BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It's wrong to be gay.

"Is Love not an action? Is that not something we do? Indeed it has other meanings but if you are going into a debate you have to be open minded to all the meanings. So actions are relevant in this topic. As love and lust both do have verb meanings." ---- Can a person who is bed ridden, and can neither move nor speak, love someone? Of course! People can love others without doing anything; love is an emotion, which is displayed in action. -- "You are right; being gay does mean having a desire for the same sex. And before we move to anything else, God does not look at the outer flesh of your body. God looks at you heart and what it desires. Samuel 1 16:7 it says "But the LORD said to Samuel, 'Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart'." ESV. Being a fellow Christian would you not know that God doesn't condemn by the actions of what you do. But what's in your heart? What you believed and desired in your soul is what God will judge on Judgement day. (This paragraph has covered two of my opponents last two points that he made against me)." -- Of course God looks at the desires on many things. But that does not mean that the desires are intrinsically condemned. Hatred is condemned because it is equivalent to having murder. Lust is condemned because it is equivalent to sexual immorality. Homosexuality is simply a desire that is innate in a person, just as heterosexuality is. No where in the Bible does it condemn homosexuality, the desire. It only condemns the actions of it. Can a person not have the intrinsic desire for a man, but suppress that, thinking it to be wrong? Of course! People do it all the time. Even Christians, after having been born again, have desires for sin, since they live in the flesh, which tempts them constantly, but the desires themselves are not condemned. When the Bible talks about the heart, it is referring to a person exercising the desire (e.g. lusting, hating, contemplating, etc.). -- As I close my last argument I would love to say Thank you to my opponent for the debate. This is my first debate and he made it a good experience for me. So thank you sir. I would also like to conclude my final argument. Being gay is wrong and I felt like I made a strong enough case to back that up. As my opponent finishes with last argument, I would like to say this to the voters. Don't vote because of your point of view. I ask that you vote for the sake of who had a better case in his hands. I respect all of my opponents views on life and I would hope that people would respect mine as well. --- Indeed. Indubitably.
It's wrong to be gay.

You said, "The love or lust for another man if you are a man. Or the same thing for Women." is what the debate is about. That means that actions are irrelevant to the topic of homosexuality. --- Is Love not an action? Is that not something we do? Indeed it has other meanings but if you are going into a debate you have to be open minded to all the meanings. So actions are relevant in this topic. As love and lust both do have verb meanings. "Thats what being gay means" that one has the desire for those of the same sex. Heterosexuals who commit homosexual relations are not gay, though they have done gay actions. Actions do not make one anything; being gay is what makes one gay". "People can be homosexual without action on it. You're begging the question. Can a person be a heterosexual without acting on those desires? Of course! People are heterosexual or homosexual regardless as to whether or no they do anything based in those desires". -- You are right; being gay does mean having a desire for the same sex. And before we move to anything else, God does not look at the outer flesh of your body. God looks at you heart and what it desires. Samuel 1 16:7 it says "But the LORD said to Samuel, 'Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart'." ESV. Being a fellow Christian would you not know that God doesn't condemn by the actions of what you do. But what's in your heart? What you believed and desired in your soul is what God will judge on Judgement day. (This paragraph has covered two of my opponents last two points that he made against me). -- People are born gay. But that doesn't make it right. -- I disagree that people are "born gay". In my opinion that's just a poor excuse for people to make it okay to be homosexual. I would love for my opponent to give me a link or proof that you can actually be "born gay". "But that doesn't make it right." I totally agree with my opponent on that saying. It doesn't make it right. Unless proved otherwise, I believe my opponent has agreed with me as I have made the debate that it isn't right to be gay and he has said it himself that it isn't right to be gay. -- As I close my last argument I would love to say Thank you to my opponent for the debate. This is my first debate and he made it a good experience for me. So thank you sir. I would also like to conclude my final argument. Being gay is wrong and I felt like I made a strong enough case to back that up. As my opponent finishes with last argument, I would like to say this to the voters. Don't vote because of your point of view. I ask that you vote for the sake of who had a better case in his hands. I respect all of my opponents views on life and I would hope that people would respect mine as well.
It's wrong to be gay.

"Before we start the 3rd round, I feel as if we have strayed away from the actual topic. The topic does not say "It's wrong to desire homosexuality". It clearly says "It's wrong to be gay". So as I will ask, will we redirect our debate back to the topic at hand. Thank you." -- You said, "The love or lust for another man if you are a man. Or the same thing for Women." is what the debate is about. That means that actions are irrelevant to the topic of homosexuality. -- "Indeed it does say that it will condemn anyone who practices homosexuality. And it seems that we have got in this debate about "desire". Correct me if I'm wrong but "desire" means to have a strong want for something. That means you are not there yet. The topic is about BEING gay. So if you are making homosexual actions then you will be condemned by God." -- Thats what being gay means: that one has the desire for those of the same sex. Heterosexuals who commit homosexual relations are not gay, though they have done gay actions. Actions do not make one anything; being gay is what makes one gay. -- "Your completely right that desires do not help anyone. Forgive me that I have left the topic to talk about desires last round. If I don't do Christian things and don't get baptise as an example, then am I not a Christian? No, I still love God and I still believe that Christ died and rose from the grave for me. If you are gay and don't do sexual things with man but still love a man in a sexual way is that not the same? But if you want to make the argument that its all about the "actions" then fine. You are not gay unless you have sexual intercourse with the same sex. So practice what you preach. But either way it doesn't make it right to be homosexual." --- People can be homosexual without acting on it. You're begging the question. Can a person be a heterosexual without acting on those desires? Of course! People are heterosexual or homosexual regardless as to whether or not they do anything based in those desires. --- "You are right once again, we are "born again" when we choose God and a good tree does bear good fruit. Unfortunately for humanity, none of us are good trees. Which leads to an abundance of sinful choices. Only Christ himself beard good fruit. So with the fact that were all bad trees, we all lead to making bad choices. No ones born gay. No ones born a murderer either. We are just born with the unfortunate reality that we are going to make bad choices. But does that make being homosexual good? No." --- People are born gay. But that doesn't make it right.
It's wrong to be gay.

"But first and foremost I agree with it does matter how someone responds to the desires. But does that make the desires right? In today we like to say that people are just born "gay", which hasn't even been proved in anyway. From at least what I know it hasn't been proved. That's like saying I was born to believe in God. Which clearly that was a choice of mine as I grew up." ----- Reformed Christian theology teaches that in fact we choose God when we are "born again." Our nature determines our actions, since good trees bear good fruit. Likewise, people who choose gay actions are born gay, or are at least born with the natural inclination towards gay actions. Does this negate the responsibility of choosing not to do gay actions? No. Simply because their nature demands them to do x, it does not negate the moral implications of it, as deterministic, metaphysical philosophers believe, myself being one of them. Moreover, how can one choose to be gay, when choice is simply the cognition of desire? --- "What makes this desire for the same sex so wrong is that it helps nothing. We cant deny that we as mammals are meant to reproduce. Having sex or any other intercourse with the same sex doesn't help life move on. We move away of what we were meant to do for out own personal desires. I don't know how that's not wrong." ---- Desires do not help anyone. The desire for heterosexual relations help no one either. The actions are the thing that affect others, but being gay is not an action; it is what leads to action, if no competing desire cancels it out. But nevertheless, heterosexuals who cannot reproduce do not help further the animal kingdom, since they cannot reproduce. In fact, gay people who have come to a realization that gay actions are wrong, having turned to Christ, many of the times try to live out a heterosexual lifestyle, having a family and everything. Gay people can have families. ---- "Now as I go into this argument explaining where it says in the Bible that its wrong, I would like to say that being gay is no more of a sin as being a murderer. But we obviously don't believe that being a murderer is right. In Leviticus 18:22 it says "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" ESV. Now you cant argue that being gay is right if you believe in Gods word and laws. Saying Gay is right as a believer is like saying murder is right." ---- Leviticus 18:22 establishes that gay actions are the things to which condemnation should occur. This means that heterosexuals who engage in homosexual relations (e.g. porn star) are just as condemned as homosexuals who engage in homosexual relations. There is nothing in the Bible that condemns homosexuality, the desire. The only thing it condemns is the actions of it.
It's wrong to be gay.

Before I make my argument I would like to say welcome and I like your starting argument. But first and foremost I agree with it does matter how someone responds to the desires. But does that make the desires right? In today we like to say that people are just born "gay", which hasn't even been proved in anyway. From at least what I know it hasn't been proved. That's like saying I was born to believe in God. Which clearly that was a choice of mine as I grew up. What makes this desire for the same sex so wrong is that it helps nothing. We cant deny that we as mammals are meant to reproduce. Having sex or any other intercourse with the same sex doesn't help life move on. We move away of what we were meant to do for out own personal desires. I don't know how that's not wrong. Now as I go into this argument explaining where it says in the Bible that its wrong, I would like to say that being gay is no more of a sin as being a murderer. But we obviously don't believe that being a murderer is right. In Leviticus 18:22 it says "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" ESV. Now you cant argue that being gay is right if you believe in Gods word and laws. Saying Gay is right as a believer is like saying murder is right. But I would like to end it on that note.
It's wrong to be gay.

There is nothing wrong with being gay, since homosexuality is simply the desire of a person with regards to sexuality: a person who sexually desires those of the opposite sex is a heterosexual, a person who sexually desires those of the same sex is a homosexual. In fact, one could carry this thought to "abnormal" sexual desires, such as the desire for animals or children. How a person responds to the desire is what matters. Let us suppose that I am a pedophile. I am sexually attracted to children. I desire to have sexual relations with children. The desire is not what matters, but how one responds to the desire. If one rebukes the desire, and withholds action, then everything is fine. If one acts on it, then one has done wrong. Simply being a certain way is not what matters; how one acts on it is what matters.
Religion does more harm than good.

Resolved that Cristianity does more harm than good. Definitions: A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. http://dictionary.reference.com... I would like my opponent to open her arguments first, clearly taking the affirmative side. I will take the negative.
Religion does more harm than good.

I have just returned from a long biking trip, and again I'm short of time. I apologise for not giving this debate the time it deserves (in so far as a cheating, copying, forfeiting opponent deserves a full debate). If readers would care to look through my previous round, they will find a great many points that Pro did not address in his. Also, while his round looks more extensive, it is mostly copied from my round. Immortality --> your argument required humanity to breed forever. This is not entailed by Christianity, or any world-view we have addressed. Experiences --> Pro offers no rebuttal. He simply says they are wrong, but gives no reason to think so. Resurrection --> Pro's points devolve into ad-hominems. Instead of refuting the point, he goes on a rant about how the resurrection is absurd - this is only true if we accept naturalism, which obviously Pro had to prove. Bad, good deeds --> If we're suddenly going into the past (and the title of the debate implies we look at the present, not the past anyway), then I think a fair case could be made that humanity could never have arisen without a religion for social cohesion. So religion helped created the entire human race in the first place, The Cons do not outweigh the Pros. A comparatively small amount of rape cases does not outweigh the hundreds of thousands of lives saved and enriched by religious charity work. Commandments --> Again, we are referring to events in the present with this debate. Religion DOES more harm than good, not it HAS DONE. The point is unrefuted. Nuclear weapons --> I doubt that America will be the one to unleash nuclear Armageddon. In fact that claim is absurd. It will be some small splinter group without full knowledge of what they are doing. Extremities --> Again, there are absurd extremes to any ideology (look at the extremes of the political spectrum). This does not make the whole wrong. None of my points are refuted, Pro has not put any cogent (or original) argument for the resolution. Since he has failed to uphold it, it is negated.
Religion does more harm than good.

I apologise for missing the last round. --> weird maths <-- Uh...what entails that the human race will go on indefinitely? As far as I am aware, Christianity teaches that eventually the world will end and everyone will be assigned to their various immoral existences. So even if your math was right, and even if it entailed any kind of contradiction (I don't even see why it would), you're working from a false premise. --> personal experiences <-- Pro believes he knows better than a vast majority of youths. Tell me, has he peered into the minds of all those people? Can he diagnose liars or deluded people from around the world using merely his mind? If not, then I have no idea why he believes he has refuted this point. --> Resurrection <-- Pro basically argues that the disciples lied to the people, stole Jesus' body and then sacrificed themselves to get the religion going. This is, in a word, absurd. Who would die for something they themselves KNEW was false? Liars make extremely poor martyrs. --> Jesus <-- Pro admits that Jesus' teachings were very good, but denies that they are out into practise. Well, what about the vast amounts of charity work and good done in the name of Christianity? I provided many, many examples in the last round and Pro has not addressed them. The paedophile priests is quite horrific, but in comparison to the hundreds of thousands (if not more) helped by Christianity, it's insignificant. Also, those people are certainly not Christians as described by the NT, so Christianity can't really be blamed for them. --> Commandments <-- Just because some people beak the commandments doesn't mean they lack any impact as a whole. As stated, they give a moral basis for one to live their life. If such absolute barriers are removed, or had been removed in the past, many people would have been adrift without any moral code, no doubt doing as they pleased. --> Hindering of science <-- It is true that Christianity has hindered science in the past (and does so today). However, is this really a bad thing? It is likely that sometime in the future, as nuclear and biological weapons become easier to produce, that some mad faction will attack the human race or release some kind of devastation on the world. There could be nuclear war. The human race will, most likely, be completely wiped out some time in the future by our own technology. So is hindering science really a bad thing? --> extremists <-- Yes, there are extremes to religion (just like any ideology). This does not make it rotten as a whole.
France is a weak shadow of its former self. (Napoleon)

"France is a weak, pitiful country. They rely on the U.S. to bail them out when they surrender Paris without a fight to Germans." Belgium declared neutrality, and thus refused British help when the Germans attacked. Luxemburg Straight up surrendered without a fight. The French didn't surrender until the Germans reached Paris. They didn't surrender without a fight, they put up a defense that was outmaneuvared by the Germans. The supposed invincible Ardennes was also thwarted by the German tanks. It was not that the French didn't put up a fight. It was simply that German tactics were far superior, and the French were defeated rather easily.[1] It is true that U.S. bailed the French out through Normandy, but the U.S. got involved for their own reasons (pearl harbor), their main purpose wasn't to help France. The French were also allied to the allied powers... It is not weak to rely on your allies for assistance, as it is what allies are for. France has rich history with many military exploits[2], France is certainly not a weak or pitiful country. According to CIA factbook, the French have the military forces that are not behind those of other europrean countries. A side by side comparisons show us that they are more or less equal. The French are not weak, and not pitiful. Sources 1] http://worldwar2database.com... 2] http://en.wikipedia.org... 3] https://www.cia.gov...
Illegal Immigrants should be deported, anchor babies or not.

Immigration of almost any kind (legal or illegal) has a positive or at very least neutral impact on the economy [1] because of this they are not depriving the existing population of the US of anything and in fact help to improve the standard of living of the american people. Furthermore the number of children per women in most developed countries including the US [2] is falling meaning that the only way that the US (and a number of other western nations) can sustain their populations is through allowing significant amounts of immigration and deporting millions of people will not help with it. [1] http://www.thefiscaltimes.com... [2] https://upload.wikimedia.org...
Illegal Immigrants should be deported, anchor babies or not.

Illegal immigration is a huge problem these days. Mexicans find ways across the borders without legally entering the country. Now, these illegal immigrants are living in our country, supported by taxpayer dollars. What do we do with these immigrants who committed a crime to get here? Well, we let them stay and not be criminally prosecuted. An illegal immigrant who has a child while in America, even as an illegal, can stay. Their child gets citizenship because of the 14th Amendment, and we can't deport them back to Mexico, because that would be "wrong". If you accept this debate, please be civil. I would prefer not to hear Democrats calling me a "racist" or using any term of the sort. Here's how this debate will work; Round 1: Opening arguments Rounds 2 and 3: Continuing arguments and Rebuttal Round 3: Full Rebuttal and Conclusion Let the debate about illegal immigration begin.
Illegal Immigrants should be deported, anchor babies or not.

Rebuttal "Illegal immigrants do in fact increase crime." No, I've already showed that studies show that there is no link between immigration and crime [1]. "You know all of those drug cartels and murderers in Mexico? Guess what, they're coming here illegally. How in any does having drug cartels and murderers LOWER crime?" I've also already pointed out that this is a debate about migrants rather than the larger consequences of having an insecure boarder with a developing country, if you wanted to debate securing the boarder make a debate about securing the boarder. Remember many migrants from Latin America to escape the high crime rate [2]. "Having an insecure border with a developing nation is relevant, because it means more illegals can come here, and we don't deport them, which encourages more illegals." As I previously said if you want to debate the consequences of having an insecure border create a debate on the insecure boarder not the migrants. "The process to get in does take time and effort, but it's better than having to live the rest of your life knowing you're a criminal." No, you actually cannot get in. If you lack any kind of specialist skills or a spouse with US citizenship you will find it almost impossible to gain entrance to the US through any kind of legal path. "Those Spanish people you mentioned? They were forced to come here and assimilate, because no one else spoke Spanish. Now, however, we have so many illegals coming in that they don't even bother learning Spanish, because we've become pretty much a bi-lingual country where you don't even have to speak English." Well no there were hundreds of thousands of hispanic people living in the US in that part of the 19th century and they could have easily created their own community but they didn't. The same will happen with latin american migrants today. Conclusion: Illegal migration is necessary to the US economy in the absence of a significantly reformed immigration system. There are no significant economic or social long term effects of illegal migration. Deportation significantly hurts US interests abroad. Therefore it is preferable no to engage in mass deportation. [1] http://www.cato.org... [2] http://www.washingtonpost.com...