BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Men are better to kiss with facial hair

Your statistics are from 2013, whereas my statistics are more updated. Throughout the debate you have defined words but haven't actually said why you believe in your side of the debate. My points were: facial hair is unhygienic and facial hair is voted less attractive. Pro is trying to tell me that my information is false. This is ridiculous and all information used in this debate is completely valid. So now, have a think and remember, would you kiss someone with an unhygienic beard?
Men are better to kiss with facial hair

http://roneyahmed.blogspot.com.au... has proof that there are many benefits for men with facial hair: Religious benefits- the beard is the Sunnah of all the Prophets of peace Attractive Masculinity- making you look more manly attractive- a beard increases "sexual magnetism" making men more appealing to women. save money, water, time- men spend thouands of dollars in their lifetime on shaving. A man without a beard, is like a lion with out mane.- annonymous
Men are better to kiss with facial hair

Rebuttal Just cause men want to look manly, doesn't mean women want this. According to this: http://www.lifestyle.com.au... Men and women both prefer shaved beards, making your 2/3 women... statistic false! Facial Hair is unhygienic According to the daily mail having beards are perfect for harvesting bacteria which spreads germs and cause infections. So with this in mind, why would having a beard make men better to kiss?
Men are better to kiss with facial hair

Statistically speaking, growing a beard has been a sign of manliness since the dawn of time. Scientists believe that prehistoric men had beards for warmth, intimidation and protection. Warmth- keeping the chin, lips and lower head warm.Intimidation- through a thicker, stronger looking jaw line.Protection-almost like a cushion, protection from punches or blows to the face.A study of facial hair has shown that 2/3 of women find men with a fully grown beard as attractive as a man with no facial hair.
Christianity is inconsistent.

ARGUMENT ONE "we can both agree that according to Christianity, the statements about perpetual sacrifices in the Old Testament were true" According to Christianity, the statements about perpetual sacrifices in the OT are false because Christ was the final sacrifice. This is where wording becomes important. Before Christianity, it was necessary to perform constant sacrifices. Jesus supported Judaism before his death because constant sacrifices were indeed necessary. ARGUMENT TWO https://www.biblestudytools.com... This says that the Ecclesiastes passage is focused on worldly possessions. http://biblehub.com... "This is best taken literally. Men do not, after death, return to their houses and resume their old occupations. From the life in this world they disappear for ever. Neither shall his place know him any mere (comp. Psalm 103:16)." Psalm 103:16 - "the wind blows over it and it is gone, and its place remembers it no more." "neither shall his place know him no more" is parallel to Psalm 103:16, so they should be compared. https://www.biblestudytools.com... "the place where the flower grew shall know it no more; or it shall be seen no more in it: so man, when he dies, though he is not annihilated, he is somewhere; he is in another world, either of happiness or woe; yet he is not in this world, in the house and family, in the station and business he was; he is no longer known nor seen among men on earth" So, both the Ecclesiastes and Job passages are about resuming their lives on the old Earth before it gets transformed into the new Earth.
Christianity is inconsistent.

To begin, yes I did mean to say that Christianity replaced Judaism at Jesus's death. FIRST ARGUMENT I am going to be clear and say that the moment Jesus died was when Judaism became false and Christianity became true. So, the first premise is false because at the instigation of Christianity, Judaism was false. So, yes, before Jesus's death, Jesus was a strong Jew, observant of the Jewish festivals. However, notice that Hebrews 7:27 says that "He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself" (Hebrews 7:27). This goes with what I said about the moment that Jesus died. Christianity says that Judaism was true before Jesus's death, which is why Jesus was a Jew before he died. However, as Hebrews 7:27 says, after Jesus's death, Christianity becomes true, because Jesus's death was the last sacrifice. SECOND ARGUMENT So, yes, the two passages (Job and Ecclesiastes) are clearly about a resurrection back to Earth. However, much of Revelation talks about the destruction of Earth. Revelation 21:1 says, "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea." "for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away" There will be no resurrection back on Earth. This passage comes right before the Revelation 21:2-3 passage, so this is after the destruction of the Earth has passed, and now, there is a new Earth. The two passages (from Ecclesiastes and Job) say that a dead person will never resume his Earthly life, not that he will not be resurrected to a new Earth. Note that right after the Job section that says that "he who goes down to Sheol does not come up", the next verse talks about the man returning to his house. Therefore, when taken as a complete thought, it says that a person who dies will never return to his house. In fact, the NIV says "one who goes down to the grave does not return. He will never come to his house again; his place will know him no more." Therefore, people will never be resurrected from the dead and resume their lives on Earth, except for a few notable exceptions, however, people will be resurrected from the dead for the final judgement to enter a new land because the old Earth got destroyed.
Christianity is inconsistent.

First Argument: Judaism replaced Christianity at Jesus's death. According to Hebrews 7:27b, "He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself". Therefore, yes, Judaism prior to and up to the instigation of Christianity was ture if Christianity is true. I think your point is that despite Jesus being the final sacrifice, Judaism states that sacrifices will never end. Basically, sacrifices were made obsolete by Jesus's death, as the prophets predicted a sacrifice. Basically, Jesus's life was a transition period between Judaism and Christianity. Before Jesus, Judaism was true. After Jesus, Christianity is true. During Jesus's life, he followed the Jewish traditions (before his death), but also preached about his death that would make sacrifices obsolete. As for Job 7:10, http://biblehub.com... says that the section "He will not return again to his house" "is best taken literally" because most people do not resume their Earthly lives after death. There are a few notable exceptions, however, generally, people do not go back to their daily Earthly activities. http://biblehub.com... explains Ecclesiastes 9:6 explains again that this passage concerns Earthly matters. Therefore, most people do not resume their Earthly lives, but there is a resurrection to the afterlife.
Christianity is inconsistent.

Take the following argument. 1. If the assignment is due by 8:00, then before and up to 8:00, it is not late. 2. If the assignment is not late before and up to 8:00, then the due date is not 8:00. 3. Therefore, a contradiction. The coming of Christ, a Jew, counterintuitively, made Judaism incomplete/inaccurate. As for the second argument... 1) It is referring to non-Christians and Sheol is hell. or 2) It is referring to a lack of resurrection to Earth rather than heaven.
Gay marriages should be legal, (In America) regardless of cultural background

Thanks for the acceptance con. I will perform rebuttals in the following rounds, as round one was acceptance. I. Gay marriage is a choice, and a right reserved to the people This is not to be confused with sexual orientation, which I will bring up in my following rounds. Now, Marriage is a choice, for the person choices by his/her likings. Disregarding all religious views for now, marriage in the U.S is solely upon the person’s choice. No one should be stripped of their right to marry, if both party’s consent based on sexual orientation. It is our constitutional right to marry regardless of who it may be. II. Being gay is not a choice. (Even if my opponent argues that it is, that should not impact the right) Now, it may be argued on both sides if being gay is a choice or not. This part of my argument regards the religious views of the person. My opponent’s argument may be “Since marriage is religious, and it is against our religion to be gay, therefore you cannot marry being gay.” If my opponent ever brings up this argument, my reply would be that since being gay is not a choice, you cannot bring inequality to the person based on a choice that the person never had during birth. I will bring up scientific views of being gay on following rounds. Also, if marriage was solely a church issue, it would inflict “separation of church and state” III. From a moral (and religious) point of view, gay marriage should be legal Now, this part of my argument has no evidence, but I would like to bring it up. If two christians get married, it means that they truly do love each other to disregard their religion. The same thing applies to a federal view, and those being gay is not harming anyone else, therefore it should be legal. Again, this part of my argument is mostly assumptions, but I would like to refer it. Basically, not legalizing marriage is inflicting someone’s love. (Cheesy, but bear with me. Im the one had to type this) I leave arguments are rebuttals to my opponent.
Gay marriages should be legal, (In America) regardless of cultural background

1. It Is Not Marriage Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and well-being of the spouses. The promoters of same-sex "marriage" propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children. http://www.tfpstudentaction.org... By amending the law, we can call it as a marriage, but considering the real purpose of marriage will disqualify it. Marriage was created for the survival of cultural values and it's people and it was never created to join two purely selfish desires. 2. Adoption doubles since gay marriage? If you mean to help the homeless children by same-sex marriage, then that would be wrong. A strong family value is still the best foundation against abandoned children and broken families. Consider the ff. study from http://www.frc.org... Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF): Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%) Have lower educational attainment Report less safety and security in their family of origin Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin Are more likely to suffer from depression Have been arrested more often If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female Thank you for such a challenging debate!
Gay marriages should be legal, (In America) regardless of cultural background

1. Divorce rates lower in states that allow same sex marriages This part of my argument (and the followings) may be used to further extend my regular argument or used as a rebuttal. In states where same-sex marriages are legally recognized, the divorce rate is 20 percent lower than in states that only allow marriages between a man and a woman. For example, Massachusetts, which was the first state to legalize same-sex marriage (in 2004), also has the lowest divorce rate in the country. . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 2. Adoption almost doubled since gay marriage Although raising children may have decreased during gay marriage, adoption has almost doubled. (1) From a moral point of view, saving an orphan is much better than not. A russian study reported that 10% of orphans committed suicide. Other things can also impact orphans such as unemployment, and imprisonment. (2)Increasing gay marriage can lead to decreasing orphanage, and as mentioned before- decreasing divorce as well. 1. . http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu... 2. . http://skywardjourney.wordpress.com... 4. "The family is the smallest unit of the society while marriage was created for the purpose of family orderliness, in effect the society as a whole. Legalizing same-sex marriage will just defeat the said purpose. " When my opponent states family, I believe he also refers to children. I fail to see how it may defeat the purpose, when gay marriage is also raising a child, but with 2 of the same sex parents. This may not be most beneficial for the child (as explained my my opponent), but it certainly is better than not being adopted.
Gay "Christians" are not true followers of God

First I want to start out with the defiotion of the Bible: The sacred writening of what tells us how to live our lives as a follower of God and how to enter the Kingdom of God. http://dictionary.reference.com... Easily said, In the Bible its says that if you kill someone its sin. It also says in both the New and Old Testisment that Homosexulilty is sin. So even though Homosexuality isn't killing anyone it is affecting sin. Everybody sins. Homosexuals are always sinning because its their sexual orintain and God intened love to be for a Man and a Women, just like he made the human race. If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. -Leviticus 20:13) They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. - Romans 1:25-27)
We should turn women into sex slaves

Con:"First off i would like to say that you , my friend, have SERIOUS mental issues. "Con:"Man would be NOTHING if women were not here to support you. "True. That is why I need you to start right away. I choose to be more than nothing. So in order to please me as your new master, I'd need you to put together a plan of action to better improve my relationship to you in order to create a good foundationed emotional bond with you. Con:"We as women are by far more intellectual and open-minded. "Then as an open minded female, being my sex slave should not be problematic. It might be downright exciting for you. And if I was a good master to you, it really wouldn't be a bad deal. Why? -I would require sex only once every 2 weeks. -We would make classy home movies of ourselves dressed as superheroes while we enguage in sexual activity, but only once every 6 months. -I would make sure you were watered and fed. -You would be free to come and go as you please, but show up at least once every 2 weeks to take care of business. -I would give you a money allowance of $500 each week. -I am not physically repulsive, so you would have that going for you. -I would protect you from predators and any threats to your overall health. -I would work hard to protect any offspring we might produce if applicable. -You could lounge in the pool, throw parties, get on the internet, and watch the big screen at your discretion. Con:"where as to your barbarish nature see the slightest bit of danger and rush to destroy it. "Not true. I may have a barbarish nature, but I'd provide you plenty of time to fix me and teach me more about what makes you sad and what makes you happy. I could be taught how to connect with you on a deeper level, enhancing our relationship and making for an exciting sex life together. You would feel accomplished in having steered me onto a more productive path, you'd feel satisfied in your mothership of any future offspring we might produce, and you could use me as a toy for becoming adventurous and exploring your sexuality. You could be supergirl while I am a firefighter. You'd show me your super powers, and I would save you from imaginary burning buildings as we turn the heat up in our new found romance.
It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domes

I thank CON for her time, but am also disappointed at the forfeiture. However, to sum up points in this round, the argument made on my part were the intrinsic social contract for which rights were a two-way exchange and with the full understanding of both parties in entitlement. As such, my opponent fails to adequately refute this, and thus we find that my whole case remains unfazed in its validity. Now, she makes no remarks or responses to my refutations for her case in her forfeiture, and thus we may find such a point of consideration also the basis for voting.
It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domes

Answers to CON: 1. First off, having an abortion is a specific topicality that has absolutely no relevance to a social contract. It is by violating the intrinsic rights of another being that has tangible impact on society that such an action may be justified. However, if the child WAS born, or it had the rational capacity to understand proceedings, then of course, if you attempted to kill your child and he/she retaliated by committing retributive justice by killing you, then it would absolutely be morally permissible. However, as such is not possible in the case of an abortion, then obviously it would be irrelevant to state that *Another* individual can kill you, for you are not inherently violating his/her rights. 2. Firstly, I would like to point out the explicit wording of the resolution is *repeated*, not once; secondly, the violation, as long as it violates or terminates one's end of the moral and social contract, is absolutely justified if I so choose to respond appropriately, for I must take into my hands what the law neglects. This is absolutely also the wording of the resolution, for it is only my burden to justify *MORAL* permissibility, not a legal permissible act. 3. It is not. Now, if you would look back at my case and my statements, you would find immediately that murder in the case of retributive justice is ONLY justified and morally permissible if it is in response to an individual who has terminated his/her side of the moral/social contract by infringing and violating your natural categorical rights. 4. Obviously, self-defense would entail the full spectrum of actions that are defensive in nature. HOWEVER, this is absolutely irrelevant to the context of the resolution itself. I merely have to justify that retributive murder in the FORM of self-defense is morally permissible, however not in any way that self-defense ITSELF is only inclusive of murder. This is irrelevant to the debate, and furthermore, it would be fallacious to assert such. 5. Once again, you fail to understand the meaning of the resolution; finding any alternative is very well, but it only proves to me and the judges that there are choices that would be *more* moral than the choice of murder, but not in only way that murder *itself* is morally impermissible. It is to say that if I am able to eat a sandwich, but there are countless more alternatives, it would still be absolutely fallacious to state that eating a sandwich is wrong. Moral permissibility is completely unfazed by alternatives, only by the action itself. 6. This question fails to acknowledge even the context of the resolution itself. In what way can you prove or justify your assertion that such retributive murder is "unnecessary"? The necessity of such an action completely depends upon the circumstances in which it is hypothesized for, which namely is "repeated domestic violence". In just such a manner, it would be irrelevant to ask me such a question, for the very assumption that it is *unnecessary* is invalid. Thank you, and I await your refutations.
It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domes

1. A social contract is intrinsically categorical. 2. The severity of an action justifies the severity of the punishment. 3. An alternative allows for an option besides murder, because the abuser is not taking away the right to life, therefore the victim cannot do so either. It is not logical to use harsher violence against violence. 4. If they fit the crime, yes. Cross Ex: 1. If I morally defy someone by having an abortion, does someone have the right to kill me because I violated the social contract? 2. How can one violation call for a denial of ALL rights, not just the one violated? 3. How can all murder be justified just because it is in retributive action? 4. Is self-defense necessarily killing someone or simply protecting one's self? 5. Is death of the abuser necessary? If not, then how can it be morally permissible? 6. Is it right to kill one person unnecessarily, even if their rights are forfeited?
The Morality of the Bible is Outdated

No pun intended. To begin our journey together if we want to have an "honest" reflection, then I think you missed one simple alternative to know Biblical truth, that there may actually be a God. To be objective in this debate I think we have to leave open the possibility that you may be wrong in your assumption about Christianity, that was most likely a product of a secular education, regurgitated myths, and/or a lack of religious understanding. Just so we don't compare apples to oranges; the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Communist China, (just to name a few of the atheistic governments) committed the worst atrocities known to man on a massive scale. To contrast this with Christianity (or theism in general) is illogical, and just pales in comparison. And note, Nazi Germany is not communist. To want to just brush this aside is to deny the truth. I wanted to touch on your Divine Command Theory. I believe God, who is the creator of all creation, and most of all humans, has every right to destroy his creation. Think of it this way; if you painted a picture and someone destroyed it, it would be wrong, but if you destroyed it, it would be justifiable, as you were the one who painted it. Furthermore, as a Christian, We believe in eternal life and that death is not the end. And our ultimate goal is not to live a life full of self indulgence but to live a life in union with God. For our purpose is to obtain Heaven, our ultimate home. Concerning Separation of Church and State, I whole heartily agree that the state should not impose a state religion, as was the original intent. I do disagree with the atheistic interpretation of Separation of Church and State. Which seems to want to annihilate any expression of religion in the public sphere. America was founded on Christian principles; therefore, to deny Christians the right, as guaranteed by the constitution, to openly practice their faith is just plain wrong. The original intent of this debate was to argue about the morality contained in the bible. Not the morality of nominal Christians. I've noticed with atheists that they exploit the dark side of Christianity, never recognizing the achievements of Christianity: the charitable organizations, universities, the "scientific method", The Big Bang Theory, etc. All the while based on biblical morality. In closing I would like you to answer, what part of the morality in the bible is outdated?