BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A capella is the correct form of worship

Ok, maybe next time. The glass is still half full. Extend all arguments, blah blah blah. Ill pretend he said thus: The bible condones it via the old testament. This argument states that in the book of Psalms ('Psalms' means songs), King David sung with instrumental accompaniment while he sang praise to the Lord. If my opponent says that we are to be instructed by the old law, then he must also prove that we must also sacrifice and hold to the ancient Israelite law. We are under the New Testament, not the old, we cannot use any sort of doctrine from the old testament, Jesus said it was done away with due to it being obsolete as it could only be applied to a single race of people. Of course, that's assuming my opponent would use that argument in his next round. That concludes imaginary rebuttals that I really shouldn't have done in hindsight. Concluding, my opponent has given very weak reasons as to why we should not use accapella, in fact, the computer has written more on his behalf than he has for himself. Go computer.
A capella is the correct form of worship

Extend all arguments. I feel like using this oportunity to launch a pre-emtive rebuttal. He is probably going to to say that God really doesnt care what we do in the church. I won't put too much effort into this because he might not use it, but whatever God says in the bible he expects to be done. According to scripture, which I won't search up for unless my opponent uses this argument, God does not tolerate the disobediant in the chruch and does not accept anything that is not condoned. I hope to hear my opponents case in the next round.
A capella is the correct form of worship

My opening argument is that since God does not condone it, it cannot be done. The Old law couldn't fit the expansion of God's attention to the rest of humanity after the Jewish nation ceased to be his chosen people. So the new covenant was made, for everyone else. Its that one which we are under. My opponent is pretty confident under the illusion that since Musical instruments are not found in the new testament, it is perfectly fine to do whatever we want. This is not true at all. Where the bible is silent, we must be silent too. Consider the Bible teaching about worship. John 4:23,24 - We must worship God in spirit and in truth. But God's word is truth (John 17:17), and all truth is revealed in the gospel (John 16:13). It follows that any practice is unacceptable if it is not included in the gospel. Matthew 15:9,13,14 - Worship is vain (worthless) when based on precepts of human origin. But every religious practice is based either on God's authority, or else on man's authority (Matthew 21:23-27). Since the Bible reveals everything that God ordained, then any practice which is not revealed in the gospel must be human in origin and therefore displeasing to God. [1] By adding extra to the commands which we are given, we explicitly ignore one of God's commands. For I testify unto every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book... (Revelation 22:18) So we see that is unacceptable to add anything to worship practices that are not condoned. [1]http://www.gospelway.com......
This House would subsidise news media outlets

This debate forms part of the Official DDO Prepared Championships for Summer 2013. Please see the forums for details. (http://www.debate.org...).FORMAT OF THE DEBATE:R1 will be acceptance only, with no new arguments to be introduced in R4. 8000 characters per round with a 72 hour response time, plus a voting period of 1 week.DEFINITION:News media outlet: A printed or audiovisual outlet of the mass media catered specifically to providing coverage of 'serious' news. For the purposes of this debate we will be referring to print news journalism (such as the New York Times), news radio stations (such as CBS Radio News), and news television channels (such as Fox News) or television news providers (such as Sky News in the UK).Any queries with regards to these definitions should be made in the comments section, so that they can be cleared up in Con's R1.Justin, I look forward to finally debating with you!
Deism is irrational

"Jesus" is a religious prophet who may or may not have existed. In this day in age he definitely exists in the bible and in the faith of individuals. He did not "open up space" he crossed the Jordan River. THIS IS CHRISTIANITY. A belief held by Christians. You can't say that DEISM is not very logically thought out because of the premises of a different religion. That's exactly like saying Atheism is not very logically thought out because God exists because of the bible. Or saying being Jewish doesn't make sense because Jesus is real and he is the son of God, the savior. You cannot falsify another religion because Christianity is "right." Christianity is not the basis for everything unless you believe in it. And not every one believes in Christianity. Your fact to argue that Deism doesn't make sense is that "God opened up space in the Jordan river for Jesus." Deists do not believe in God in that sense. They would not believe in that sentence for one, because after creation, deists believe, God became inactive in humanity. Second deists do not believe Jesus is the son of God, so this miracle did not happen to deists. Christianity is the basis of your fact which came from the bible. The bible is not FACT for everyone. So you can't say that Deism does not make sense just because it's not what you believe. You can't say that Deism is "not very logically thought out" solely on that fact that is doesn't coincide with the Bible. Science does not coincide with the bible, so I guess Science is "not very logically thought out" also. Please present other facts as to how "Deism is not very logically thought out" that do not pertain to the Bible or Christianity.
Deism is irrational

I am not condemning their beliefs and spouting their religious convictions just because it contradicts with my belief. It is just that: "If God no longer assumed control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomina, and giving no supernatural revelation, how did he open up space in the Jordan river for jesus to cross?" Please present proportional arguments as to how he opened up space in the Jordan river for jesus to cross (Unless you agree). And I may agree. I may have worded it incorrectly. Here's a replacement for the title: "Deism is not very logically thought out"
Deism is irrational

Deism is not a specific religion but rather a particular perspective on the nature of God. Deists believe that a creator god does exist, but that after the motions of the universe were set in place he retreated, having no further interaction with the created universe or the beings within it. As such, there are a variety of common religious beliefs that deists do not accept." To begin with you use the bible to support your argument. Your user name is TheAmazingAtheist1. Atheists do not believe in God. The bible is the word of God. Using the bible (the word of God) to make the argument that deism (the belief that God doesn't intervene) is "irrational", doesn't make sense. It's like attempting to define a word, but using that word in the definition. Science is more accurate than blind faith in the bible. Scientific facts are proven facts and can be proven throughout time. Finding a highly religious catholic or christian scientist is rare, but you do find scientists with faith. Faith and Religion are two different things. "Because God does not manifest himself directly, he can only be understood through the application of reason and through the study of the universe he created. Deists have a fairly positive view of human existence, stressing the greatness of creation and the faculties granted to humanity such as the ability to reason. As such, deists reject all forms of revealed religion. Any knowledge one has of God should come through their own understanding, experiences and reason, not the prophecies of others." Deists believe in reason and logic. For you to say that deism is irrational because of a "religious" book that is not backed by fact or science is absurd. Deism is rational. Your knowledge of God should be from your relationship with him. Not because of "miracles" preformed hundreds of years ago that shows the son of God was real, so you should believe in his father too. And in the end I feel that saying that any one's belief is "irrational" is wrong. People can believe what they want to believe. Even if it is proven through science. Even if it contradicts your beliefs completely. Everyone has their own reasoning. There is no need to force your beliefs of God or Atheism (can't tell because you can't make your mind up) onto other individuals. Condemning, judging, and looking down on others for their own personal ideas is irrational.
Deism is irrational

Deism is a belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind. I derived these contensions from a dictionary and the bible to support my argument. If God no longer assumed control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomina, and giving no supernatural revelation, how did he open up space in the Jordan river for Jesus to cross. There could possibly be an exception: If their definition of Deism is not precise and very specific.
Deism is irrational

The word of God is different in every religion. For Christians, the word of God is the bible. For Deists spirituality and God are in nature and in what God has given the world. Jews find God in the words of the Tanakh, primarily the Torah. Every religion views the word of God differently. The word of God is not universal to everyone. To say that Deists take the word of God, (referring to the bible), is false. The bible was created by man, as God spoke to him. According to Deists God does not intervene. Deists believe that the bible is not inspired by God. God is not a universal belief. He is different in every religion. You are proposing that because deist belief does not coincide with the word of God (the bible) it irrational. That is a Christian belief. So you are proposing that deism is irrational by the premise of Christianity.
Married Woman Working

Woman are not robots or slaves that are meant to do the same work day in and day out. Cooking and cleaning and taking care of the family is a repeated job that all woman step up and do. But woman now have an equality act which allows them to be seen as an equal partner in both the world and marriage. so why is it unacceptable for a woman to work? Woman are able to do both housework and keep a full time job. Like more than half the woman in the US that work the second shift which involves woman to work a full time morning shift then comes home to be a full time mother, wife and housekeeper. Woman can and should be treated as an equal member in both society and marriage. if the husband is unable to make ends meet on his own, the woman will place herself into a position that will improve the families status. If that means to work hard to work two jobs, for being a full time mother and wife is a full time job, a woman will do just that. Not only will this improve the families financial status, but will make the marriage a better relationship for it will cause the man to be relieved of some stress and the family as a whole will be happier. For, according to divorce lawyers, money issues is main component to divorce among marriage couples. In conclusion, woman are strong individuals that are able to work multiple jobs and still be a good full time mother. They are able to make sure the house is running properly and make it to work to bring home some money and then turn the mask to become a mother to help her children with schoolwork and cook for her husband and family. Multiple woman in the world are great mothers and wives are still work a full time job, so there is no reason as to why that should change now.
Married Woman Working

To wrap up my argument woman today are changing there status in the world and it will affect their relationship with their husband and children. They will try to strip men from their duties and not be a motherfigure to their kids. Its not how marriages are suppose to work history has always shown this and history will always repeat itself. I fell bad for the young children in todays society that dont have the love from their mothers and for the youn girls today who never learn the chores of a grown woman. I hope men are able to find a woman who does not feel the need to work, to be a mother figure, and do the chores that a woman is expected to do.
Married Woman Working

Yes, statistics show that men are happier when they have a wife that is going to help release some of the pressure they have to priced for their families financially. And there are plenty of woman that work full time and still are able to come home and put dinner on the table. Being a woman means making sacrifices and they will do everything they can to help their family. And why shouldn't two people that love each other be together if one can't support his wife or children. Your statement is proven wrong by looking at all the married couples that live in the word. In the US alone more than half the married couples each have a job and they are living healthy relationships and marriages. If your statement was right, the entire world would practically be single. Given that some men are able to make enough money to support there family, but most aren't and need assistance in order to survive.
Married Woman Working

You say that men are happier when there wife has a job? I dont think a man would like to come from work with no food on the table or his house that he bought not clean. I also dont think he would a like his wife out while he is at work with all the affairs that go on in todays society. Two idividuals should not be together if one can not support his wife or their children. The man or woman should get his or hers priorty and life in check. Because honestly a long life of stuggle and finincial issues is a head if the man can not support a family and the woman has to work. Children really need a motherfigure around them especially the younger woman who need to learn the chores of a wife and mother. If you look at families today look at the grandmothers the old fashion woman. They are the best cookes they nourish the best because the woman who taught them before them. Look at men from the past they have started from nothing and made themselves a life and a family that they could support never asking their woman to work.
Married Woman Working

Due to an unstable economy, if a man is unable to support his family, it is perfectly reasonably to for the woman to pick up a job. This is not the middle ages, woman doe not need to only cook and clean. History is not always right!! I would like to see where you get that statistics please because according to Doug Hoyes from the firm of Hoyes Michalos, & Associates Inc., Trustees in Bankruptcy, Hoyes says that 40 percent of his clients file divorce from stress due to their financial problems. Even when both couples are working, in the recession, even two pay checks are unable to reach ends meet. I am not going against the bible but when do the household needs help, there is nothing wrong with helping. And my two people contributing to a household, it is not greed, it is a smart decision.
Married Woman Working

Woman need to support their family by being a motherfigure! Cooke and clean the only time woman shoudl work and pick up jobs in when men are it war just as history shows us. Statistics also show that divorce right are at its highest point one of the reasoning being that both the man and the woman work causing stress and no time for the both of them and there children. The bible says that greed and money will destroy a couple so let the man do the work and do not worry about picking up a job so you can help the family because that will desttroy your marriage. If you love your husband than dont worry about how much money he is bringing home. If you say children do not need to have money to be happy than why is there mothing trying to bring more money in?
Married Woman Working

There is no problem woman recieving in education as matter of fact it makes them a better wife and mother. The problem in todays scoiety is that woman feel they need to take on a job so that they are as impowered as men. Woman in todays society feel that doing chores and staying home is old fashioned and boring. They decide to take up a job so they are not bored or in their mind being unuseful. They take away jobs from the the men and single woman that need a profession to make money. With such a high unmpleyomnet rate this ecnomy can not have woman working because they are bored when they have a husband that should be supporting them. It is understnable that one must support their family but each individual knows their finicial status. Your telling me that it is smart for a woman and a man to get married if the man can not support her. And speaking of family, husbands and wifes make it a priority to have kids when they are not capable of supporting children. That is not smart for the family all together, think about the children and what they must go through. Men should be ashamed if they can not support their wife and have her working to put food on the table. I can understand the notion that love overpowers all but think about all the pressure and lack of time if a man and woman work. Where is the love? When is there time? Woman shoudl stick by their husband and let him put the food on the table. Woman today are forgetting about their chores and starting to pick up work. Now all the younger girls in society look up to these woman and think that they dont have to clean cook etc. And its proven true in todays society look at all the woman that do not know how to cook or clean or do chores. They rely on a "nanny" Putting a stranger to take care of your children and to do a mothers chore is unacceptable. A woman deatches herself from her kids and strips herself of that motherfigure.
Married Woman Working

In 1950 26 percent of married woman in the US worked and in the mid-1980's, that number rose to 67 percent. Due to the bad economy, more woman are entering the work force to provide for their families, an instinct all mother have; to care and give to her family. Why should that change when it comes to caring for the families finances? In fact, according to the Chicago Tribune two-thirds of woman handle the family bills. This could be due to a woman's nurturing and passive attitude. Also, it is proved that married men are happier when their wives work because it takes the burden of them bring home one pay check to feed the family. Now that there are two checks coming in to one house, it is easier for the man to relax and not have as much pressure when it was just him providing financially for the family. And yet, with so many married woman in the workforce, children are still being taken care of. Woman tend to work a second shift job, that is going to 9-5 pm job and then coming home and playing the mommy and wife role. Many woman do it, in fact from my own household, all the ladies work and then come home to cook, clean, and care for their families. Woman tend to take on so much because they are engraved with this passive attitude to help and care, helping her family out financially is just another way they are taking care of their spouse and children. As for losing connection with her children, most moms continue to come home to help children with their studies, fix their beds, and make sure they are in bed to be up the next morning for school. And if she happens to run late from work one night, why can't the father help? As far a I am aware, it takes two to make a child, so why can't the father help out? If the fathers would help the mother out, there is no reason as to why the child should suffer or become distant from his/her parents. There is a reason why woman where given equality rights. They are just as capable as men to work. As for history, there is a reason it is "history" or in the passed, because it was a mistake we can all look back on and not repeat. History tells us that girls were not allowed to go to school either because they needed to be home and learn chores, or that blacks were meant to work outside and be slaves. In the 17-19th century the color of an African Americans skin was thought of to be convenient to stay out in the sun at long period of time, history and science have proved that wrong. So why can't woman working be wrong as well? Are you saying that history is right only in some cases?
Married Woman Working

Any woman that is married and have kids should not work and be a stay at home mom. The reasons for this is that woman need to realize that the man is suppose to support the family while the woman takes care of the house and children. Woman working only hurt the kids and the marrage. The kids are left without a mother figure and the husband does not come home to his wife where he can spend time with her. A mother working is not involved in her childrens life and can cause that child to distint his or herself. Being a wife and working only takes time away from your husband and the chores a wife should complete. Those chores would be cleaning cooking etc. When a woman works she forgets about those chores and loses those skills which ever woman should master. History shows that the man has always worked and the woman were always home why should that change?