BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christian ethics should only be situational

I would very much agree that the Old Testament is the basis(!) of the Christian ethics, as it is where Christianity takes its roots, however I think it was emphasised in the Scripture enough that although Old Covenant being true, it is now obsolete with the coming of the New Covenant, made between people and God by Death and Ressurection of Jesus Christ, Hebrews 8:13 " By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete;p and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear", and also 2 Corinthians 3:11 "And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!", which shows that the New Covenant overrules the Old One. This was also shown after a big dispute between the apostles about the process of the circumsition. The Old Testament clearly states in the Lev 12:3 that "And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised", however Peter declares that "No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are", Acts 15:11, therefore overruling the rule of the Old Testament by the power Jesus. The fact that majority of the rules from the Old Testament became obsolete with the coming of Jesus is also shown by the fact nor do we have to make sacrifices, nor keep the Sabbath Day fully in major Christian traditions, such as in the Catholic Church, Greek and Greek or Russian Orthodox traditions, as well as many Protestant churches, as the New Testament tells us : "The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming"not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship", Hebrews 10:1. Therefore, I have to either assume that your claim that following the Law to the jot and tittle, coming from Matthew 5:18 I believe, will either mean that the vast majority of all christians either are bound to go to Hell because of the practises described in the Old Testament, which we have obandoned but which are still there, such as l, or that we should look at the Matthew 5:18 and think about which particular commandments it talks about, as your view seems to be spreading onto the ceremonial and judical commands too, so I do not see where it is coming from, as it is not even Catholic. Your claim about John 2:4 seems to me to be pulled out of context, as it talks about "Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did" 1 John 2:6, so actually following His example, but I might have misunderstood your point. And yet if we take 1 John 2:4, it talks about following His commands, which is therefore not strictly talking abot commands revealed in the Old Testament, but about ones revealed in the New Testament. Explain how did Jesus not break the Sabbath day please by supporting it with a theological argument, as otherwise it is lifted in the air.
Christian ethics should only be situational

Your premise in your first paragraph is heresy. 2 Tim 3:15-17 says that it is the OT that forms the basis of Christian ethics. Indeed, Christ made it clear that the obedience to the OT law down to the jot and tittle will determine the Christian's standing in the Kingdom. Finally, I John 2:4 says those who claim to know Christ, but deny His Law as the ethical standard for Christians are liars without the truth in them. And, of course, Christians are to imitate Christ, including His complete obedience to the Torah. Jewish tradition is meaningless to the Christian. The fact is Jesus DID NOT disobey the 4th Commendment at any time. So that argument is based on faulty premise. Yes, Christ commands us to love God and love neighbor, but He does not leave it up to you to define love. Rather, the whole of the Bible says that to love God and to love neighbor, we must obey all of the Law (I John 5:2-3 and Romans 13:8-11). . One cannot disobey the Law in the name of love. Thus, in your example, it would be sin for your hypotehical starving man to steal. Finally, thank you for your opions, but can we keep this discussion Biblical?
Riches can not please man

"So if you should start to consider you are bored with this website or this debate remember your honor is at stake to finish what you started. Jesus would have you keep your commitments to this debate with me and do your best to not forfiet any rounds. the time for you to choose to quite should be after the debate is over in the voting period but not while it is going on. if you absolutely must forfiet a round or it beyond your control please give the courtesy of notifying me what happened or at the least that you are sorry but still acknoweldge the debate goes on. This is a courtesy many brand new members for some reason do not give often but should."it seems my opponent did not take anything away from this that I put in the first round or perhaps he did not even read it, its hard to tell when your opponent drops off the face of DDO what happened, mabye he litterally droped off the face of the Earth as well we will never know.the funny thing is, for some reason when its a new member like Jerod quit on us like this, they dont notify us that they will not be able to finish there started debates.
Riches can not please man

Yes finally, some one that's not rude, the last person I had a debate with was really rude. Okay, well I kind of think this will not really be an argument, or a fight to say he's right. Because what I meant by my first post is that only God can make us happy, but he may use riches or other things to make us happy. Like it's not bad for someone to have a big house or a nice car, they may make us happy, but it's how we use them. We may brag about having something, which is not right, and in our heart we know it's wrong. But yet we keep on doing it to show of and make us feel better, but do we feel better? No we do not, we shared our things and use them to the goodness for the Lord and other, we would be truly happy. Like at times, I have had things, and did them make me happy, some did, but some didn't, that was because i was using them selfishly and not sharing or letting other people to look at my stuff or borrow them. And I'm not saying a family and children and grandparents, or a wife/husband. We are happy because of those things because God gives them to us happily. God wants us to be happy, but we can not be truly happy without us using our goods and gift for the good reasons. Like you don't have to be a Christian to have those gifts, God gives them to everyone. But we need to use them the right way, but God still gives us things hoping that we may learn to be happy and thankful for what we get, if it's something we like or don't like. And we should use these gifts to our best ability. And I know some people that are famous, not all of them are happy, yet they have a big house, lots of riches, and maybe a wife/husband. But they still feel empty inside, because usually God is not in there heart, which makes them feel as happy as they could be. And I'm not saying all famous people are really depressed and not happy, because i know some are. And I just hope this is not going to be an argument, I hope it's just a discussion or a conversation.
The Avengers would defeat the X-Men in a fight

Pro wants to use the X-Men roster from the movie X-Men (2000), I will list these characters and ask Pro if he approves. Fighting for the X-Men- Professor Xavier Wolverine Phoenix (Jean Grey) Cyclops Storm Rogue Iceman I would also like Pro to pair each of the seven characters into matchups. .. .. 1v1, Example: Hulk vs. Wolverine or Iron Man vs. Cyclops. Thank You, You may now pick matchups and explain why each fighter would beat the other fighter they are paired up with.
The Avengers would defeat the X-Men in a fight

I am pro that the Avengers would beat the X-Men. Firstly, let me set some guidelines for this debate: 1: This fight is only between the main people in their groups and only the people in the first X-Men movie and the new Avengers movie. 2: On the Avengers team they have all the people that they had on the new movie where they fight Loki. the Hulk, Iron Man, Hawkeye, Captain America, Thor, and Black Widow, and Nick Fury is also on their team. 3: On the X-Men team they have all of the people that they had on the original 2000 movie on Professor Xavier's team including Proffessor Xavier. 4: The fight is in a giant inclosed arena about like an inside football field so none of it is outside. 5: This first round does not count. just tell me if you agree with this terms or not and the real debate starts on round 2. Also if you have any clarifying questions you can also post them on the first round and i will answer them in the comments box. Thank you and good luck to whoever challenges me.
Tits or Azz

tit: a titmouse or other small bird (1)Azz: Ahmed Azz, an Egyptian businessman who is allegedly monopolizing the steel industry (2)The stark resolution asks readers to the debate to choose: who lives and who dies between a group of small birds and an Egyptian businessman? Several species of titmouse are protected by the Migratory Birds Program (3), but they are not endangered (4). This means that they can be legally killed if certain restrictive practices are followed, depending on the jurisdiction. For an example, see the restrictions for Indiana here - (5). Even if killing the tits was a violation of the hunting regulations, it is a minor misdemeanor, carring a maximum penalty for first offense of $1,500 in Maryland, for example. (6)On the other hand, killing a human is murder, a very serious offense (7). Killing Azz in order to save a group of tits would not be seen as a justifiable offense by most people. The maximum penalty for murder is many years of imprisonment and even execution in some jurisdictions. (8)Therefore, when it comes down to choosing between tits and Azz, of course we must choose Azz and sacrifice the birds. (1) . http://dictionary.reference.com...;(2) . https://arabicsource.wordpress.com...;(3) . http://www.fws.gov...;(4) . http://en.wikipedia.org...(5) . http://www.in.gov...(6) . http://www.courts.state.md.us...(7) . http://www.fbi.gov...(8) . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Tits or Azz

Con fails to realize how debate works. The affirmative issues a plan, and the negative generally responds with a counter plan. This is especially true in this case as the BOP is shared. I will grant con he is allowed to use his own definition for his term as long as it was sensible, because I did not define his term for him and he went first. That does not however translate to him defining my term for me. Both of the new user guide and other source, are rules that are not applicable on DDO. DDO has no set rules around debate, where as debate does. The negative usually would offer a counter plan in this case, to negate the affirmative plan. He was allowed to define his own term to build his contentions since I did not put one in round 1 (not my term though), but he did not even do that, nor did he do it properly. The issue with this is that pro criticizes me for using an abbreviation and he does the same.In fact his definition is just false. The correct person he is trying to argue for is Ahmed EzzAhmed Ezz - is an Egyptian businessman and one-time politician, the former owner of Ezz Steel and the former chairman of Egypt's national assembly's budget committee[1][2][3]. If you even notate Con's source his own definition is broke so he fails to define his own term properly and argues for a term that does not exist. So the Azz my adversary is arguing for does not even exist, nor does his link work to support it does=Why I Win=My adversary builds a case around a false definition, with no contentions. He picks a definition for me and only provides rebuttals for points not made. He never even built a case for himself. This was also with the wrong termIn addition he chooses to drop every one of my points. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://english.alarabiya.net...[3] http://www.albawaba.com...
Tits or Azz

This is standard:"If the first Affirmative speaker fails to define the resolution he or she must accept any reasonable definitions proposed by the first Negative speaker. " (1)The same rule is listed here (2) as well as in the new beginners' guide on DDO. Airmax (citing Darkkermit) writes: "the general debate custom is that whoever defines the terms first," (3)Neither of the two sources that Pro cited in relation to this issue mention definitions at all. Dictionary definitionsThe first definition of "tit" is a small song bird on dictionary. com(4), the oxford dictionary (5) and cambridge dictionary (6). It is the standard definition and reasonable interpretation of the word. The word "Azz" does not appear in any of those three dictionaries (7,8,9). It is therefore reasonable to interpret it as a proper name, and a reference to an actual person. Please note that Pro's source for defining "tit" did not actually mention the word tit, and his source for Azz does not mention the word "Azz". Pro chose not to define his terms in round one and therefore these reasonable definitions apply. Tits or AzzPro has so far failed to argue on the substantive issues of this debate. He has one more round to do so. All arguments extended. (1) . http://www.saskdebate.com...(2) . http://www.debatingsociety.ca...(3) . http://www.debate.org...(4) . http://dictionary.reference.com...(5) . https://www.oxforddictionaries.com...;(6) . http://dictionary.cambridge.org...;(7) . http://dictionary.reference.com...(8) . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...(9) . http://dictionary.cambridge.org...
Tits or Azz

It is similar to or refereed to as a plan in formal debate [1][2] , except this is a shared BOP and we are meeting halfway. Meaning I am allowed to specify the definitions, not him as the negative. At least I am allowed to specify what term I am going to argue. He cannot chose that term for me. For all practical purposes, as the affirmative I reserve the right to define the terms in this debate. I am partially playing this due to the semantics game, but it was well obvious the context of this debate. I will at least challenge the definition under the context that the debate was intended for, as I reserve the right to define my own term if anything. Tits - Ta Tas - Boobs - Breasts - either of the two soft, protruding organs on the upper front of a woman's body that secrete milk after pregnancy. [3]Azz - Butt - Bottom - buttox - Gluteus maximus - the broad, thick, outermost muscle of the buttocks, involved in the rotation and extension of the thigh. [4]C1) SoftTits are better than Azz, because they are soft and jiggly. If you ever get near them, you can curl up and use them as a pillow. Womens tatas are made of fatty tissue, so this amplifies the softness to a higher level . [5] C2) Visible FaceAnother great aspect that you get from the breasts and not the back, is that you can see a woman's or man's face while you stare at it. It's like double pleasure. You get the firm stare, the intense eyes, and the beauty of the face mixed in with the glory of the teets. C3) NipsThe nips are also here, and they are a focal point for orgasms. Win win [1] . http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca...[2] . http://www.cs.jhu.edu...[3] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[4] . http://dictionary.reference.com...[5] . http://www.webmd.com...
Contraception is a right.

Please define your argument a little more specifically please. I think that women can defiantly take contraception if they please, however the way of the contraception being provided is the most debatable topic in this issue. I think that women should be able to go out and buy birth control, which is cheap, on their own dime. Their employers or the taxpayers are not responsible to provide this. Also, if you are having sex and taking birth control, you are having sex for recreational purposes. I love to go fishing on the weekends, but I don't demand from my employer that he or she pay for my fishing pole. Women should defiantly be allowed to use contraception, but I would like to debate how the contraception is paid for more.
Star Wars takes place in the Andromeda Galaxy.

Thank you for accepting.To start, let's make connections...----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ET: The Extra Terrestrial.What does this have to do with Star Wars? You'll see later. If you look at that image, you will notice at the bottom it says the following:"He is afraid. He is totally alone. He is 3 million light years from home."(1)1) http://www.imdb.com...So ET's galaxy is 3 million light years away. Well that number is convenient, because there is only one galaxy (fitting the Star Wars Galaxy) that far away...The Andromeda Galaxy.The Andromeda Galaxy is 2,538,000 light years away(2). Obviously 3 million is a crude rounding. The Andromeda is the only Galaxy around, besides satellite galaxies, but Star Wars doesn't take place in a Satellite Galaxy.Now, technically, ET could live in a Satellite Galaxy around the Andromeda or such, but we KNOW he lives in a large Spiral Galaxy that Star Wars takes place in. How? Here is what links ET to Star Wars... That scene is from Star Wars I: The Phantom Menace.They are called Grebleips, and their home world is Brodo Asogi. Are they really ET's species? Yes. George Lucas intended on putting ET's species into the movie for Steven Spielberg.This is evidence alone, but there is also this image from ET. What's so special about this? We are seeing it through ET's eyes. When ET see's a member of Yoda's species (as he doesn't know it's only a costume) he says "Home!"... This shows us that Yoda's species lives in the Andromeda Galaxy (as we know ET's species lives in the only Spiral galaxy around 3 million light years from Earth.)Because ET now links back to Star Wars, it is a proper source.====================================================================Here, we conclude that ET's species comes from the Star Wars galaxy, as Yoda reminds ET of his home, and we see that ET's species is in the Galactic Senate.So they share the same Galaxy, and since Star Wars takes place in a full Spiral Galaxy, and not a Satellite Galaxy, (or any tiny galaxy for that matter,) ET must than also exist in a full Spiral Galaxy... And wouldn't you know it, the only Spiral Galaxy within 3 million light years of Earth is the Andromeda Galaxy (conveniently, it is around 3 million light years away once rounded.)=========================================================So knowing now that ET's species lives in the Star Wars Galaxy, and is in the Galactic Senate, and that ET's home is '3 million light years away,' we can conclude that ET's, and therefore Star War's, galaxy is the Andromeda Galaxy.Thank you.
Star Wars takes place in the Andromeda Galaxy.

Resolution: The Star Wars galaxy is, in fact, the Andromeda Galaxy.I will be taking Pro, BOP is on me.All Sources are based off fictional writing or film related to, linked to, or based around Star Wars and/or is relevant to answering the Resolution.R1 - AcceptanceR2 - DebateR3 - Conclusion=====================================================Andromeda Galaxy:http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Abortion

I believe in a right for all people everywhere in this world to decide what is done with their own flesh, blood, and bone, both before and after death. Once dead and removed from this world, a person's wishes with regards to the treatment of their fleshly remains are still and should always be, whenever possible, respected. We do not have the right to make an organ donor out of someone who in life did not desire their body to be used thusly. Even with the salvation of other human lives in the balance, our sympathy cannot extend to violating the body of one person in order to benefit another, even when the would-be donor is no longer among the living and far beyond our powers to ever harm or outrage. If we show such respect and obedience to the wishes of those passed on, how much more then ought we to value the bodily sanctity of a fellow who is alive and out and about in the world? What sense does it make to hold sacred the final wishes of a corpse, but disregard out of hand the wishes and welfare of a living individual whose ability to suffer is still very real? Can you think of anything more hypocritical or insulting than to have legislation passed in a country lauding itself as the "land of the free" for making captives its own citizens to their very biology while simultaneously upholding the autonomy of all those housed in the morgue? I contend that the position of anti-abortion advocates is a ridiculous and destructive influence on the world, not merely for the issues concerning bodily sanctity as mentioned above, but for a virtually endless parade of variables all of which tie into violating another person and making them a prisoner within their own body. Even when this evil is done with the greatest of intentions to benefit another person, or potential person, as the case may be, our desire to see the human race flourish can never be taken to such an evil extreme. The ends simply do not justify the means in these sorts of scenarios, and we ought to be capable of doing better for ourselves at this point in history.
Politics is necessary

Thank you Con, for your question, "So do you think politics is good in our society?"Of course...See, What is Politics? It is a term we use to describe the situation where multi parties form the government and rule. See, In this world, many countries have democracies. Now, democracy is of two types, Direct and Indirect. In Direct democracy, all the population makes decisions and implements them but indirect democracy has representatives. Think about it, Is it possible today to assemble such a huge population of a country? Obviously not! Politics is a very important factor in today's world. Politics is not only good for a society, but it is what makes a society.
Politics is necessary

Thank you, Con, for your views...First of all, I will like to make some concept clearPolitics from Greek: politikos, meaning "of, for, or relating to citizens"(a)(a)http://en.wikipedia.org...Dear Con, In today's world, the population of a state is too high for a direct political decision. Without politics, a country or state cannot be governed for two main reasons.1) The size of the population is too high for a direct decision between all the people. 2) Much of the population neither have the skill nor the time to attend political meetings and make decisions.Now, there might be a solution...let all the small areas rule themselves...but what will that finally result too? Unstable economy, political and social conflicts and that is actually happening. Politics in a country is actually required for some very important purposes...1) For keeping the various diverse people binded.2) Help the minorities in a state.3) Safeguard the sovereignty of a state.4) Distributing economy of a whole state."Politicians in many countries just want money and don't wanna do any work for the society."I agree that politics might sometimes be a flawed system but no matter what, it is the best way of governing. Because of the reasons mentioned above. Corruption is a bad system and a seriuos bug in the system but the best thing is that, Politics can learn from its own mistakes and be better...for instance the Lokpal Bill(b) (b)http://en.wikipedia.org..." There is politics between friends also and ladies mostly. Bitching behind each others back? Thats also a type of politics."That is not politics...Politics is just a term we are used to calling such things. Bitching behind each others back...backbiting.