BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abraham was the first recorded pimp

1. Pharaoh did not kill Abraham because he knew that he was a special man, after having been stricken by the plagues that G-d hit him with. In rabbinic literature, it is taught that whatever Sarai said should happen to Pharaoh and his men happened, e.x "strike that one with boils, set that one on fire, etc". 2. Abe was not a jokester who played pranks on people, and needless to say kings. He didn't tell Pharaoh/Abimelech that Sarah was his wife for a simple reason: Because they would kill him to get rid of the competition, or at least he feared so. 3. Abimelech was NOT a good man. He was terrified for his life, which is why he complied with Abraham the way he did. In truth, Abimelech knew that Abraham was Sarah's husband, as evidenced by G-d's threat to his life. Why would G-d threaten someone for something which is not his fault? Abimelech was just using the whole brother-sister thing as an excuse to share a bed with Sarah, and then, he would be able to excuse himself later by saying "They said that they were siblings!". 4. As for why Abraham went to Egypt, it was because there was a famine in the land that he lived in, and since Egypt was the center of trade, there was obviously less famine there. He was forced to go there, and take his wife with him. This was all behind G-d's plan. The purpose of Sarah's abduction was to test Abraham to see how much faith he had in G-d. This was one of the ten tests which G-d tested Abraham with. The same goes for the reason why Israel and his sons went to Egypt. That was the whole point of Joseph being sold into slavery, so that he could later become king and save his family from the famine.Again, I'd like to point out the danger of no rabbinic literature. Like I said before, you cannot understand the Torah without the aid of rabbinic commentaries and explanations to certain verses. You serve as a prime example. Had you known the above, about the Ten Trials of Abraham, and other things, you would never be asking these questions. Without the rabbis, the whole Torah makes zero sense, at least to the common man who cannot delve into the meaning of the words.
Abraham was the first recorded pimp

Either Abraham was a pimp, or you simply don't know how to understand the verses, because you have no access to the oral explanations and rabbinic commentaries... The story of Abram, Sarai and Pharaoh is very simple. Abraham comes to Egypt. Upon arriving, he remembers how corrupt the Egyptians are, and he knew without any doubt that they'd try to steal his wife, who was very beautiful. But, in order to do that, they'd have to kill Abraham first. Therefore, Abraham asked Sarah to say that he was her brother and not her husband, so that Pharaoh wouldn't klil him. The story with Abraham, Sarah and Abimelech is like this: Abraham knew that Abimelech would want to take Sarah for a wife, and in order to do that he would have to kill Abraham first. Again, in an attempt to save his life, he asked Sarah to say that she was his sister and not his husband, so that there is no competition. That night, G-d came to Abimelech and threatened to kill him if he didn't give back Sarah. So, he complied. The rest you can figure out from the verses, hopefully. That simple, nothing to do with prostitution.This is the danger of reading the Torah without the commentaries and explanations of our rabbis. You cannot understand ONE WORD of the Torah without the commentaries to help understand what's going on, like, for example, Rashi, Ramban, Sforno, and others. There is also Midrash Rabbah, but I'm not so sure that you're ready for it. Our rabbis are the masters of Torah, and so they know what's going on. Try to read the Torah, starting again from the beginning, but this time read it WITH the commentary of Rashi (who is one of the most respected commentators). Notes:1. Pharaoh and Abimelech never succeeded in violating Sarah in the end.2. Rashi's name is Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki 3. You can read the Torah with Rashi's commentary here: http://www.chabad.org...;
David Letterman was funnier with a beard.

However strange, awkward, or unexplainable, right after Letterman got his show back in the middle of the writer's strike, he had a beard. And that beard, I swear to god, had otherworldy powers to make him relatively funny. I've watched his show almost every night since I was a small child, and he's never been as funny as when he had that beard. And the beard is the only way to explain it, too. As soon as he lost the beard, the show suddenly reverted back to it's fairly retarded humor. With that beard, he seemed happy all the tiem. Not to mention high.
Morals are dependent on context.

Through elaborate and extensive explanations Pro comes to one conclusion. There are no morals or if there are morals they exist only to justify or excuse one's actions and can't be taken seriously and thereby one can't be bound to them. Pro offers several examples of how his definition of morals would apply. A definition which effectively denies morals exist as a core principle which binds us to a code of conduct. Lets take killing, intentional killing, even accidental killing done as a result of gross negligence, recklessness, and/or deliberate indifference is widely seen as immoral. The standard is absolute. "Thou Shall Not Kill" It's not 'thou may choose not to kill' or 'thou should not kill' it's 'thou shall not kill'. To put it simply killing is not an option depending on the circumstances. There can be no moral justification for killing. It is always immoral. Yes there are times when immoral acts like killing can be explained as justified by the circumstance. But the act itself is still immoral. Does it make the perpetrator immoral? No not necessarily. A woman in good conscience will get an abortion. While the act of having the abortion is immoral the woman is not. Morals are not defined by expedience which is dependent on circumstances but are from a base of absolute beliefs which can't be disregarded when convenient
Morals are dependent on context.

The con has failed to provide a sufficient argument against my claim that morals are dependent on context. I finish my argument by creating an animadversion of an appeal to stone by the con. As such, there has been no compelling argument against my claim that morals are dependent on the contexts to which they apply. That is, the con has failed in explaining their self in things like what a "reasonable profit" means and such, and other arguments against mine consist of things that were then explained, by me. Dismissing my argument without reason or proof of why is an appeal to stone. For final analysis of my argument, I shall define some terms according to the formal English dictionary. A moral is a principle or habit with respect to right or wrong conduct. Right conduct typically means being "good" to yourself and others, being sound, valid, beneficial, well-behaved, agreeable, and pleasant. For the fact that the morals I have stated are, in fact, dependent on their applicable contexts to be valid morals, i.e. in my standard definition of what a moral is, I have cultivated examples upon which I can say there is some proof of my claim that morals are dependent on the context to which they apply. To clarify a previous example: Murder means to kill without good purpose; to kill means to put to death; and killing in self-defense means to kill for defense when someone is attempting to murder you, therefore in good purpose. Without any other factors involved, "kill" can be determined as either a right or wrong behavior, it depends on the [situation] or context to be [right or wrong]. The point of my argument is to point out to people who base their lives on morality that many common morals are not always moral, like the moral: "stealing is wrong".
Morals are dependent on context.

I am sorry; I may have stirred some confusion for you with regard to language; that is, additional information may have been necessary like this: "I believe not [that morals are not dependent on context]; I believe morals are dependent on the contexts to which they apply". How I wrote that I guess was a mistake because I started out with the opposite-sounding argument as you say"the same argument semantically, however"at first and then edited things around. Also, you may not have understood my first example, but I am just trying to elicit some understanding that some morals may be right (to you) even as they are wrong (to others) in terms of contexts; morals are contextual dependencies regarding the actual and the absurd. For example, a moral like that "it is wrong to have green hair in apartments" depends on the context. In a certain apartment, you may be discriminated against and get hurt by having green hair, but that may not apply in every possible apartment, and, this time, I need you to pretend that there are no other factors involved and that you are either green-haired or not where you can't change the context. Confusing a specific context for a general context, even general reality, can be very dangerous. As for another example, a moral like that "it is right to draw your eyes big when drawing" only applies to specific contexts. All in all, confusing something like "it is right to kill" in self-defense with "it is right to kill" in general murder is wrong. An interesting question that may be asked, however, is: "with what moral or set of morals am I deriving conclusions on the contexts of morals; is it or are they independent with respect to context?". The answer to that question is a self-reliant, self-fulfilling morality-context that explains itself and is therefore self-evident. In other words, it is a context that depends on itself through a special type of duality-based dual self-inclusion (which differs from set-theoretic self-inclusion). Forthrightly, explaining such dual self-inclusion would take some time, but it is doable. Essentially, my highest-context moral"the dual self-inclusion"is like this: love everyone, including yourself, if you choose to, and make the world a better place for everyone if you can and if you choose to because of your love. Personally, I chose such a life for no other reason but itself. Again, I apologize for what was an accident in the creation of a confusion factor.
Morals are dependent on context.

At the start of your opening argument you start out asking the question 'Are morals not dependent on context?' The wording of the question with the deliberate use of a negative 'not' reveals a contradictory intent. An assumption which is confirmed in the next two clauses of your opening argument. In the first you state 'I believe not' Thus confirming what appears on the surface to be what you are stating in the question. But the very next part completely contradicts it which when one looks closely can be found in the hidden spaces in your opening question but also confirms your headline. Someone steals medicine. That's wrong but it was to save a child's life which is good. So it makes it right. Not sure which way to paradox should go because it involves unstated facts and unknown criteria and therefore anything inferred from it must be suspect.
Morals are dependent on context.

Thank you for your response. I shall now make an animadversion. Errors from the con: - The con has not sufficiently defined what the con calls a "reasonable profit". - "Because the child is going to die it justifies stealing the medicine," - con. Actually, there is more to the stated context than that, including the fact that there is no other way to obtain the medicine, that the relevant "business associates" and the relevant business owner will not die as a result of the theft, that the thief won't be caught, and the rest. A reasonable profit can be a profit reasonable for the continuation of production, for a system reliant on such a medication (like research and development), its owner, or anyone, i.e. anyone connected to it. As such, if the profit is reasonable and for the owner, there exists that medicine for profit unto the owner required for continuing the life of that owner, which may be more necessary than saving the child's life. As everyone is created equal, equal in the sense that we are all people, everyone deserves the same life resources. Also, since everyone should be trying to cooperate and to help each other make the world a better place to live, everyone's resources belong to each individual, in what is a "nature-made" kind of way. It should also be stressed that such thefts damage the economy, and they really do, but only to an extent. As such, they "hurt" the lives of the many. The big point is, however, how I defined "business associates" as everyone in the economy, besides the dying child, which isn't much of an associate to the business due to the owner's noncooperation with self-evident fact. Therefore, no one is dying but the child. By facilitative virtue of what enables my argument's setting, the setting is being supported, by (e.g.) how the Earth keeps spinning and how life continues to evolve. Arguing that the U.S. Legal system, for example, perfectly supports its people in terms of freedom would be an error. First of all, its businesses and its government treats everyone, on average, as having the same intellectual authority and needs in one of its products or services (that, if you don't have enough money for it, you won't get it, you don't need it). If certain people, more reliant on certain products, cannot afford those products, they are simply denied them. Therefore, such a government is doing more than just "treating everyone as equally important because of their equality". This also has the effect of treating individual mental-tool sets (high and low) to what's average, which incapacitates the U.S. from making the best decisions, like in voting for governmental officials.
Morals are dependent on context.

Because the child is going to die it justifies stealing the medicine.. No it does not. To suggest the theft was the fault of the victim of the theft because he wouldn't lower the price is also wrong Lets look at a couple of likely scenarios. One the price was set to cover the costs of production and allow for a reasonable profit. Remember for every medication which makes it to market there are dozens which don't. All cost money in research and development. Second there could well be another child in desperate need of the medication whose guardians are able and willing to pay for it but now won't be able to get it because of the theft. Or another variation on it is they and others won't be able to benefit from the life saving medication because the price has had to be raised to cover the losses caused by the theft. As a result they can no longer afford it and unlike the thief they go about things honestly
Morals are dependent on context.

Are morals not dependent on context? I believe not; I believe morals are dependent on the contexts to which they apply. Please, allow me to define and explain a situation. For example, say that you were caught stealing from someone, where stealing is defined as wrong in someone's morality. Also, you were caught stealing because you needed a medicine for a dying child, and the setting is the legal system. Take it that the owner of said medicine is unwilling to negotiate a cheaper price for you, that you can steal the medicine without getting caught, and that there is no other way to get the medicine for the child that will otherwise die without it. If the owner can, in fact, withstand the theft without having died or having any business associates die, then how does this common moral stand, that stealing is wrong? First of all, in the legal system, "stealing" is defined as taking another person's property without permission or right and without intending to return it. If the term "stealing" is defined, as such, within the context of the legal system, where the legal system describes what is right in its bounds as a single context, i.e. what is legal, then there must be a higher or more general context in which stealing may either be right or wrong within the legal system. That is, taking from someone else that which is their own, rightful, property may not be their true property in a higher context, like that which is reality at large. As such, whether stealing is right or wrong is dependent on context. Further, this is like comparing two statements, one from a child and another from an adult, respectively: 1. The cat took from the dog and therefore stole, which wasn't right. 2. The cat took from the dog of which a legal system said was rightfully their property and therefore stole, but in a higher context such was not the dog's property; there was, therefore, nothing immoral about the cat stealing from the dog. Forthrightly, in the higher context, the cat did not actually steal. In the lower context, however, the cat did steal. Back to the original example of a child dying without a medicine, there is the context of global, unified utility between members of humanity. That is, humanity cooperates with each other, as all men are created equal, to make the world a better place to live. There is, as such, a utility parameter when it comes to making decisions on what is right or wrong and on the contexts of morals. The two decisions that can be made in the first example is one, to steal, and the other, not to steal. Simply, stealing would save the child's life, over the owner of the medicine losing a hundred dollars in profit (for example). Not stealing would result in the death of a child over a hundred dollars. The context of utility states that it would be, in such a context, therefore, correct to steal in the lower context, which is the legal system. Overall, the question of whether or not stealing was right or wrong in the example's setting depended on the context at hand, so morals depend on the context to which they apply.
Homosexuals should be alowed to adopt.

As all human beings, they have the right to have a family. Therefore the fact that they are homosexual shouldn't be an opponent to their life. IIt is difficult for them already to find someone who can help in the production of having a baby for them so adopting is the best choice they have.Raising children and starting a family is something that most people look forward to in life. Who has the right to take that privilege away from someone? Their love for the children is the same as a woman and a man, they are helping orphans by giving them loving homes. Getting married and starting a family is considered one of the most important and fulfilling experiences one can aspire to. It is so important it is considered a human right (Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights states "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. It is considered so important for people to be able to become parents that some governments (the UK, for example) fund fertility treatments for couples who are reproductively challenged, and a majority of the population supports that policy. Members of the LGBT community are stopped from pursuing this human right by repressive and discriminatory laws
Homosexuals should be alowed to adopt.

Thankyou, you too. One point is that Homosexuals are like any other parent, right? The only difference is that both of the parents are of the same sex. If a man and woman are having a child, should that be considered wrong if a woman/ woman or man/man have a child/adopting is wrong? No. Neither are wrong. It is natural both ways. For example, I have an aunt who is homosexual, she is partnered with this amazing, beautiful woman. They would both make such good parents. Maybe even better than a woman who has had a baby she actually wanted.
women and men should have equal rights

Thank you very much for showing your concern towards me. All the best!! I do not think that women and men should be kept on equal dominion status,rather i think that women should be superior to men.I would quote'behind every successful man is the women',so why are they not given that appreciation? If we would talk about equal rights ,it would be injustice done with women....because since ages they were deprived of these rights and now it is the time that they should come up and show their talents.It was man who ruled for ages,now let woman rule...we all know that woman can rule better than man..because statistics have proved that they are mentally strong as compared to man... And if you talk about equal rights...they are actually given equal rights even now,in multinational companies 50%seats are for man and 50% for woman....but then also we can see,that woman are not given that opportunity from their families...... If the mindset of people have not changed by giving equal rights but it can be changed by giving more rights.....
women and men should have equal rights

sry... i was quite busy so i could not pay attention on debate.... i would like to reply to my opponent.According to u ,To give women superior rights is not the correct way to give them justice for all the misfortunes that have fallen on them. then could you please specify the ways,so that they would get justice, because giving them equal rights is doing injustice with women. Now , I would like to pick up your point,we are not suppressing man of their rights, rather we are encouraging woman to come up. Statistics, have proved that women are mentally strong and if they are given opportunities then i can definitely tell that they will come up with the flying colors. What i have concluded is that we have given women equal rights. Now also women have equal rights as that of men, but it was 2012 only when damini case was happened. So by giving equal or superior rights it does not matters because nothing will happen till people have good mindset.... nothing is going to happen till we apply this conversation practically in our life ..... THANK YOU
women and men should have equal rights

Unfortunately, your argument does not make much sense. To give women superior rights is not the correct way to give them justice for all the misfortunes that have fallen on them. All that would do is cause injustice for the men and if we continue your strategy, men would become superior and an endless line of injustice would continue. Giving women the same exact opportunities as men is the greatest justice that society can offer for the benefit of both men and women of today and future generations.
women and men should have equal rights

yes, i can understand your point....but here i am not saying that we are suppressing men or taking their rights away....we are just encouraging women................ as you are for the statement ,then you are actually claiming about the equal rights,but would that be equal that women would not be given justice...Women would be justified only when they are considered to be superior..... in our Indian constitution woman are given equal rights....which is not practiced,so we can say that upon mindset of people everything rely
women and men should have equal rights

I understand that women have been oppressed in the past and is a reoccurring thing that comes up throughout human history, but men should not be suppressed. Your reason that women should be above men is because you claim that "now it is the time that they should come up and show their talents." However, the majority of the people know that women are just as capable as men and they can show what they can do in a society of equal rights. Having a society run by women and where men are suppressed is no better than having a society run by men and where the women are suppressed. This is especially true when one sex has to make a decision for the other without that other sex's "voice." This claim is like if I (as an African American) claim that white people should be put into slavery because black people were a long time ago. It makes no sense."