BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion is murder and wrong

VOTERS: REMEMBER, I AM PRO, which is falsely labeled, as I am arguing that abortion is not 'murder and wrong'. I have restated my arguments in the last two rounds, because for the last two rounds you did not refute, or even attempt to refute my arguments. I do not have to prove anything new, since you have not refuted or disproved my arguments. I have already won, if I have disproven that abortion is murder(I have), I have disproved every single argument you presented. The last three rounds you have completely ignored the basis of this debate. Every one of your arguments in the last three rounds, including this one, has been fallacious 'Appeal to emotion'. "Also, I asked if the mother on a whim should leave her child just because she uses her body irresponsibly" Are you referring to rape? I'm not sure. I actually did answer your question about if a mother should leave her child, I'll answer it again. "Born babies" or simply 'babies' are people, it obviously wouldn't be right to kill a person. Having given birth to the child and keeping it however;the mother is actually assuming responsibility for the child, as opposed to an abortion. I dismissed your Steve Jobs question, because it is not relevant. Now that it is your only argument, I will address it. What if Steve Jobs was aborted? This is a logical fallacy, known as 'Appeal to authority', possibly also 'appeal to emotion'. Con has not fulfilled their burden of proof, and has presented no arguments(that I haven't disproven) as to why abortion is murder or wrong. "The essay I don't have access to so unfortunately you won't be able to read it. " That is unfortunate. Arguments are relevant in a debate, for future reference, it would be very beneficial to use them. Abortion is not murder or wrong. A fetus is not a human being, it is simply a human embryo.
bible = fallible

Braking what you said down 1. "if God thinks slavery is wrong, then it's wrong now and always." - you have completely ignored my point from the very beginning. What is right or wrong! you have failed to define for me what is right or wrong, thus, you have yet to prove that anything is wrong with the Bible. 2. "you might be arguing that given the cultures that believed that stuff, God was simply catering to their beliefs, or something. But, even those arguments do not explain why God would mandate things to adhere to a culture that is bad" - this time, you ignored my interpretation argument. You never look beyond the words and look towards the true meaning. Because of this, you fail to understand what the verses really say. It isn't God conforming to bad cultures, it's different cultures using God's word and interpreting it differently, thus yielding the false conclusion that they are "bad". They are bad only because they are different? 3. "we can assume as the first premise that the bible is true, and everything from that must be true. or, we can assume that morality truth is the same today as was it always was, and so that the bible is not completely true. you are not explaining why we shouldn't advocate women marrying their rapists if they did back then? or why would this be acceptable to change, isn't morality timeless? do you actually believe that woman should marry them?" - this is a complex argument you are trying to make that I'm not quite so sure I understand. The first premise is true, not the second. The Bible is true. Moral truth does not stay the same. So you just proved my point. Thank you. Morality is not timeless. Once, again, you have failed to prove anything was bad. *******KEY POINTS!********* 1. Morals Change 2. Bible interpreted differently 3. Nothing in Bible proved wrong by opponent Thank you, and good debate
bible = fallible

so, your position is what many hardcore christians would call "relativistic". for example, slavery was okay then, but not it's not okay. is this your argument? it's the way you're arguing. if God thinks slavery is wrong, then it's wrong now and always. that's a fundamental judgment call on my part, granted. there's not much to debate on the matter. it'd seem that you don't believe that slavery would be okay, as long as that was the cultural trend at the time, or that murder would be okay etc. i doubt it's your argument, and that you're just confusing your arguments. you might be arguing that given the cultures that beleved that stuff, God was simply catering to their beliefs, or something. But, even those arguments do not explain why God would mandate things to adhere to a culture that is bad. in the end, i cannot find a reasonable way of saying these verses make sense, though, and that's why i have the position. for you, i think you probably want to rethink your arguments. your ultimate argument doesn't fly either. we can assume as the first premise that the bible is true, and everything from that must be true. or, we can assume that morality truth is the same today as was it always was, and so that the bible is not completely true. you are not explaining why we shouldn't advocate women marrying their rapists if they did back then? or why would this be acceptable to change, isn't morality timesless? do you actually believe that woman shgould marry them?
bible = fallible

I apologize, I thought that was resolution was trying to prove that the bible was all wrong. I did not predict that you would make the debate so abusive towards the negative side. if you give yourself the unequal burden of simply proving that one thing in the bible is wrong, I would have to counter it like this. Bust first, let me respond to your comments "also, you have not explained why morality can be different today than it was then" Morality changes over the years. This is simple. It appears you do not understand what morality is. Morality - a sense of right or wrong You do no think that a person's sense of right or wrong has not changed over history? Well let me give you a few examples 1800 - Nothing wrong with enslaving another race (morality) 2000 - Slavery bad 1600 - Women are property 2000 - Women are people 1000 - Kings are good 2000 - Kings are bad 1000 BC - Women must marry rapist 2000 AD - Women shouldn't be forced to marry. If you can not see that morality, or our sense of right and wrong changes over history, you are in the fault here. "you do not explain why Christians don't believe woman are property." Look at the morality argument above. People believe a difference in what is right and wrong. Currently, the Islamic faith says that women are some what as you would call property. Are they wrong? They would say no, you would say yes. I have already proved why it doesn't matter what Christians believe because YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY IF IT IS GOOD OR BAD. "saying that you have that morality that woman are like property etc, but then you act like things have changed and it doesn't matter. " I have no idea when I said this or when I matters. I say that morality changes, and that you can't you your current sense of morals to judge others. "what does woman being property have to do with forcing them to marry a rapist? why would God want to treat woman like property? at least give some arguments" Like I said, if God is trying to tell people that women should marry a rapist, why is that wrong? You failed to prove that those verses are wrong! If can not prove they are wrong, you lose. And you have failed to prove they are wrong. So this is why the Bible is not fallible 1.) Interpretation - The Bible is supposed to be timeless. In order to be so, you must interpret the verses and the underlying theme. The moral of the story we can call it. Why was the verse written, and what can it mean in today's standards. 2.) Right or Wrong - The only way to prove something is wrong, is to look at if it was wrong in it's time. Were the verses wrong? You can't prove it, so you can't prove the resolution
bible = fallible

your argument about the weight of americans does not fly. all i have to do to show the bible is fallible is to show one error. i showed a few. that is not the same as me saying that all americans are fat by showing a few.... actually, what's synonomys is me refuting the notion that "all americans are not fat" by showing a few who are fat. you're clearly confused. also, you have not explained why morality can be different today than it was then. or, you do not explain why christians don't believe woman are property. ---again, you seem confused because you're saying that you have that morality that woman are like property etc, but then you act like things have changed and it doesn't matter. what does woman being property have to do with forcing them to marry a rapist? why would God want to treat woman like property? at least give some arguments.
bible = fallible

I apologize, I just wrote pages of an argument and my computer froze. So here is teh quicky version 1. LOGIC FLAWED a small % of flawed passages do not make the Bible flawed if we followed your logic all americans are overweight not true using your logic, it would be, because a small % of the population represented everyone 2. PASSAGES NOT SELF-EXPLANATORY 3. PASSAGES NOT FLAWED once again, shorter version morality is inter-subjective my morals do not coincide with yours the time of the Bible had a much different moral code. Exmaple, women were property. Thus to refute the passages, YOU MUST NOT USE A SENSE OF MORALITY BUT ATTACK THE REASONING. the reasoning of all the passages are good once again I apologize for the brevity
If one is a Christian, Same Sex Marriage or Being a Homosexual is Sinful

===PRO:=== >> "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. " Now what this verse is telling us is that homosexuality, at its core, is UNNATURAL in God's eyes, so in other words sinful, "even if" a homosexual does not partake in homosexual acts or lust, it does not excuse homosexuality. If one is sexually attracted to their own sex, then it would be impossible for one not to 'meditate' on the person that one is inclined to << ===REBUTTAL:=== The bible quote above again only condemns homosexuals when: 1) They lust for the opposite sex " were inflamed with lust for one another. " 2) They engage in sexual relations with the same sex. "Men committed indecent acts with other men" It, however, does not condemn people for being homosexual. No sentence supports my opponents argument that God sees homosexuality as wrongful without engaging in lust or sexual relations. ===PRO:=== >>For instance, lets say George becomes a homosexual, therefore he begins to find Bill sexually attractive. Now the moment George found Bill attractive, George was committing a sin. Why? Because now George is twisting and perverting the way in which God made humans: which is a man to find a woman sexually attractive and vice versa. So in doing this George's thoughts are unnatural and totally opposite to God's design. Therefore sinful. << ===REBUTTAL:=== As aforementioned, lusting for another person is sinful, even if you are heterosexual or homosexual. In the above comment by my opponent he does not mention lust. If this was true in life, then all people would be sinners, as it is then lusting if you find someone attractive. However, as aforementioned, God does not condemn homosexuals for simply being without lusting or engaging in sexual acts. ===CONCLUSION:=== 1) Engaging in sexual relations homosexually is sinful, if one is a christian. 2) Lusting for another person is sinful, if one is a christian. 3) Finding someone attractive as homosexual is not sinful, if one is a christian. 4) Simply being homosexual is not sinful, if one is a christian. The above conclusions support the case that it is not sinful to be homosexual, nor is same-sex marriage. Thank you.
If one is a Christian, Same Sex Marriage or Being a Homosexual is Sinful

I will basically conclude my opponents argument is this: Homosexuality is a desire for the opposite sex ---> Desire = sin ---> Homosexuality is sinful. However, if this is true of homosexuality, then it is true of heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is the desire for the opposite sex. Then, everyone is a sinner because sexual orientation permits a desire, which is sinful, and therefore wrong fro Christians. However, this is illogical. This example is to show how ludicrous my opponents reasoning for being homosexual is wrong. I also disagree that my opponents definition applies to all homosexuals. It is possible to practise sexuality without having thoughts of the other sex. This is called abstinence. Throughout history, monks and priests have abstained. This is proof one can practise sexuality without engaging in sexual acts. Homosexuality is a desire for the opposite sex ---> Desire =/= sin ---> Homosexuality is sinful. Homosexuality is a sexual preference of the same sex ---> No desire = No sin ---> Homosexuality is not sinful. In response to this, CON may claim God allows heterosexuality, and disallows Homosexuality. However, the 9th commandment states "You shall not covet your neighbour's wife" [Source: . http://www.allabouttruth.org...] (This varies from denominations of Christianity, however, it is mentioned in all). God disallows lust in all sexualities. Therefore, the idea that sexuality requires you to lust is untrue. In regards to your source >>. http://www.bfamilyadvocates.com...<<, I have noticed several things about it: - It condemns lesbian same sex union for the reason of fatherless children. I never advocated allowing sperm to be donated to lesbians to raise a child. - It also condemns it on the basis of the need for a father and mother for a child. Again, I never advocated they should be allowed adopt children. - It also mentions sexual practices which I never again, advocated. I await my opponents response and wish him good luck.
If one is a Christian, Same Sex Marriage or Being a Homosexual is Sinful

To start, some definitions: ===DEFINITIONS:=== Homosexual: 1. Sexually attracted to members of your own sex 2. Someone who practices homosexuality; having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex ===PRO:=== >>The reason why this is a heated issue; I don't know, for the Bible makes it very clear that homosexuality is in fact sinful. But none the less here we are. To begin with, if one is a Christian, then they must abide by and have no quarrel with the Bible, for it is the ultimate truth and inspired Word of God. Hence, the following verses are what Christians are obligated to abide by and by not doing so is condemned sinful. << ===REBUTTAL:=== From reading your argument, and your bible quotes, I find it quite clear it is wrongful to engage in acts of homosexuality, in particular, sexual ones. I will concede, this is a sin under the bible, however, being a homosexual, and not engaging in acts of homosexuality is not wrongfully and fully allowed under the bible. Therefore we can conclude that: - Being Homosexual is okay under the bible. - Engaging in Sexual acts with someone of the same sex is not okay. As the resolution states being homosexual and not being homosexual and doing homosexual acts, it is therefore justified under the bible to be homosexual. ===SAME-SEX MARRIAGE:=== The same principle applies here, as long as the two people involved don't engage in sexual practices with each other, it is 100% justified with the bible. This will be my argument for now.
If one is a Christian, Same Sex Marriage or Being a Homosexual is Sinful

The reason why this is a heated issue; I don't know, for the Bible makes it very clear that homosexuality is in fact sinful. But none the less here we are. To begin with, if one is a Christian, then they must abide by and have no quarrel with the Bible, for it is the ultimate truth and inspired Word of God. Hence, the following verses are what Christians are obligated to abide by and by not doing so is condemned sinful. 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-10 "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be decieved. Neither fornicartors, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor HOMOSEXUALS, nor SODOMITES,nor theives, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. " LEVITICUS 18:22 "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. " LEVITICUS 20:13 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. " Good Luck, charles15
Resolved: the old Mega Man games are anti-Christian.

Argument 1: Dr. Light: is he bearing Atheist stereotypes about God? In Game Theory's "Who is Mega Man's true villain?," Mega Man's creator, Dr. Light is shown to be the one causing all the chaos in the old Mega Man games [1]. He seems to be bearing two stereotypes about God: Stereotype 1: God is a slave owner. Dr. Light created Mega Man able to make his own decisions [1]. He apparently was not thinking for himself when he was killing Dr. Wily's robots. "He hates it when his creations begin to think for themselves," like the stereotype goes. Stereotype 2: God is unintelligent. Dr. Light saw the harm he was doing, and what did he do? He made more robots that caused the same harm as turning Rock into Mega Man did [1]. Argument 2: A negative stereotype borne about Christians by Dr. Light's robots The "Christian see, Christian do" stereotype is borne by Dr. Light's robots, who, as long as they are trying to stop Wily, appear to have no free thought whatsoever. Argument 3: Dr. Wily's positive representations... about Satan. Since Dr. Wily is supposed to be the bad guy, we can consider him to be symbolic of Satan. In Mega Man 9, he convinces them to work for him by making promises he cannot keep, as such, in Christianity, Satan is conceived as doing. They agree to let him reprogram them, which can be symbolic of "selling one's soul to the devil." He also gets Dr. Light's robots to start thinking for themselves, whereas in Satanism, Satan is not a symbol of evil, but of free thought. In basis, the game is taking Satan, editing him to look like a scientist, and making him look like the bad guy when the developers knew someone would prove him innocent. The person to prove his innocence was Matthew "MatPat" Patrick, the host of YouTube's "Game Theory." Argument 4: Atheist portrayals of Christian views on free thought In the games, free thought is portrayed as a bad thing. Once Mega Man started actually thinking for himself, he tried to kill Dr. Wily. With all the other evidence hat these games are anti-Christian, this is probably a portrayal of the common atheist belief that Christianity shuns free thought. Conclusion Since this series is apparently portraying Satan as good, taking the atheist idea of God and portraying it as a good guy, and promoting the belief that Christianity shuns is anti-free thought, it is anti-Christian. Source: [1]-http://m.youtube.com...
Resolved: the old Mega Man games are anti-Christian.

I am in favor of the resolved and understand the BOP to be on me. Let's define "anti-Christian": Opposed to Christianity or Christian values [1]. Rules: 1. Please do not semanticize 2. No trolling 3. No swearing (substitute swearing counts too) 4. No name-calling 5. No getting even somewhat off the subject 6. No definition-twisting In short, please do not do anything that will turn this debate into a troll debate. Failure to comply will result in an automatic 7-point forfeit. Structure: R1: Acceptance/Con may argue first if they would like R2: Arguments/Rebuttal from Pro if Con argues first R3-5: Rebuttals Source: [1]- http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Education system of California.

This has truly been one of the oddest debates I have ever participated in. My opponent, Mellers23, has closed her account, so we're left with what we have now. It has come to my attention (via the comments section), that I may have seemed a little rude as well. If I was, I sincerely apologize. Any passion on my part was solely derived from Mellers23's abusive comments towards me. And as for my opening argument, I truly believe that my notes were of a helpful tone, and not in any way inflammatory. Regardless, you, the audience, most vote for me because I am the only debater who gave an argument whatsoever.
Education system of California.

It should be noted that nothing you have said in your last two posts have anything to do with the education system of California, the topic of this debate. You insist on talking about me -- never addressing the topic at hand. I would love for the debate to get back on track, and for you to stop pursuing my personal life. Please counter my arguments on R1 and come up with non-fallacious arguments. Please. ----- However, if I must indulge, I will address your many concerns about me: 1) Yes, I want to get better at debating. When doing so though, it is necessary to try to "win" debates. Thus, it is silly to come to the conclusion that I should not try to win when practicing debate. Simply put, I primarily want to become a better debater. By doing so, I must try to win debates. 2) Mellers23 writes that I am "unintelligent" because I used an organization's statistics from which I am not affiliated with. I am sorry if this has offended you, but I simply do not have the resources to come up with my own statistics and reports. And even if I did, you would call my reports biased. No, instead I have to rely on the information around me. This is common in debate let me assure you; there is nothing wrong with citing outside information. And most of all, that doesn't make me "unintelligent". 3) Yes. Your comments were abusive in the debate world. Calling me a "know-it-all", asserting that I am conceited, calling me a "chicken", and bringing my personal life into the picture (whether or not I have a girlfriend is completely unrelated to the education system of California) are all what is known as "abusive ad hominem". This is highly frowned upon and you should stay away from such behavior. 4) Debating is very beneficial actually. It promotes higher order thinking, logical skills, (in some cases) teamwork, public speaking skills, analytical skills, research skills, and note taking skills. ----- Let's assume that I am a doofus as you keep on hinting at. What does that have to do with the eduction system of California?! You, the audience, must vote for me because I am the only debater to have brought relevant arguments to the table.
Education system of California.

Teehee. I'm finishing these two 'debates' I have going on, and then deleting my account. I thought people had the capability to be a little more hospitable, but I guess not. Ok. You said, in both rounds, that the 'community' must vote for you. That tells me, that you care about how many votes you win. Don't ask me to forfeit, because I won't. Watching people try to prove they are right with 'research' amuses me. For the simple fact that the individual couldn't come to the conclusions themselves, they had to rely on someone else's intelligence. How intelligent is that? Now I don't know. If you think those comments were abusive, oh my wow. You don't know what verbal abuse is. Please, please relay to me the 'insults' that I used, because I really don't think anything I said was that hurtful. You may just want attention. And woah, votes! Every comment I made, about the 'community' and yourself, had a bit of truth in it somewhere, whether you don't want to admit it or you just don't know it. Just tell me...and I'm serious about this. No offense intended. What do you want to do in your life that will require such 'honed' debating skills? Will it really matter in 10 years how much an internet site favored you?