BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God does NOT hate gay people

In this debate I intend to prove that most conservative Christians are wrong, and that God does not hate gay people, but sodomy(non-vaginal sex). Conservative Christians have long been pushing the error-ridden belief that God does not approve of homosexuality, with the majority of their conclusion coming from the book of Leviticus "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." However, the above quote is clearly saying that it is not homosexuality that is wrong, but homosexual sex. In the period that the Bible was written, to "lie with a man" referred to having sex with a man, which not all gay couples do. The quote says nothing about homosexuality. The Bible frequently talks about how sodomy is wrong, and since there is no physical way for two men or two women to have non-sodomite sex, all gay sex is sodomy. In fact, the bible never even mentions homosexuality, just homosexual sex. So basically, Conservative Christians are arguing that all gay couples commit sodomy, when it is wrong and stereotypical to come to the conclusion that all gays have sex with one another. Another quote from the Bible (Genesis 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may have sex with them." is talking about how God punished a town, according to homophobes "because they were gay", but in reality, it wasn't until they wanted to have sex with the men that God destroyed their town. Proving again that it is not homosexuality, but homosexual sodomy. Conservative Christian organizations have been saying that being homosexuality leads to eternity in hell, when according to the Bible, all those who believe in God, the father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, will live with God for eternity in Heaven. (Matthew 21, 34-40)
God does NOT hate gay people

"In case you forgot to read my introduction and all of round one, I said that I intend to prove that God does does hate gay people, but sodomy." I assume that's a typo and you meant "God does not hate gay people", not "God does does hate gay people." "I never said anything about a mass majority of people going to hell" Neither have I. "but I talked about how being gay does not necessarily mean you are hell-bound" I agree. "I have already stated that the people who are going to hell may include gay people, but as I stated, it was my intent to prove that they are not being sent here because of their sexuality, but for other reasons." The truth is it doesn't matter what God hates them for. Just that God hates them. Whether it's for being gay or for having gay sex, it doesn't matter. He still hates those he sends to hell. And some of those he sends to hell are bound to be gay. Thus God hates gays. "Since I am the only one here that has made an argument against the theory that God hates people for their sexuality" Well obviously I wouldn't do that due to my position in the debate. :P "Your job as Con is to prove me wrong, and you have only nitpicked at my few wording mistakes." It may seem dirty, you may not like it, but I have used semantics to crush your points. And you have failed to counter it. "You have yet to prove to the voters that God doesn't hate people for their sexuality," I had no need to do that. God hates people he sends to hell and some of those people are gay. Thus God hates gays. "whereas I have already proved that God doesn't hate gays specifically for their sexuality." Oh really? Proven? Case-closed? You stated your beliefs on the matter. Do you think anything you said would hold up in a court room? Not that it even matters. Even if you proved that, I've still won this debate based on the points that I keep reaffirming. Good debating. Have a nice day. :)
God does NOT hate gay people

Actually all people who go to hell are being referred to, which include some gay people. So it is entirely relevant." In case you forgot to read my introduction and all of round one, I said that I intend to prove that God does does hate gay people, but sodomy. I never said anything about a mass majority of people going to hell, but I talked about how being gay does not necessarily mean you are hell-bound. I have already stated that the people who are going to hell may include gay people, but as I stated, it was my intent to prove that they are not being sent here because of their sexuality, but for other reasons. "Notice the title of the debate is not "hates gay people because they are gay", it is just "hates gay people". He could hate them for any reason." But in the context provided in the introduction and round one, it was clear that the debate was about sexuality. "Saying "gay people" instead of "all gay people" can only properly be interpreted as any multiple gay individuals." Yes, but in the context provided it is referring to sexuality, and whether their sexuality is punishable by the law of God. "In only refuting my arguments and not making any yourself, you are actually forfeiting." Since I am the only one here that has made an argument against the theory that God hates people for their sexuality, you are indeed the one who is forfeiting. Your job as Con is to prove me wrong, and you have only nitpicked at my few wording mistakes. You have yet to prove to the voters that God doesn't hate people for their sexuality, whereas I have already proved that God doesn't hate gays specifically for their sexuality.
God does NOT hate gay people

"However, your comment was completely irrelevant because you were talking about average people, when this debate is about gay people." Actually all people who go to hell are being referred to, which include some gay people. So it is entirely relevant. "Yes, but those people were not sent to hell specifically because of their sexuality, as argued in round 1." Notice the title of the debate is not "hates gay people because they are gay", it is just "hates gay people". He could hate them for any reason. "But there is no other specific group of people that I'm talking about, so it must be a whole generalization of the entire LGBT community, and I would've thought that to be obvious." Saying "gay people" instead of "all gay people" can only properly be interpreted as any multiple gay individuals. "Because your argument did not refute my initial statement that God does not hate homosexuals, therefore I can not refute your argument when it really isn't an arguing against my first statement at all." False. Also, may I remind you that you have the burden of proof here, not me. It is upon you to prove that God does not hate gay people. In only refuting my arguments and not making any yourself, you are actually forfeiting.
God does NOT hate gay people

"First arguing point is accepted as confirmed." I said that it is inevitable that God will send people to hell, because your first point was that God will send people to hell. However, your comment was completely irrelevant because you were talking about average people, when this debate is about gay people. I also said following my statement, that it was only the people who didn't confess their sins, and is therefore not confirming your argument point, even though it's irrelevant to this debate. "Inevitably some of those people will be gay." Yes, but those people were not sent to hell specifically because of their sexuality, as argued in round 1. "Notice the title of the debate does not say "all gay people" but rather it is just "gay people". This is where you went wrong." But there is no other specific group of people that I'm talking about, so it must be a whole generalization of the entire LGBT community, and I would've thought that to be obvious. "Your conclusion does not refute my argument." Because your argument did not refute my initial statement that God does not hate homosexuals, therefore I can not refute your argument when it really isn't an arguing against my first statement at all.
God does NOT hate gay people

You're welcome. "It is indeed inevitable that God will send people to hell" First arguing point is accepted as confirmed. "but according to scripture it is only the people that do not confess their sins to God. " Inevitably some of those people will be gay. "It is wrong to say that all gays do not confess their sins" Notice the title of the debate does not say "all gay people" but rather it is just "gay people". This is where you went wrong. "In conclusion, God will send people to hell, but only those who repeatedly sin without confession. " Your conclusion does not refute my argument.
God does NOT hate gay people

I will start by countering his main points. It is indeed inevitable that God will send people to hell, but according to scripture it is only the people that do not confess their sins to God. Matthew 21 34-40 "When the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducee's, they came together, and one of them, an expert in the Law, tried to trap Jesus with this question. "Jesus, which is the greatest commandment in the Law? ""Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul, and mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. " It is wrong to say that all gays do not confess their sins, because there are indeed many churches specifically for homosexuals to confess their sins. And even so, there is no proof that all homosexuals are sexually active, or sexually active with other homosexuals for that matter. In conclusion, God will send people to hell, but only those who repeatedly sin without confession.
Unjustifiably negative resolutions are proper

Note: I have abbreviated Unjustifiably tacky resolutions to UNR. Haha, you have labeled a basic argument of agnosticism ("It cannot be proven that God doesn't exist") as an Appeal to Ignorance! But you're dead wrong. The Appeal to Ignorance fallacy applies when you try to prove something by arguing that there is no evidence to the contrary. So, for example, arguing that "It cannot be proven that God does not exist, therefore God DOES exist" would be an Appeal to Ignorance. However, arguing that "It cannot be proven God does not exist, therefore the PRO side has failed to show that God does not exist, and since PRO has failed to fulfill his burden of proof, you must vote for me" is NOT an appeal to Ignorance. It appeals to Burden of Proof. Moving on, I want to make this clear: If the debate were "Do other people currently find UNRs tacky/confusing", I would not have taken the debate. This debate will be won depending on whether "THE READERS OF THIS DEBATE still find UNRs tacky and confusing AFTER they have finished reading my explanations". Readers, there are 2 easy ways to find an opposing side to a UNR: (a) Affix "It cannot be proven" or "It is not the case" to the resolution. For eg., "god doesn't exist" becomes "it cannot be proven that god doesn't exist." (b) Remove a negative from the UNR: "God doesn't exist" becomes "god does exist". At least one of the above two methods, when applied to most UNRs, yields an arguable opposing resolution. It's simple when you think about it! Sources: Since some people actively deduct points for not citing sources, although I didn't need a source, I've added a google link to an irrelevant and irreverent "I'm going to grape you in the mouth" sketch: http://www.google.co.in...=
Unjustifiably negative resolutions are proper

Pro: If the atheist argues "God doesn't exist", then the opposite side could argue "It cannot be proven that God doesn't exist." Nothing "improper" about it at all! Sure, this is certainly possible and in this context it *appears* to be justified. However, his example given for the opposite side isn't even logically sound because it would be a clear example of the appeal to ignorance fallacy [1]. Going back to my definition of improper, the opposite side would still qualify as such. Something worth considering is how people view debate resolutions. I cannot speak for everyone because as you know, we all think differently. Yet, when you think of a debate, you think of people arguing on two separate/opposite sides. What is the opposite of "God doesn't exist?" That's right, "God exists." This is how most people are going to view it and I think it would be equivocal to say otherwise. Your point can be argued for but I think it's only natural to assume the opposite of the resolution we're discussing would be as I have put it. I am not trying to say your point holds no merit, though. Feel free to keep arguing it or elaborate on your case as I will not drop it as long as you keep adding content. Much of what I have labeled as improper can be eliminated by responsible instigators who specify what they are looking for the other side to argue. This can be unavoidable at times because we all know how complex and confusing certain resolutions can get. All of that stated, I stand by my initial point. Unjustifiably negative resolutions have still been upheld as improper and tacky. Vote con. Sources 1. http://www.fallacyfiles.org...
Unjustifiably negative resolutions are proper

I can win this using the very example of an "unjustifiably negative resolution" that Con gave: If the atheist argues "God doesn't exist", then the opposite side could argue "It cannot be proven that God doesn't exist. " Nothing "improper" about it at all! If you find the above resolution unfair, 'tacky' or annoying. .. . agnostics of the world unite! We shall crush this naysayer.
Unjustifiably negative resolutions are proper

Proper: marked by suitability or rightness or appropriateness [1] Q1. What are UNJUSTIFIABLY negative resolutions? I define unjustifiably negative resolutions as a resolution that would be clearer and more efficient minus the negative. For example, an atheist could start a debate called, "God exists" and then claim the con position. This is straight forward and easy to digest. The theist will be affirming the positive of "God exists" and the atheist will be negating it. On the other hand, a negative version of that would be, "God doesn't exist." This is where things get confusing. The pro side, which would be the atheist, would be affirming a negative statement while the con side would be pulling a double negative by negating the negative. Please do not bring in the syntax of other languages as this is reserved to English. Q2. What are JUSTIFIABLY negative resolutions? Justifiably negative resolutions aren't exactly negative. For example, "Pudding is bad." This is a contender for a just negative resolution because the pro would be arguing why pudding is bad and the con, instead of simply arguing the opposite (pudding is good), would be arguing as to why pudding ISN'T bad. This is where negative resolutions can be excused. C1. Negative resolutions are more cumbersome to interpret than their positive counterparts. See Q1. C2. Negative resolutions are less efficient than their positive counterparts. For example, I can take con side in a debate called, "God exists" rather than take pro in a debate called "God doesn't exists." The positive resolution is shorter and more fitting for the content of the debate, leading me to my next point... C3. The content of negative resolutions can be skewed/are not clear. Like in my God example... what if someone were to argue as con, acting not as if God existed, but rather that he doesn't NOT exist? That would be the proper thing to do but this rarely happens. Sources 1. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
Unjustifiably negative resolutions are proper

The "basic argument of agnosticism" you've given is still fallacious and if anything is a reverse appeal to ignorance. With that logic, you can basically make the case for anything metaphysical. For example, I can't prove that there aren't invisible unicorns in my room. That's just ridiculous. Anyway, we got a bit off topic. This debate is about UNRs. My opponent then explains how to find an opposing side to a UNR while totally ignoring 2/3s of what I said last round. If you remember what I said last round (and in my opening case), I stated that the instigator should specify his resolution if he feels it is unclear. Likewise, he should state what he is looking for the other side to argue. It shouldn't come down to the contender to decipher what someone is meaning in their resolution, it should be set by the instigator and then challenged by the contender. UNRs are still tacky and needlessly confusing.
This economic system will end the monster that is inflation and is thus necessary

My opponent claims that my economy will have no growth because it has no inflation, but this is not true. Under my proposed system, increased supply does not cause crashes through deflation, but evens out inflation from the increased money supply, keeping the money value at an equilibrium. Meaning that without deflation to worry about, people's wealth can be measured by another indicator: Amount of consumption. Furthermore, inflation does not necessarily create growth. Even though you have more money, the value of that money goes down the same amount. Second, in response to my opponent's question, when the average of each individual's money supply goes up, they can still buy as many goods as they want because the amount of goods and services is the sum of their individual parts.
This economic system will end the monster that is inflation and is thus necessary

This will be my first debate in some time. My opponent has two burdens in this debate. First, that his listed system will actually completely end inflation, and second, that it is necessary. If it ends inflation, but is not necessary, the resolution is negated. Let me first provide a definition. Necessary - "required to be done, achieved, or present; needed; essential. " [1] Second, I propose that a thriving economy that has modest inflation, is superior to a dying economy with no inflation. If my opponent wishes to argue against this, we can get into that. I'd like to ask for some clarification on some aspects. Since this is a 4 round debate, which usually start in R2, but I'm going in R1, we should have plenty of time for this. 1) When the consumers say "we want X dollars" is that asked on an individual, company, or national level? Meaning does each person say "I want $80.000,00" or each company say "We want $40.000.000,00 for the year" or the nation as a whole say "we are going to do $5 trillion this year"? If it is the case of on the national level, how is the money distributed? 2) How would it be determined how money is removed should the work load not be met? Evenly from everyone? From under-performing individuals? Thank you, [1] . https://www.google.com...
This economic system will end the monster that is inflation and is thus necessary

I have thought of a possible economic system. Under my system, consumer-laborers decide on the amount of currency they are assigned, with limits on how much based on the possibility of hyper-inflation and whether or not they qualify. They then use this money to buy goods and services. However, they must then pay back the usage of money by doing labor for the economy, and more specifically labor of an equal value. The possible increase in a money supply which causes inflation is offsetted by an increase in aggregate supply which causes decreased demand and thus decreased prices and thus deflation. Also, if employees are mistreated and go on strike, lets say a drop from 5 trillion dollars of production to 2.5 trillion, then either money is taken out of circulation, thus causing a decrease in the money supply, or part of the money is returned to the people and the cycle starts again. To add to my system, I will get rid of interest-banking, which causes inflation. This is a good thing because inflation causes unnecessary confusion in the market, wages often don't keep up with inflation, and inflation causes boom and bust cycles, which have a recession side to them, too.
Should gay marriage be legalized

Okay a few things. 1: I asked you to use use the first round to accept meaning I wanted you not post your argument in the first round. 2: You talk about a lot of researcher and yet you do not give me a link like I asked. This means I have no idea of the validity of your proof. You talk about studies but don't give me anything but your word. 3: Not everyone is gay. Those who are strait are still going to populate the earth. Also its not like gay people are going to suddenly become strait if gay marriage is legalized. 4: You are arguing that because something dose not help the goal of humanity in the sense of since, culture and society it should be outlawed. You sure about that? 5: STD can be prevented using protection Studies you need to give links too: 1:Studies on cause of gay relationships 2: Studies showing homosexuality to be a mental/genetic disorder 3: Proof that gay parents are more likely to have gay kids 4: proof that gay people are 6 times more likely to commit suicide. Those who are prevented form marrying often end up with large finical burdens. Back in 2013 PBS found that gay couples are more likely be uninsured do to not being able to get to there spouses employ heath insurances. This can cost the average employee $500,000 dollars over a life time. Similarly, because there are now an increase in people getting married, there are also going to be an increase in people buying wedding licenses, photographers, and the like, giving a boost to the economy. I don't think your homophobic. Thanks for answering.
Should gay marriage be legalized

First of all if this was instituted, it is not gay marriage, it is gay Union. I am not a church person. I stick to the facts. I will keep all of my arguments fully based in reality and on facts. In a nutshell, gay relationships are not beneficial for humanity as a whole. This does not allow the system of evolution to continue. They are not reproducing, and not contributing to the gene pool. This also spreads STD's far faster than heterosexual relationships. There is significant scientific research into the cause of gay relationships. The research points to homosexuality being a mental/genetic disorder. When this type of behavior is perceived as being good, and a way to express yourself, this is the wrong mentality. As I said this is not beneficial for humanity as a whole, and the goal of humanity is to get as far as possible in science, society, and culture. When children are raised with homosexuality being a good thing, this confuses them. They should be strictly shown how evolution intended us to reproduce. Homosexual people are also 6 times more likely to commit suicide than a heterosexual person. This shows that their quality of life isn't great, which is expected since they are the minority, and they are detrimental as a whole to society. I know some of what I said seems like I am a homophobe, but all of this is solid research. I was as objective as I could be. I would definitely say no to gay marriage, for all of those reasons.
Sexual relations with animals should be allowed

Ha! I know when I look into the eye's of a sheep there is a connection... seriously, come on! The very idea of this being legal is ridiculous. If this practice were to be made legal, could you then legally marry an animal? Then, anyone could just go to the store, and purchase a sex slave. This is not exceptable behavior. How then could any animal report someone who's raping them? THEY CANT... because THEIR AN ANIMAL... who's orfaces's you should not penetrate. There's no way this could be controlled, and there would be no assurance that people weren't abusing dogs, sheep, monkeys, turtles, whatever. It just isn't morally plausible. Different species of animals have different sizes of genitalia so how could you know that a human having sex with them wouldn't internally injure them? This is completely taboo!