BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homosexual Marriage

-Marriage is a religious, accodrding to the bible gay marriage is against religion." 'Whose religion? Many mainstream Christian denominations, to be sure, and definitely most branches of Islam and Orthodox Judaism, but outside those, most religions are unopposed to gay marriage, and many actually favor it. When the Mormon church arrogantly claimed to represent all religions in the Baehr vs. Lewin trial in Hawaii, the principal Buddhist sect in that state made it very clear that the Mormon church didn't represent them, and made it very clear that they support the right of gay couples to marry. That particular Buddhist sect claims many more members in Hawaii than does the Mormon church. In a society that claims to offer religious freedom, the use of the power of the state to enforce private religious sensibilities is an affront to all who would claim the right to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience. Somehow, I always thought that freedom of religion implied the right to freedom from religion as well. The Bible has absolutely no standing in American law, as was made clear by the intent of the First Amendment (and as was very explicitly stated by the founding fathers in their first treaty, the Treaty of Tripoli, in 1791) and because it doesn't, no one has the right to impose rules anyone else simply because of something they perceive to be a moral injunction mandated by the Bible. Not all world religions have a problem with homosexuality; many sects of Buddhism, for example, celebrate gay relationships freely and would like to have the authority to make them legal marriages. In that sense, their religious freedom is being infringed. If one believes in religious freedom, the recognition that opposition to gay marriage is based on religious arguments is reason enough to discount this argument. ' "-Civil Unions are not religons, so what is wrong with homosexual civil unions." Are you contradicting yourself here? The United States Constitution guarantees equality for all. As you can see, marriage and civil unions are not the same. Creating equal access to marriage is the only fair way to ensure equality for gay and straight couples alike. Sources: http://maxweber.hunter.cuny.edu... http://www.economist.com...
Living in the City vs living in the Country (rural setting)

I'd like to ask what city you're referring to. I've never seen a city that has such strict laws and regulations. Not only that, but I don't understand why anyone would call the police in for such an absurd reason. If anything, you should have named this debate "Is living in MY city better than living in the country?" Because that would've changed a lot. Not every city is like that. Different cities have different people and different rules. Just because you don't like living in that city doesn't mean wouldn't enjoy living in any other cities. "There is no parking on the street over 5 hours or you get a ticket." Unless you live near a hospital, school, police department, etc, that rule wouldn't apply. If you live somewhere farther away from places like that, you can park there as long as you want. I always see people with parked cars outside of their houses 24/7 in the city. There are only parking meters and limits on time in front of those designated places. "If I want to run around naked in the field I can because nobody will see me and complain or call the cops." "Hey, I can run naked if I want in the country-" I'm not sure why you keep bringing up this point. Maybe the reason you actually want to move to the country is so you can run around naked. But hey, that's none of my business. "The people are way nicer and more genuine in the country as opposed to the rat race, everyone for themselves in the city." Again, this is a biased opinion. Not all people in the city are mean, grouchy, terrible people. There are a lot of nice people in the city. Like I said before, it just depends on what city you live in and what the conditions are in that area.
Living in the City vs living in the Country (rural setting)

Here is the problem with our debate, geography, it all depends where you live if you are comparing suburbs of a 50,000 people town or a 5 million city. I happen to live in a city of 3.5 million people and living in the suburbs. Now, laws, by-laws vary also depending on the country, state, city. The points I brought up are for suburbs of a city of 3.5 million people, space is very limited and all the points relate to myself living there. I have had cops show up in the afternoon because my music was too loud, I have had the fire department show up at my neighbors because he had a fire in the back and the by-law states no fires unless you are cooking something. There is no parking on the street over 5 hours or you get a ticket, houses have a single driveway so you can't fit a second car. Traffic is 24 hours a day, like L.A. and for these reasons I say living in the country is better. I grew up in the country and moved to the city because of a job but I'm planning on returning to the country eventually because of the points I made about living in the country. Hey, I can run naked if I want in the country and the people are way nicer and more genuine in the country as opposed to the rat race, everyone for themselves in the city.
Living in the City vs living in the Country (rural setting)

1. "The suburbs suck because, houses are next to each other, you have to watch the noise level because some neighbor will call the cops." That's not really true. I don't know what kind of neighbors you have, but when you're being noisy, their first reaction isn't going to be "I'm gonna call the cops." Most of the time, they'll just leave you alone. And if they are being disturbed by the noise level, they might just tell you to turn it down a bit. But the only chances of this happening are at night. In the afternoon, you an have as much fun as you want. There's nobody trying to sleep, so nobody's going to care. 2. "You have a limit of parking spaces." Not really. Depending on the size of your garage and your driveway. Most people can fit two cars in the garage and two in the driveway if they had the money. Considering you aren't exactly "rich enough" to buy more than 4 cars, it shouldn't be a problem. 3. "Parking on the street will get you a ticket." Parking on the street will not get you a ticket. I don't know where you heard this, but it's definitely not true. You'll only get a ticket if you park in front of a fire hydrant, if you're blocking someone's driveway, or if there's one of those special reasons for bus pick up and drop off near schools or by the street. Other than that, you can park wherever you want. 4. "No bonfires in the suburbs, the cinders might catch your neighbors house on fire and he will call the fire department and you will get a $500 fine for burning in the burbs." Again, I don't know where you got this from. You can have bonfires if you want. Nobody cares if you have a bonfire in your yard. The cinders cant catch your neighbors' house on fire unless you make the fire a foot away from their house. The sparks from the fire die out about 2 seconds after they leave the base of the fire, and a spark or an ember wouldn't be enough to set a brick house on fire anyways. 5. "Leaving for work in the morning and being stuck in a heard of traffic at the first light from your subdivision because every other Tom, Dick and Harry are on their way to work also, so it essentially takes you 20 minutes just to get to the highway which is 2 minutes away from your house." If you want to avoid a traffic jam, just leave your house earlier. You leave your house late, get stuck in traffic, and expect to get to work on time. Just leave your house early and you'll have all the time in the world to get to work. Even if you do get stuck in traffic, you'll have lots of time to spare. Then again, the likelihood of getting stuck in traffic isn't very high anyways.
Living in the City vs living in the Country (rural setting)

In the country I have all the space I need, I can have loud bonfire parties, I can park 30 cars all around my house because I have the space, I can grow my own food because I have fields. I still have all the comforts of the city, or suburbs like Internet, phone, tv cable and the big one privacy!! If I want to run around naked in the field I can because nobody will see me and complain or call the cops. The suburbs suck because, houses are next to each other, you have to watch the noise level because some neighbor will call the cops, you have a limit of parking spaces, parking on the street will get you a ticket, bylaws to follow like having your lawn not over certain height, no bonfires in the suburbs, the cinders might catch your neighbors house on fire and he will call the fire department and you will get a $500 fine for burning in the burbs. No privacy, hope you have good blinds because all the neighbors will be gawking when they walk their dog past your house. And the big issue we can't forget, leaving for work in the morning and being stuck in a heard of traffic at the first light from your subdivision because every other Tom, Dick and Harry are on their way to work also, so it essentially takes you 20 minutes just to get to the highway which is 2 minutes away from your house.
Living in the City vs living in the Country (rural setting)

I am going to debate for living in the country as opposed to a city. Some of my points will include, all the space in the country, way lower crime, no noise or pollution. Everybody knows everyone, people are relaxed and nicer in the country. Let me know why you would want to live in a cramped 500 sq ft condo in a big city with noise, crime and crowds and traffic jams, no thank you
RESOLVED: Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism.

I affirm the resolution, RESOLVED: Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism. For clarification of this debate round, I offer the following definitions: Anthropocentrism: considering human beings as the most significant entity of the universe Biocentrism: considering all forms of life as having intrinsic value Intrinsic value: value that a thing has "in itself," or "for its own sake," or "as such," or "in its own right." Extrinsic value: value that is not intrinsic; that which has value not for its own self, but for the sake of something else My value for this round will be utilitarianism, the theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number. The criterion with which I will be defending my value is that of life, defined as a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings. Contention 1 – Affirming maximizes life A. According to the theory of enlightened anthropocentrism, also known as prudential anthropocentrism, all the moral duties we have towards the environment and other species are derived from our direct duties to its human inhabitants. B. Humans have a vested interest in the protection of other species and the environment. If other species cease to exist, human civilization would not survive because of the lack of available organisms for food. C. In order for humans to exist, other species must thrive as well. D. Therefore, anthropocentrism strives to maximize the amount of life, thus achieving utilitarianism. Contention 2 – Biocentrism causes the loss of life A. Biocentrism states that each organism has its own intrinsic worth. This is impossible. When an organism is used as a means to further the ends of another organism, it no longer has intrinsic worth. For example, antibiotics, which are introduced to the human body to combat pathogenic bacteria, contain bacteria themselves. Under biocentrism, this bacteria, in the antibiotic drug has an intrinsic value in and of itself, and therefore cannot be used to advance the purposes of any other organism. Under this though process, the production of antibiotics would need to be halted, thus causing the loss of life. B. According to Dr. Richard J. Whitley, president of Infectious Diseases Society of America and professor at University of Alabama at Birmingham, antibiotics are responsible for having saved millions of human lives as well as animal lives. C. Therefore, only through valuing anthropocentrism above biocentrism can life be preserved and so utilitarianism achieved.
A homosexual person cannot be Christian.

"So remember this: since God condemns sinfulness, you cannot love God if you practice the sin." I thought we were all sinners? We were born sinners? Like I said before, being homosexual is not always a choice. In order to be religious all you have to do is believe in a organized belief structurer and believe in god(s). Based on the definition of religion at least. I assume you believe god created us all? Well, as studies show, (I stated them in my previous round) gay people don't always chose to be gay. Why did god create gay people like that? Why did god create mankind to be gay? Its not always because they chose to be gay. They had no choice of their sexual orientation in the first place. " Besides, it's definitely a choice that you get married gay, and that's the main problem here if I'm not mistaken." Actually, as the title states, it is "A homosexual person cannot be Christian." It has nothing to do with marriage. Yes, marrying gay is a choice. Your biological sexual orientation is not always a choice. "Here's the thing: if a Christian chooses to be gay, that's immoral in God's eyes and the two lifestyles contradict each-other." Well, there are many things that are immoral in god's eyes, yet they are still considered Christian. "There are six things the Lord hate seven that are detestable to him haughty eyes lying tongue,hands that shed innocent blood heart that devises wicked schemes,feet that are quick to rush into evil a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community"-Proverbs 6:16-19 Lets face it. No one in human history has never told a lie. It is a child's motivation to lie, to escape punishment. A study asked two people to talk to each other for ten minutes. After the tape rolled, they were surprised how many little lies came out. (http://curiosity.discovery.com...) How exactly can you blame the gay person because of their sexual orientation, when they don't always have a choice? (Based on the studies i presented in my previous round). Thank you for your reply! I too enjoy this debate immensely, and am impressed with tour arguments.
A homosexual person cannot be Christian.

Now this round will be all rebuttals. "I would like to point out that, sinners can be repented and granted eternal life, if they believe in Jesus. Will a benevolent god, who understands every action that you take, really send you to hell, based on your sexual orientation?" A sinner is not repenting if they say sorry to God but keep sinning. God says gay marriage is sin, right? So remember this: since God condemns sinfulness, you cannot love God if you practice the sin. I get this off of the Bible. But where else would I get it from? Trust me, God doesn't WANT to send anybody to Hell, but we live in a world of free will and we have a choice to serve Him and repent (correctly), or serve the world and ignore Him. You cannot go to Heaven just because you think homosexuality isn't a sin and you "repented." http://www.scripturessay.com... "...god will forget about that how much of a good person you are, that you devoted your life to Jesus, yet based on your sexual orientation, a benevolent god will forget all of those things?" You are not a "good" person in God's eyes if you are purposefully sinning. You did not devote your life to Jesus if your lifestyle is against what Jesus said. "If you say that gays chose to be gay, why would they exactly chose to be gay?" OK...well I don't think people who come out gay think it's a bad thing themselves. But I ask you then, why would they want to be Christian if they know what the outcome will be? Besides, it's definitely a choice that you get married gay, and that's the main problem here if I'm not mistaken. http://www.thepartyofchoice.com... "If they chose to be gay, how is it immoral? I have a strong feeling that you believe that it is immoral just because a ancient religious book says so?" Yes. But it's not just an ancient book, and I've been stressing this throughout the debate multiple times. I will do it again: the Bible is the Christian's guide to life. Without it, we are making our faith' into a 'blind faith,' and we have no understanding of who/what God is. If we do not trust the Bible than can we truly trust God? Then we must converse about immorality. Here's the thing: if a Christian chooses to be gay, that's immoral in God's eyes and the two lifestyles contradict each-other. This is why you have to decide if you want to be Christian or keep living "gay." As a Christian you believe that God created us, but how'd you learn that? The Bible. And guess what? In the Bible God says that homosexuality is an abomination or detestable sin. It's a trap that keeps coming back to the Bible. Thank you for taking this debate seriously and not getting carried away on other topics! I admire your philosophical attack in most of these subjects. This concludes my behalf for Round 3.
A homosexual person cannot be Christian.

Terribly sorry sir/madam! "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life"-John 3:16 "because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved"-Romans 10:9-10 " And they said, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."-Acts 16:13 Sources: http://biblia.com... http://biblia.com... http://biblia.com... I would like to point out that, sinners can be repented and granted eternal life, if they believe in Jesus. Will a benevolent god, who understands every action that you take, really send you to hell, based on your sexual orientation? What you mean is, god will forget about that how much of a good person you are, that you devoted your life to Jesus, yet based on your sexual orientation, a benevolent god will forget all of those things? If you say that gays chose to be gay, why would they exactly chose to be gay? What I mean is, they will be bashed on, and called names, if they are christian and gay. How will they chose to be gay, when they know the outcome? The last part to my statement has no solid evidence. I shall present them in the following paragraph. In 1993, a study published that two gay brothers are very likely to have to have a certain genetic marker on the X chromosome known as the Xq28. This led to the possibility of a "gay gene." Source-http://www.sciencemag.org... The brain can also be a factor of sexual orientation. A study in 2001 showed that INAH3 (the anterior hypothalamus of the brain) has more closely packed neurons in gay men than straight men. (Source: http://www.sciencedirect.com...) PET and MRI studies performed in 2008 have shown that the two halves of the brain of gay people are symmetrical than straight people. These studies have also revealed that connections in the amygdalae of gay men resemble those of straight women. The amygdalae has many receptors for sex hormones and along with processing emotions. (Source: http://www.pnas.org...) Based on those studies, it is very likely that people don't "chose" to be gay. If it is a based a mentally, or genetics, problem (of which the gay person has no control of) how is it wrong for them? How is it immoral? Lets say that some people do chose to be gay. You said in your opening statement that I have to argue how homosexuality is moral. If they chose to be gay, how is it immoral? I have a strong feeling that you believe that it is immoral just because a ancient religious book says so? (Please correct me on that one). It also says that sinners can repent their sins, if they believe in Jesus. We can debate the reliability of the Bible in another subject. Since your title says that gay people cannot be Christian, I won't go on accusing the Bible. Definition of moral: concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Thank you for your reply. Back to you pro.
A homosexual person cannot be Christian.

Con must rebut and prove how homosexuality is ok for people to do but most importantly how gays can be Christians. I, pro, will attempt to prove how gay marriage is wrong and God doesn't agree with it, and I will rebut Con's statements such as 'why would God create us if he tells us that homosexuals is wrong,' etc. Gay marriage will never be moral nor correct. Even if people think they love the same sex, nobody can be sure that it's not a sin. In the beginning God made Pandas with strong, sharp teeth yet they were not carnivorous, and it's the opposite with other types of animals who started vegetarian and--after Adam and Eve disobeyed God--they became meat-eaters. This proves it was possible that He made humans (as the Bible says, 'to reproduce: man and woman') and then sin entered the world and people started getting the sense of homosexuality: we now call these people gay, and the general society is quite proud of these people. I'd like to see a committed debater step right up. LET THE DEBATING BEGIN.