BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
atheists don't have objective morals

How is it possible for an objective morality to contradict it's self? Atheistic morals "contradict" its self because there are atheist who have different morals than other atheist. Christian morals can't "contradict" its self because all Christians tend to follow the same objective moral code. They can't just make up their own like atheist. Christians morals aren't subjective or opinionated. They get their morals from an objective source. It's not opinionated, thus it'll be impossible for a Christian to contradict their own moral code with another Christian since they believe the exact same thing. They can IGNORE their objective morals, but they can't really "contradict" it.
atheists don't have objective morals

Christians do in fact have an objective morality. The bible is the objective source of morals to them. They know why things are right and wrong because they get their SOURCE of morality from the bible/ their God. The same can't be said for atheism because morality is only subjective to them. If an atheist were to just randomly make up his own moral code then it'll all be opinionated. Christians or other religions tend to get their source of morality from somewhere, thus making it objective, while atheist don't, thus making it subjective. If an atheist were to right a book of his own moral code, then another could write one that is completely different. It'll be all subjective to an atheist.
atheists don't have objective morals

Christians don't have objective morals,they're just following orders like the Nazis- that's not morallity. The basis of this argument is that Christians have a book, the bible, which decides morality for them, whilst Atheism has no official book, but this is just non sequitur- al an atheist has to do is get, or write, his own moral code, and this arguent falls flat on the ground.
gay people should be equal to everyone else

To open, I would like to set a standard of calling "gay people" homosexuals or referring to them as the LGBT community. Now, I am not a bigot, and, as if it were relevant, I am gay, so I do not want people to think I am a bigot. Now let me start with a definition of equal that will be used and accepted throughout this debate. -Equal: being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value. Under this definition, the Pro must argue that homosexuals should be the same in quantity, size, degree or value. I look forward to the debate.
the Pittsburgh Steelers are fare more superior than the New England Patriots

In the article about the Patriots cheating, this is also said. ". I'm quite sure every other team has tried to steal signals, play books, cheerleader routines, and any other competitive edge they might be able to get their hand on. " So were the Patriots caught cheating during one game? Yes. Were they the only team that did it Most likely not. My opponent points out that the Steelers have won more Super Bowls than any other team. However, that does not necessarily make them the best. Before the beginning of the Steeler's dynasty in 1971, they had made the playoffs one time in thirty-eight season. Before the beginning of the "Brady Dynasty" in 2001, the Patriots had been to the playoffs ten times in forty years, including a Super Bowl appearance. The Patriots have been to the Super Bowl only one less time than the Steelers, but they lost to some great teams, including the '96 Packers, a team loaded with offensive talent, and the '85 Chicago Bears, the best defense to ever play, with Walter Payton on the other side of the ball. My opponent also inquires as to how many of the Patriot's Super Bowl wins have been won fairly. Even if the Patriots have cheated on more games than we know about, which is pure speculation, it is doubtful they would have been able to take pictures of the playbooks of teams in the NFC. Remember, under the scheduling rules, the Patriots only play each NFC team once every four years. That's a rather small window of opportunity. "Tomlin's .688 winning percentage (22-10) after two years is the best in Steelers history. " Bill Belichick has a 116-45 record with the Patriots, which is a .720 winning percentage. He is also the most experienced head coach in the NFL, with 35 seasons under his belt. Also, Mike Tomlin has a 31-17 record and a .646 winning percentage. So far, my opponent has brought up many good points, and I completely agree with him when he says the Steelers ar a great team and a great franchise. However, so are the Patriots, and nothing says the Steelers are "far superior" to the Patriots.
the Pittsburgh Steelers are fare more superior than the New England Patriots

I apologize for my mistake in saying Big Ben had only won one Super Bowl. I was wrong. Now onto my opponent's other points. "Hines Ward is by far one of their best recivers, with 17 recived passes 2 touchdowns this year will be one of his best." Wes Welker already has 33 receptions and 3 touchdowns. Deion Branch already has almost one hundred yards, and has only played one game. The Steeler's receiving core is simply not better than the Patriot's. "Steelers saftey Troy Polamalu in notably one of the best players the Steelers have. This is fact because in the 2009 season Troy was out most of the season, and the Steelers were not so good. This proves that he is one of the best safteys the Steelers have. This Year alone Troy already has 27 combined tackles." Patriot's Free Safety Pat Chung already has 47 combined tackles, and has 2 interceptions as well, one of which he returned for a touchdown. Ben has only played one game so far this year, and although he performed well and won, he beat the 1 and 5 Cleveland Browns, a team with the 21st ranked passing defense in the NFL. Meanwhile, Tom Brady has beaten passing defenses ranked 3rd (Ravens), 10th (Buffalo), 12th (Miami), and 13th (Cincinnati) [1]. The only game he lost, he still topped 200 yards through the air, and threw 2 Touchdowns. [1] http://www.nfl.com...
the Pittsburgh Steelers are fare more superior than the New England Patriots

My opponent has stated that Ben Roethlisberger has only won one super bowl this is not true. Ben one his first Super Bowl in 2005 agenst the Seatle Seahawks and again in 2009 agenst the Arizona Cardinals. So the stastement that "Tom Brady is every bit as good, if not better than Ben Roethlisberger , having led his team to four Super Bowls, three of which he won, compared to Ben's one Super Bowl victory. " The Pittsburgh Steelers have won more Superbowls ( 6 to be exact) than any other franchise in the leauge. Ben has not won alot of superbowls as Brady has , but in part i am talking about the teams as a whole. The Steelers defense (Steel Curtan) was concived in the 1970s and was notably said to be the best deffense line of all time. Steelers saftey Troy Polamalu in notably one of the best players the Steelers have. This is fact because in the 2009 season Troy was out most of the season, and the Steelers were not so good. This proves that he is one of the best safteys the Steelers have. This Year alone Troy already has 27 combined tackles. Hines Ward is by far one of their best recivers, with 17 recived passes 2 touchdowns this year will be one of his best. Ben has been out for four games and the team has won three out of four of those games. This proves that although Tom Brady has played longer, the querterback doesnt make the team the team makes the querterback.
the Pittsburgh Steelers are fare more superior than the New England Patriots

Good luck. The Pittsburgh Steelers are not far superior to the New England Patriots for a variety of reasons. The first, is record. Both teams hold a 4 and 1 record. However, I'm guessing my opponent is judging teams on more than their records. Let's look at the positions on each team. Tom Brady is every bit as good, if not better than Ben Rothliserger, having led his team to four Super Bowls, three of which he won, compared to Ben's one Super Bowl victory. In the backfield, the Patriots have gained 616 rushing yards this year, compared to the 655 of the Steelers. The Steelers are better, but not so much better that they deserve to be called far superior. Plus, The Patriots have depth, with three backs having played and gained yards in three or more games, compaed to the Steeler's one. The Patriots have a good receiving core, consisting of veteran Wes Welker (3 TDs), former Super Bowl MVP Deion Branch (98 yards in 1 game), and rookie Aaron Hernandez (301 yards). Compare this to the Steeler's receivers. Hines Ward and Mike Wallace have a combined 520 yards and 5 touchdowns, which is 50 yards less than Welker and Hernandez. Again, the Steelers are good, but not far superior. The Patriot's defense does pale in comparison to the "Steel Curtain," but the Pats make up for this by leading the league in points per game, and gaining an average 354.2 yards per game, compared to Pittsburgh's 291.2, which is 28th in the NFL. The third part of football is special teams, and the Patriots are excellent in this area, having a punter who booted one 65 yards, and has kicked four inside the 20 so far. They have two kick return TD's, and over 600 kick return yards by Brandon Tate. They also blocked a punt and a field goal in a 41-14 stomping of the Dolphins. In short, yes the Steelers are a good team, Super Bowl contenders in my opinion, but so are the Patriots, and neither team is far out and away better than the other one.
Religion should be taken out of the USA government

I am not a foreigner. I don't know why you would come to this conclusion. My knowledge in USA government and politics is concise. 2. I am not prolife or anti LGBT. I am not saying that having those beliefs are bad, however I am saying that religious beliefs affect the actions of the government, due to its inequality in government. According to this source, (below) there is already inequality in the senate. This inequality introduces a certain bias. Being Christians hold those specific beliefs, them being the majority, affects the laws and ideas issued. Source used: https://www.washingtonpost.com... Even though, not only Christians are anti LGBT, there is an overwhelming percent that is. It is a major belief of Christianity for the opposition of LGBTQ. According to you, America was founded on Christian principles? Which are those? To be a good person? If so, that is not Christian. That's common sense. A few of our founding fathers have said quotes that contradict that belief. For example, "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." --John Adam "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man"- Thomas Jefferson This is merely one debate, yet with complex aspects of it. It's somewhat layered.
Religion should be taken out of the USA government

I will refute your arguments in the same form you did. I am an American so no need to explain things that a foreigner wouldn't know about. 1. There is religious diversity everywhere, I believe that what you are saying there is that Christianity is already declining out of the government and that it should be sped up, this is to broad of an argument therefore I cannot, and will not refute it. 2. Are you saying that being pro life is a bad thing? This whole debate could turn into an anti abortion debate if we let it but I will request this, that you give me one decent, logical reason of why an unborn child should be killed. While LGBT lifestyles have been worming there way into American culture, even non Christians see it as wrong, detestable, and disgusting. I think that your arguments look good at a glance but they are much to broad, this debate is 3 separate, smaller debates. My point for you; The USA was founded on Christian PRINCIPLES, not Christianity itself. The founding fathers recognized that something like this would happen and founded the USA accordingly. So while there are, and are supposed to be, Christian morals and principles in the government, the religion itself is not part of the government. I am not trying to contradict myself. I am simply pointing out the facts. I myself am pro-life and anti LGBT. To any of you following or just glancing over this debate, My opponents arguments look good but when you have to refute them, you realize that this is more than just one debate.
Religion should be taken out of the USA government

I'm glad that you've accepted my debate :) Okay, I'll separate my argument into two separate points. 1. According to this source, America is growing with religious diversity. The major religion praised in government is Christianity and due to this growing diversity, it is not just to exclude over religions. Christian beliefs are everywhere in the USA government. For example, the money we use here says "In God We Trust," there is prayer in public schools, and "Under God" is in the pledge of allegiance. Sources for first point: http://www.pewforum.org... http://www.alternet.org... 2. One specific religion in government comes with its own bias. A few beliefs held by Christians that affects the way USA is run are: -Prolife -Stance on LGBT (Lesbian, gay, bi, trans) Of course, not all Christians follow the bible very literally, however the bible does affect few aspects in government. Evidence for bible against specific beliefs: On abortion: Well, I've been looking for a quote directly saying abortion is wrong in the bible, but I can't find anything. According to a source I've found (listed), "The unborn is a person" and "murder is wrong." They say, without evidence, that fetuses are persons. I won't be getting into that, however. LGBT 1: "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." Leviticus 18:22 LGBT 2: "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." Genesis 1:27 NIV This belief is not exactly trans friendly. According to LGBT and allies, gender is more than two. Sources for second point: https://carm.org... I am not specifically saying that trusting that religion is okay in the government because people may depend on these religious beliefs, but I feel that having so much of it in the government introduces an chance of unfairness. To sum up so far: -religious diversity -bias
Religion should be taken out of the USA government

I specified AND made a MASSIVE deal about the USA not being FOUNDED on Christianity but with Christian principles. I don't know why In the world you would assume something that I blatantly made clear in the simplest way possible. These principles were put into place for the reasons that you have permitted into this argument such as LGBT and abortion. You don't realize that this is precisely why the founding fathers made it this way. I rest my case and hope that my opponent can realize that these are the things the founding fathers despised.
premarital sex shouldn't be considered wrong per the old testament

Pre-Marital Sex shall be referred to as PMS for the duration of this debate at least on my part. Please don't take it to mean Post-Menstrual stress, thank you.What the debate actually isWhether or not PMS should be considered 'wrong' via the viewpoint of the Old Testament.What Pro portrays the debate asWhether or not The Old Testament prohibits PMS.The Old Testament's verdict on PMSDeuteronomy 22:21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.1 Corinthians 6:15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! (16) Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”1 Corinthians 6:18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.Romans 12:17 Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody.2 Corinthians 8:21 For we are taking pains to do what is right, not only in the eyes of the Lord but also in the eyes of men.1 Thessalonians 4:12 so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders.#1 Timothy 5:14 So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander.My Explanation of the Old Testament's Verdict and why it leads to the resolution being falseThe Old Testament, in the line I quoted, has displayed that not only is PMS one of the worst sins one can commit as it is a sin that is inflicted on oneself so that one not only removes their worth in the eyes of God and fellow people but also is the victim of their own wrongdoing and so is punished from all angles imaginable. The quote supporting this is 1 Corinthians 6:18.What is also very apparent in the Old Testament is that what people think can be just as important, if not more important, than what God himself thinks of you. It is so much so that in 1 Timothy 5:14 it is directly concluded from this that marrying first, having children and living the typical nuclear family household lifestyle would be the undeniably most advisable lifestyle for widows to go for (meaning even after their husband died, they should strive again to never resort to out-of-marriage sex).While Pro is correct that the Old Testament never once outright bans PMS, they are incorrect that there are not a variety of quotes in the Old Testament that would undeniable lead one to look down on and stay well away from PMS and anyone who advocates it.
Debate should be considered a recreational activity, rather than educational

There is alot of dispute on whether debate in itself should be considered educational rather than recreational. I will be arguing on the PRO side of this debate. DEFINITIONS Recreational: 1. Refreshment by means of some pastime, agreeable exercise, or the like. 2. A pastime, diversion, exercise, or other resource affording relaxation and enjoyment. http://dictionary.reference.com... Educational: 1. Pertaining to education. 2. Tending or intended to educate, instruct, or inform: an educational show on television. http://dictionary.reference.com... ARGUMENTS 1. As far as education goes, debates generally provide nothing substantially tangible for educational. Any one arguing against some one else, usually knows everything about the topic they are arguing about before hand. So when the actual debate comes in, basically it's just a constant clash of opinions. 2. People are generally ignorant. An individuals opinion is formed from what they grown up seeing from those closest to them. People generally seem to stay with that opinion they were brought to believe. When they are disproved on an argument, human nature is to find any other possible route to refute the said argument. What this does, is just extend arguments. Neither of the individuals, actually learn anything from the experience, however both can find the debate entertaining, thus being a recreational activity. 3. A great example of debate being recreational, is this very site. A1: The vast majority of people on this sites are teenagers. It is a very rare occasion, when one can find a teenager doing something educational on their own time. A2: Most of the people on this site, spend ALOT of time on this site. Obviously these people must think that debate is fun in some sort, or else they would not spend so much time on it. A3: The argument may come up that people come on this site to learn from other peoples debate. However, some people think that learning CAN be fun, thus entertainment. It is apparent that in every way shape and form, that debate is more recreational, than educational. I would like to thank whoever accepts this debate. It should be fun and simple. Thankyou -Philosophical
cellphones

Cellphones are a wonderful device that can do many things. Some keep you in contact with others, some entertain you with apps, some tell you the time. This does not mean phones are always helpful though. School, just like phones, is very helpful in life. It provides you with a education that will in turn help you get a job that you might keep for the rest of your life. This educational process would be ruined if phones were allowed. Children who need to pay attention to learn would now be on their phones, missing out on the helpful things being said. While a phone may provide you with short term happiness opposed to the sometimes boring school lessons, long term it will have bad effects. Would you trade a nice job and a house for some texting during school? Is it your dream to work at a fast food restaurant? If either of your answers was "NO" then vote against having phones during school. Thank you.
NASCAR or Football

Almost every sport in the world has had injuries. So you are right about that. But if you put your feet in their shoes, you would probably like to be in the sport with less injuries. I would estimate that about 99% of the population would like to not get hurt. (Unless they are crazy) but yes again. This is all opinion. And it's not that I don't like football it's just that I think NASCAR should have more fans than football. Thank you for your time and for the best of your luck. Thank you readers and commenters and I hope the voters will make the right decision on this topic without bias. Thank you!
NASCAR or Football

That's one of the main things you think about when you think of football. But think of all of the injuries. The average injury rate of 1 football game is about 3 per game. While in NASCAR even thought you reach speeds of 200 miles per hour, you rarely ever get injuries. If you exclude a couple of hard crashes. You barely even see any. NASCAR is a much safer sport even though it seems much more dangerous. And I respect your opinion about which sports you like better. We all have different opinions, but I'm just listing the reasons why NASCAR is more exciting than football.
NASCAR or Football

I respect your opinion. But i find football to be the better sport. First of all, its a very athletically demanding sport, NASCAR just requires you to be able to drive well. I also find Football to be more fun to watch due to the fact that its high-impact. Players ram into each other at high speeds over a pig-skin ball. Call me barbaric if you will, but I do not see any enjoyment in watching 30 or so cars with brand-name logos slapped on them drive in a giant oval for 3 hours.