death brought on by our natural desire to survive, the death penalty can serve as powerful deterrent. If you would like to read about this, here is the link. http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org... Also, as you stated before, many hard criminals are put in prisons together. So, would it be fair to a person convicted of a marijuana possession charge to be placed in a jail cell with a convicted serial killer, who could easily kill the marijuana trafficker? No it would not, so the only way to truly prevent a killer or sex offender is to be rid of them. Third, while it is not common, prisoners do escape. In 1998 (the last year the statistic was taken to my knowledge), 6,530 prisoners escaped from state-level penitentiaries. While this is only a small fraction of the prisoners currently in state prisons, it is still 6,530 convicted criminals that are free to do as they please, such a harm witnesses or exact their revenge upon testifiers. To address your argument that lethal injection may not be fully humane, I just read the article and it mentions that many of the inhumane injections were a result of poorly trained doctors and poor standards, which can be corrected. As long as the doctors are adequately trained and closely monitored, the procedure can be humane as possible. For my final argument, I address your argument on the feelings of the doctors/executioners. I would like you to think of the common American soldier. While in the line of duty, a soldier may very well have to kill an enemy combatant, which they will do, as they know it is there job and they do it for the good of the state and their fellow citizens. As long as the doctors know before hand what they are getting themselves into and that they may have to take a life in the line of duty, they will be able to come to terms with what they have done and realize it was for the good of the whole.