BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homosexuality is not a Sin in The Bible

Admittedly, the original Hebrew and Greek are great sources for the original meaning in any Biblical passage. However, I wonder why every Bible translator for the past 2,000 years, save the modern day pro-gay translators (i.e. Queen James Version), have translated everything into the words "Homosexual", "Sexually Perverse", and "Sodomites". Interestingly enough, some words in the Hebrew actually mean more than one thing. I looked up that word online, it can be translated both ways. So God was actually condemning two things at the same time!As for Sodom and Gomorrah, God killed every person, save Lot and his family, because they were inhospitable? What? Plus, God condemned Sodom long before the incident with the angels. Also, so what if it was simply for the purposes of violation, it was still a homosexual act. Lot also offered his daughters instead of his sons so that they wouldn't "do this evil thing." Don't tell me God destroyed a whole city because of the sin of a few "inhospitable" people. The translators and Hebrew are clear, homosexuality is a sin. However, if you want to believe something God didn't say, you will find every way to take or add to the Bible.
Homosexuality is not a Sin in The Bible

The first thing my opponent fails to do is use Original Hebrew and Greek and instead goes for English Translations, None of Which are 100% accurate and can cause problems, we need to use The Original Words written. 1 Timothy 1:9-10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 uses the word arsenokoitai, which is a combination of the words, arsenos and koiten, which are found in The Septuagint Translation of Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13, Leviticus 18:22 - meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gunaikos Leviticus 20:13 - hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 do not condemn Homosexuality, but condemn Anal sex(Lyings of woman), therefore None of those 4 passages(1 Timothy 1:9-10, 1 Corinthians 6:9, Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13) condemn Homosexuality, but condemn Anal sex. Argument refuted. Sodom and Gomorrah, Evident by, Genesis 19:9 - 9 "Get out of our way," they replied. "This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We"ll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door. Where it says "we'll treat you worse than them", they weren't looking for sexual pleasure with The Angels, they wanted to rape and violate them, if these guys were looking for merely sexual pleasure with any man, they would've taken Lot, so it was either because they wanted to violate or because they wanted to have sex with Angels, which isn't Homosexuality, if they wanted Homosexual sex they would have raped Lot. so those 2 points alone refute your argument. Add that to The Fact that The Bible repeatedly mention Sodom and Gomorrah and 1, never say it's because of Homosexuality and 2, say it's because of Inhospitality http://www.gaychristian101.com.... My opponent has failed to provide any passage on Homosexuality, the first verse he posted(1 Timothy 1:9-10) was against Anal Sex, and he brought us Sodom and Gomorrah(whom most Biblical Scholars do not take as due to Homosexuality, http://www.gaychristian101.com... ) which has nothing to do with Homosexuality. In order for my opponent to provide a proper rebuttal, he must refute what I have written and actually provide verses/passages on Homosexuality, if there are any to begin with. The Holy Spirit(YHWH) has helped me in this debate against faulty arguments.
Military interventionism is a poor tactic for making the world freer and safer.

This has been called a war of ideas, and rightly so. As has been shown in Iraq, in order to make "islamofascist" countries freer, we need to do far more than merely toppling the evil leader-du-jour. Why? Because once he's gone, there need to be better people to replace him, people who have popular support. Removing Saddam merely energized the more radical Iraqi citizens and neighboring radical groups like Al Qaeda, and a bloody mess ensued. That's where my internet idea comes in. It doesn't have to be the internet; it's just that the internet is particularly well suited to spreading ideas. I brought it up because it's my own little pet theory. The bigger point is that the military definitely can't do it alone, and may very well be unnecessary, and ideally this would be the case. As for your point that their governments would need to be in favor of 'technologizing' their countries, I respectfully disagree. This could definitely be done subversively, and with the blistering pace at which technology is currently progressing, it's getting much easier every day. If the notion of subverting these governments troubles you, you need to ask yourself how you expect any country to cast off its tyrannical leaders. Revolutions are intrinsically subversive because they involve conspiring against and working against the government. You don't seem to take issue with the points I made in my first argument; you basically agreed but argued that sometimes military interventionism is the only option. I agree that in vanishingly rare circumstances, intervention is warranted, but the debate resolution is whether or not it's a poor tactic, and I think I've made a strong case.
Military interventionism is a poor tactic for making the world freer and safer.

yeah, sorry for the misconception, i meant governments. And if a plan like your's was to work, it would require the help of the country's government. As much as the people would want it, the country may not want to deal with us, and may not want our views/culture imposed on there citizens. If in fact, it leads to protests, and violence, military intervention would be a must, for us to clean up our own mistake. It's a good idea, but ultimately, the government of the country would have to cooperate, and I just can't see that.
Military interventionism is a poor tactic for making the world freer and safer.

Thanks for taking me up on this. I think it's critically important to draw a distinction between the government and the citizenry. You said "These countries [that I mentioned] pretty much stand strong on any issue, and aren't going to change." If by 'countries' you mean 'governments,' then I agree with you. It's hard to dispute that most tyrannical, repressive governments are quite stubborn and unwilling to listen to competing points of view. However, citizens are quite different. A good friend of mine who's an Arabic major in college spent last summer in Syria and the preceding summer in Jordan, and he found that the people he met were quite normal and reasonable. They all had an attitude of resignation regarding their tyrannical governments; they felt that their government's presence was an immutable fact of life, so they just accepted it. What I'm trying to argue is that by far the best way to make the Middle East freer and safer is to give the people a thirst for freedom, and to do that by exposing them to the culture and knowledge of the world via the internet. How would this effect change, you might ask. Imagine a gay man living in a small Saudi Arabian village today. He's been told by everyone he meets, his friends, family and government, that homosexuality is an abomination punishable by death, so of course he covers it up. Then give him the internet. Even if he has largely convinced himself that he's straight and that being gay is wrong, of course he will find gay sites at some point. He will learn that in other countries, not only are gays free from the fear of execution, but are free to be open about it and are actively agitating for civil rights. Add up enough revelations of this sort and opposition to the government will be formidable and fierce. As for your argument that military intervention is just a necessary evil at times, I have to agree, but only under very dire and specific circumstances, the likes of which we haven't seen during my lifetime ('84 onward). Perhaps I should have prefaced the debate resolution with "in today's world." So to sum up, I wasn't advocating diplomacy as much as exporting information and culture. I'd like to add that economic sanctions are basically always a terrible idea; they hurt the citizens, not the government, and the sanctioning government gets the blame.
Military interventionism is a poor tactic for making the world freer and safer.

Military interventionism may seem like a poor tactic, but it's pretty much the only one. Like the military countries you mentioned. These countries pretty much stand strong on any issue, and aren't going to change, because of there religious backgrounds. That is why military intervention is needed if we truly want to change something. Diplomacy will barely get us anywhere. Spec Ops is sometimes a good idea, but when those things are figured out, it'll make us look worse then we would just invading a country for "liberation," if the said countries were in, say, Europe, it'd be different, but because they're in the middle east, it's high unlikely that any peace talks would consistently work.
Military interventionism is a poor tactic for making the world freer and safer.

First, to clearly define, by "military interventionism," I mean the tactic of sending large amounts of soldiers to a given country. I believe that special ops are warranted at times (read: for killing Osama and his ilk), but that whenever large amounts of soldiers are involved, it is highly probable if not certain that things will go poorly. I'll go into more detail when I see the arguments my interlocutor puts forth, but here's a quick rundown of my beliefs. Military interventionism essentially always plunges the invading army into guerilla warfare. The native fighters know their country's terrain and infrastructure far better than the invaders, and whereas the native fighters have easy access to resources, the invaders must be constantly concerned about their supply lines. All other things being equal, this shifts the odds heavily against the invaders and at least guarantees many injuries and deaths for the invading army. Native sentiment regarding the invading country is unlikely to improve while the country is being occupied. Military occupation inevitably fosters resentment, and blunders by the occupying army (bombing the wrong buildings, not guarding weapons depots, being cruel and abusive to innocents) greatly amplify this resentment. Historically, countries have been able to cast off repressive and inhumane policies only when when a substantial proportion of the population is not only supportive of change, but clamoring for it, and willing to risk much to achieve it. With this in mind, I submit that the best way to help countries like Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia is for the focus to be shifted from militarism to commerce and information. Give millions of computers with uncensored internet access to any repressed people of your choice, give them 20 or 30 years, and I'm certain you'll see a radically different political climate in that country.
Muslims do not cause all disasters, and they not murder the most people in the world.

I'm gonna have to try to cypher this: "True, this is actually a good statement, but all disasters are either from humans or nature. Al-Qaeda might be a strong organization, but what about other terrorist groups?" I'm not sure if that's what you exactly meant, but I'll go with it. There really isn't much I can say about other terrorist organizations without looking them up. Many of them either work in other countries but don't do major attacks on the same level Al-Qaeda did in the past.
Muslims do not cause all disasters, and they not murder the most people in the world.

I accept this challenge, and as much as I'd like to agree with you, I can't. Around the world, there are radical Muslim groups (for one, Al Qaeda) that cause a civil disturbance within European and North/South American nations. A major example would be September 11, 2001, between 8 and 9AM EST, both American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 crashed into the World Trade Center in New York City, causing roughly 2,606 deaths. Additional attacks on that same day included the Pentagon and potentially the White House. Al Qaeda (plus some of their members who spoke out) have claimed they have conducted the attack as a 'holy war' in lieu of future events, such as the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia and US support of Israel.
Should recess Be aloud in school

Exercising is not the thing recess is and how could it raise obesity kids can just sneak food outside and just eat it JAYQUAN i know a lot of people that do that and at recess kids don't usually don't run they just walk around and do nothing and that's just it and its stupid to just go outside and just because you don't go outside dose not mean that kids cant go outside at home you can not do certain stuff at school recess like bring your phone.
Should recess Be aloud in school

yeah you don't get recess and the 7th grade but you have more time to sleep thats why kids mainly don't have a lot of forces and 7th grade also in 7th grade that's when kids start to have obesity and get bigger over the year that's why recess should be and 7th grade all kids need is bout 15 to 20 minutes to be at recess and middle school and they still would be having fun and exercising
There is such a thing as good and bad music.

There is definitely good and bad music. While some may believe it is based solely on perspective and one's taste, I believe it is not. Today, it seems as if music has taken a turn for the worst. Has everything innovative and exciting been discovered and explored? It feels as if people have either lost interest or are physically incapable of producing music that truly opposes the test of time. There has always been good and bad music. It's just that today, it is nearly impossible to come across a song that screams genius such as many of the works produced by The Beatles or Chopin did. In today's Capitalistic society, the majority dictates the arts and as a result, the arts have been dismantled and pounded senselessly. What the masses will pay for, the masses will get. It's a fact when dealing with this kind of system and sadly, it has resulted in the downfall of the arts. People need to learn to sense good and bad music again and all it takes is a good education in music and the true passion and effort needed to innovate and bring music back to it's zenith.
It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people

However, I would like to point out my opponent has not provided a value or value criterion, which was clearly required in the rules "IF THE CON DOES NOT PROVIDE VALUE OR VALUE CRITERION THEY SHALL FORFEIT". Thus, the voter should vote pro. But, in the interest of not being a prick, I will continue this debate. My opponent has begun by examining the definition of the word "moral". The thing is, this doesn't really matter. "Say we managed to define rationality, and based on that definition, we find that given specified conditions, all the rational people would eat an apple instead of an orange. .. say because it is healthier. .. is that the moral behavior? " Yes it would be. By definition, if an action complies with a code of conduct most rational people would agree on, it is moral. Morality does not deal so much with what is moral, but rather what is immoral. If an action is not immoral, it is moral. And thus, if most rational people would not contend that eating an apple is immoral, it is automatically moral. The way we are to determine how to weigh morality in this debate is through our value criterion. I have clearly laid out my value criterion as consequentialism. My opponent offers no alternative way to judge morality, and no solid attacks on consequentialism. My opponent goes on to question whether the actor matters in whether an action is moral or not. In essence, no. A person's emotional attachment to another person does not make the situation any different. A person's natural urge to stay alive doesn't change the situation. The situation is pretty cut-and-dry: "Kill one person or kill multiple people". My opponent's final argument is that a general principal cannot be established based on my definitions. What my opponent does not realize is that he could contest my definition and provide his own. In addition, he did not have to accept morality at all, he was supposed to provide his own value in order to clash with mine. Key Issues: 1. My opponent has not provided a value or value criterion. I clearly said this is mandatory in my first speech. And according to the rules of LD they must be given in your first speech. 2. My opponent has not contested my value or value criterion. Thus, you must look to morality and consequentialism to weigh this debate. Under consequentialism I must win because there are two consequences that can happen: one person is killed, or multiple people are killed. Consequentialism states we must choose the action with the best consequences. The best consequences occur on the Pro side (only one person is killed instead of multiple people) 3. My opponent's only attacks on my case are semantics and actor specification. Semantics don't really matter. And A Spec is easily answered by looking to a consequentialist weighing mechanism.
POTC 1 was better than the sequels

You talk of Sprider-Man needing sequels to explain the relationship between Mary Jane and Peter Parker. On the same token, POTC needed a sequel to see how Jack Sparrow would lead his crew, and where his compass leads. The third POTC was a classic in that Disney used their total imagination and introduced a "dead zone". The other two movies were a necessity in that, they continued the war between England nd the Pirates, much like a Star Wars plot.The first one was great, but what of Will's relationship? The other two movies drew off of the first and filled in gaps and did a good job of explaining a story. I say they were pretty good considering they are all based off of a three minute ride at Disney World.
POTC 1 was better than the sequels

And now I would like to conclude my argument by stating that "Pirates of the Caribbean 3: At World's End" was comparable only to that of an "Alice in Wonderland" or Pink Elephants on Parade "Dumbo" acid-trip. It was weird, and the character of Will Turner did a total 180 and began acting differently--less honorably--than he did in the original films. The first movie was the best. Thank you.
POTC 1 was better than the sequels

As far as I'm concerned, with the course of the first movie, a second movie wasn't required. The character developement in the first movie was sufficient enough to satisfy the audience. The thing is, it is in fact difficult to make sequels, because they usually fall into the shadow of the original quality-wise. The first Pirates of the Caribbean didn't really need sequels, it did that well on it's own. The first Spider Man movie needed a sequel, for example, because everyone wanted to know if/how Peter and Mary Jane got together. POTC Curse of the Black Pearl stood on its own two feet and best of all didn't have a cliff-hanger ending as in the second POTC.
was the Civil war about slavery

First things first, the 16th president of the United States, Abraham Lincoln; Lincoln was NOT an abolitionist. William Lloyd Garrison, the most prominent of all abolitionists, concluded that Lincoln "had not a drop of anti-slavery blood in his veins." Lincoln was against social and political equality of the races, he opposed inter-racial marriages, supported the Illinois Constitution's prohibition of immigration of blacks into the state, defended a slave owner who was seeking to retrieve his runaway slaves but never defended slaves or runaways themselves, and he was a lifelong advocate of colonization - of sending every last black person in the U.S. to Africa, Haiti, or central America - anywhere but in the United States. In August of 1852 Lincoln said "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it" what I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union." Lincoln also said on September 18th, 1858, "I will say, then, that I am not, nor have I ever been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races." In 1861 Lincoln was asked "why not let the South go in peace?" He replied by saying "I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government?" I have found no proof that Lincoln was a slave owner, but I can tell you without a doubt in my mind that he was not seeking to abolish slavery. Two acts of Congress were passed during the Civil War, One in 1864 (13 Stat. 11) and one in 1866 (14 Stat. 321) which allowed slave owners whose slaves enlisted or were drafted into the Union military to file a claim against the Federal Government for loss of the slave's services. The Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 freed slaves in the Southern or 'rebellious' states but in border-states that were loyal to the Union, slavery continued to be legal. If a slave ran away to join the military and the owner knew where and when he joined, the owner could file a compensation claim as long as he or she was loyal to the Union. There were also free blacks who owned slaves. And something else you might not know, it was the Africans who sold their own people into slavery. Union Generals Grant and Sherman were slave owners as well. Confederate Generals Jackson and Lee were not. Confederate President Jefferson Davis not only envisioned black confederate veterans but also envisioned them receiving bounty lands for their service. There would have been no future for slavery once the armed black CSA veterans came home after the war.
was the Civil war about slavery

Con has never responded to any of my arguments nor provided any rebuttal to the south explicitly declaring that the war was about slavery. All con has done is talked about Lincoln and the laws he passed during the time which has no relevanc to this debate. Con also never gave any arguments from scholarly sources. The only scholarly source he gives is in his conclusion and con never gives any information from those sources instead telling me to read the books which does con no good in this debate. Also every book title exept one suggests that it's talking about Lincoln. During this debate con's arguments seem more oriented towards proving that Lincoln was not an abolitionist rather than proving the civil war was not about slavery since almost every argument was about Lincoln. Also the Confederacies admittance of the war being about slavery automattically proves the civil war WAS about slavery. Only one side had to be in the Civil War fighting for slavery for that be what the civil war was about; and because as I said before the south had openly admitted to being in the war for slavery the resolution is negated.
was the Civil war about slavery

Con is completely ignoring the admittance of the Confederate states that the war was about slavery. Rather con is trying to show the union wasn't trying to free slaves which is irrelevant to the resolution.However it does seem the Union and Confederacy were fighting for different reasons. The union seems to have been fighting for the reintegration of southern states into the union while the Confederacy was fighting to keep slavery legal.Because the resolution is the civil war was not about slavery con cannot allow either side of the war to have been about slavery but the Confederacy openly admitted it was.All con is doing is repeating essentially the same argument over and over again never making any response to my arguments.
was the Civil war about slavery

Con is partially correct; originally the civil war WASN'T about slavery; originally it was about southern states seceding. However in the last portion of the civil war it was decided to make it about slavery leading to the Emancipation Proclamation.CONCLUSION I have proved my case.Sources http://en.wikipedia.org...Note: Technically con plagiarized his argument. The argument was copied and pasted from http://www.confederateamericanpride.com...