BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homosexuality is okay!

I believe that homosexuality is not okay. It is in fact unnatural in nature you will never find homosexuality in animals which do not have the attributes of free will as we do. Homosexuality is now considered moral because of the societal changes in america and its influence on the world. I do not believe that homosexuals should be treated with lesser value because they are humans too, but the lifestyle is what is frowned upon. Never in my readings of the bible ever justified homosexuality, in fact the bible considered homosexuality as an abomination and a sin, you take the bible out of context and spread it as a false prophet which is also a sin. here are a few verses that justify my religious statement Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them. Romans Chapter 1 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Homosexuality is okay!

I believe that homosexuality is okay. It may be odd behavior, but that doesn't mean it's bad or immoral. It is their right to have the same rights as "straight" people. It is just IMMORAL for someone to treat them of lesser value because of it! That makes you a bad person. Not treating everybody equally. That is the true evil. The only thing the Bible says, if you are religious, is this: -Homosexual rape and improper treatment of strangers (Genesis 19 & Judges 19:14-29); -Homosexual ritual sex in Pagan temples (Leviticus 18:22 and 29:13); -Homosexual prostitution (Deuteronomy 23:17, 1 Kings 14:24, 2 Kings 23:7 and many other places in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament); -Men molesting male children (1 Corinthians 6:9); -Men or women engaging in bestiality with angels (Jude 7). The bible states nothing of a fair relationship with man and man or woman and woman. (http://www.religioustolerance.org...)
Homosexuality is okay!

Yes, it is good that we find common ground. i understand your standpoint as to the behaviors of the current religious bureaucracy is quite upsetting or distasteful in the least. The world we live in is quite corrupt and i believe reform is needed for the human race to progress in the future. If you read the bible you will actually find that some of the prophecies have or are in the process coming true. But to say that a person such as me is judging a Homosexual is not an act of me judging it is me actually telling the person what god says, the only person who has the right to judge. When it comes to interpreting the bible or any religious texts remember do not let your own personal ideas and desires warp the true meaning of the texts think about how God would want you to interpret. Also when it says that a man shall not lie with another man it does include women.The mindset of homosexuality is said to be wrong. I know it seems unequal but if you think about it nature is equal but unequal. A Lion and a deer are very different creatures. A Lion is strong, brute, beastly, While a deer is fast, graceful, peaceful but fearful. a lion can easily overpower the deer with its might, but at the same time a deer can easily evade the lion and escape. These to examples co-exist and are equal but unequal. This is life, life does not exist to please and favor one species over another. Sins and all negative energies disrupt life, it disrupts the balance that was once existent before the entering of sin into the world. We humans with the right of free will is a gift indeed, something that we should be proud of. But if we humans do not realize what life is and come to an understanding of our place in life we will fall along with the world and life will no longer exist in the world. Nothing good comes from evil God deems Homosexuality is unnatural and wrong, it is a sin. If homosexuality exist then it is another step to destruction of life
Global Warming

The first definition you gave mentioned the greenhouse effect resulting from pollution, and while I agree with that, the definition for pollution does vary and many never actually mention humans as a cause. I feel the need to point out that natural air pollution, the pollution of the air through nature simply going about its buisiness, is real and is a very large contributor to greenhouse gasses, and since natural air pollution usually does not happen largley in one specific area but infact all over the earth at almost a constant rate, it has a bigger effect on the amount of harmfull gasses in the air. With all of the natural disasters that have been happening latley like the volcano eruption in Iceland and the large earthquakes that have been happening over the past few years, one would find it hard to deny that something is happening and changing with our little planet. Along with natural disasters expelling gasses into the air, arctic landmasses hold a substantial amount of Co2 and other harmfull gasses inside, and with tempatures rising, the land will start to defrost and release an extremly large amount of greenhouse gasses into the air, just another prime example of natural air pollution. So I say again, Global Warming is not humans fault. Also I do agree with you about Al Gore's movie.
Global Warming

Global warming definition: an increase in the earth's atmospheric and oceanic temperatures widely predicted to occur due to an increase in the greenhouse effect resulting especially from pollution. Global warming definition: The phrase global warming refers to the documented historical warming of the Earth's surface based upon worldwide temperature records that have been maintained by humans since the 1880s. So as you notice, the definition of global warming from various websites (whose sources I have listed below) all state that global warming is primarily resulting from pollution, and not the Earth going though multiple dramatic changes. Even an environmentally leaning website has the source as pointing towards humans causing it. Not that I believe that either is happening. But then again, we have been there before. If you look at a lot of global warming activists such as Al Gore and among others, the things they say are extremely out of context. Especially his movie, An Inconvenient Truth. He even talks about his son getting hit by a car at one point. What does that have to do with global warming I may ask? Sources: . http://www.eoearth.org... . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Pro should have won this debate

My opponent makes the argument that since KRF created an argument based on a fallacy, then he should have lost. However, this is not the way that debate works. A debate is decided based on the presentation of argument, not on who is inherently right or wrong. The winner of the debate is KRF, because Freeman did not uphold the burden of proof and KRF provided enough evidence to call Freeman's argument into question. Keep in mind that despite what my opponent may say, the debate is decided based on what is present in the debate, not on the discussion that occurs afterwards. Regardless of whether or not KRF's arguments were fallacious, it must be pointed out that Freeman did not adequately respond to them. Instead, he dismissed them with little to no rebuttal. Furthermore, let us keep in mind that the scope of the topic was quite large and yet, Freeman decided to list but ONE piece of evidence, knowing full well that he bore the burden of proof. This shows a great deal of confidence, but the results clearly show that his confidence was misplaced. As such, the clear winner of that debate was KRF. Perhaps if Freeman responded with my opponent's argument in round 2 instead of what he wrote, then the results would be different. I look forward to my opponent's response, thank you.
Pro should have won this debate

This is my second debate on this site, and i am honored to have such a high ranking debater to share the experience with. I appologize for not being clear on my premise. By "Pro should have won this debate", i really meant "The outcome of the voting after the debate should have been in pro's favor" "The winner of a debate should not be decided based on my opponent's opinion, but it should be decided based on which debater gave the stronger logical arguments. " I completely agree. That is why we shall spend the last two rounds debating who had the stronger argument. Con's case is based on a fallacy "In fact, when you consider that the cubits were measured using string and someone's arm length, the values make mathematical sense. " The method of measuring one person would make a consistent unit of measurement for this one example. The fallacy is this: All units of measurement are relative to another (ie 1 inch=1 inch), so the measurements put into the ratio should reach the mathmatical proof pi. The bible does not use any language to say it was an approximation. It said "and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about". It did not say and his height was about five cubits: and a line of almost thirty cubits did compass it round about. You cannot make an assumption that they wanted you to make an approximation. Conclusion: If they did, that was an error in writing. If not, it is a mathmatical error. I am sorry for waiting so long to reply. Holiday season gets crazy.
Pro should have won this debate

"Should" indicates a moral imperative. My opponent suggests that Pro "should" have won the debate. However, should it also not be the case that Con win the debate? Both participants have their imperative to win. The problem occurs because if one person wins, the other must lose. By asserting that Pro should have won the debate, my opponent necessarily states "Con should have lost this debate". In reality, both Pro and Con should have won. No one participates in a debate with the purpose of losing. Thus, it is erroneous for my opponent to make his suggestion. The winner of a debate should not be decided based on my opponent's opinion, but it should be decided based on which debater gave the stronger logical arguments.
Pro should have won this debate

My opponent counters my assertion that the winner of the debate should be based on how the argument is presented by saying that argumentation should also be taken into account. I agree with him and when I said "presentation of argument", I also meant the argument itself. Fallacious arguments must be SHOWN to be fallacious by the opposition. Furthermore, my opponent did not catch a fallacy at all, he is simply making an argument. A fallacy is a mistake of logic, what my opponent is doing is setting forth a more reasonable interpretation. There is nothing inherently wrong about KRF interpreting the Biblical calculations as approximations, as he provided his reasons for doing so (that measurements were based on variable measurements such as arm length and hand width). This is a perfectly valid argument and not fallacious at all. It just so happens that my opponent has a better interpretation. If KRF were debating my opponent, then my opponent would surely win, but this was not the case. KRF gave an argument, Freeman had a chance to respond and didn't. My opponent states that Freeman argued that KRF's counterpoints were fallacious in the "Triumph of Reason" section, but this is untrue. The "Triumph of Reason" section was nothing more than further illustration of Freeman's main point: That the exact value of Pi was not stated in the Bible. Freeman never addressed KRF's arguments. He never mentioned a single thing about approximation in the language, never mentioned a single thing about the difference in measurement of the outer and inner diameter. He did not mention that the arguments were fallacious, he did not say anything except that the numbers of Pi were not exactly precise. KRF, however, accounted for these imprecisions in detail. As I said before, if Freeman used my opponent's argument, perhaps then he should have won. But my opponent's assertion that Freeman should have won because KRF performed a fallacy is invalid, because KRF's argument wasn't a fallacy. It was just an argument of lesser quality than my opponent's. Since that is the case, it comes full circle back to what I said earlier: Freeman should not have won that debate because KRF's arguments were not addressed in full and Freeman did not fulfill his burden. Even if I granted my opponent's assumption that the argument was fallacious (even though it was not), then it would be at best, a tie. Regardless, I think that my opponent made a very good argument against KRF's case and it would be nice to see him debate KRF.
Pro should have won this debate

"My opponent makes the argument that since KRF created an argument based on a fallacy, then he should have lost. However, this is not the way that debate works. A debate is decided based on the presentation of argument, not on who is inherently right or wrong. " I agree and disagree. A debate is half argumentation and half presentation. It is not simply presentation alone. A debater should be able to make clear facts and present them in a clear way, however weighing both elements come MUST come into play when considering should win and not presentation alone. The voting on this site displays this by making argumentation the most points. " KRF provided enough evidence to call Freeman's argument into question. " The evidence is irrelevant because the contention was a fallacy. "Keep in mind that despite what my opponent may say, the debate is decided based on what is present in the debate, not on the discussion that occurs afterwards. " I disagree again. When considering who should win a debate, one must extend all arguments and weigh them carefully. "Regardless of whether or not KRF's arguments were fallacious, it must be pointed out that Freeman did not adequately respond to them. Instead, he dismissed them with little to no rebuttal. " He acknowledged that they were fallacious, gave a short rebuttal for each point, and then gave a general rebuttal. He called it "The Triumph of Reason" "Furthermore, let us keep in mind that the scope of the topic was quite large" I agree "and yet, Freeman decided to list but ONE piece of evidence, knowing full well that he bore the burden of proof. " He only needed one counter-example to prove his contention. Perhaps if he had provided more than one example, his argument would have been stronger, but KRF still did not disprove his contention. No matter how much evidence you have for a fallacy, it will never disprove a contention. As such, the clear winner of the debate was Freeman. I had fun.
Resolved: Private corporations supportive of gay rights should turn neutral on the position instead.

I thank the con to give me the opportunity for participating in the debate and share my views. As I have selected to speak as pro in this debate, following are the views on it: Observation 1: Gay rights might come under the human right but definitely should be least prioritise in the category of minor and disadvantages community until it covers sections like Prostitute, diseased group like aids, special religious society. Even if we compare the violence and discrimination faced by the above sections, gays are already on the safer side. Observation2: Corporations works very hard for the making profits and share few portions of the profit for the wellness of the society. Until Community has major challenges like poverty, lack of basic medication, social differences etc, attracting a busy corporation over the gay right will not be good idea. Contention 1: Gay rights should be indubitably accepted in society: I agree with this point but approval of gay right should not be on the aid of the corporations, as this is a individual choice to be a gay and corporations may be responsible for the need of human but not for the sexual choice of human. Sub-point 1a: Human rights are important: All the details provided by the contender for the human right are important however not specific to gay as it implies to all human so it should be consider out of the discussion. Sub-point 1b: Denial of gay rights creates second-class citizens: I personally agree for the gay right but there may be following grounds for the denials: A gay or lesbian may be a psychological or physiological disease which may be curable instead of considering the natural state whereas a well written gay right in constitution may be a cause for loosing an opportunity to analyse the abnormal state. Any right in the history only created a well structured definition for the second class society so any right has not been successful ever. I wish to give following example for the argument: Racism was in the society and still in the society. Any right has not been helpful to resolve this issue. One could argue for the USA president as development in racism however news still on paper that: Barack obama first black president in the history. So right only enforces individual to express thoughts in another forms and it is not an ultimate solution to problem. Expression and discrimination is open and direct before any right but after a well written right, it will be in more systemic. Contention 2: Private corporations can be influential in promoting gay rights. Private Corporations can influence to people, leaders and nations right now but the main discussion should be which is the priority; A guy who, need food, house and cloth or a gay need a social status for the sexual choices.
Anti-Gun Control peoples' arguments have little or no basis.

1. My opponent's points on gun control would have been supplementary for his argument, if he made an argument to go with it. Since he didn't, I have to call it a concession.2. Not speaking for myself here, but Anti-Gun Control have beliefs that include a state of chaos potentially arising. if an EMP, for example, went of on American soil, little could be done to prevent Anarchy.And whether that's true or not, that's part of the strong basis for which Pro-Gun people have their beliefs.3. "The domestic terrorist/AK47 argument you present is in no way a valid argument against gun control. It can be assumed that a crime like this will take place within a heavy metropolitan area, where there are large police numbers nearby, where heavier grade weaponry will be present to attempt to deflect such attacks -- As handled by the police."No it can't. If it could be assumed that law enforcement can always come to the rescue and prevent gang-related crimes and domestic terrorism, then gang-related crimes and terrorism wouldn't happen. Since they happen, it can't be assumed that law enforcement will immediately come to our aid and protect us."most, if not all anti-gun control points have no practical basis."Here's what we managed to establish in the debate:While my opponent argues that only the big guns need to be banned, we are seeing the government focusing on banning handguns as well. Gun supporters want to keep their handguns because of the following reasons: -An EMP attack could easily happen.-Gang crimes do happen.-Domestic terrorism does happen.-Homes do get invaded.This is the practical basis for which people want to own guns.The resolution has been negated completely.
Anti-Gun Control peoples' arguments have little or no basis.

Impressive round, I'm impressed. 1) I was not off topic, it was supplementary for my argument. 2) In what universe do you believe no one will do a thing to prevent the further dissolve of America into a chaos state? 3) The domestic terrorist/AK47 argument you present is in no way a valid argument against gun control. It can be assumed that a crime like this will take place within a heavy metropolitan area, where there are large police numbers nearby, where heavier grade weaponry will be present to attempt to deflect such attacks -- As handled by the police. This is an argument where if you look ito it, it dissipates. Hence my point, most, if not all anti-gun control points have no practical basis. (Isn't it clear I'm new here?)
Anti-Gun Control peoples' arguments have little or no basis.

"all I'm saying is that for current gun purchases, we should have limits on what kind of guns should be purchased,"That was not defined in the resolution. When my opponent's brings up what he specifically means on gun control after I made an argument of my own, that's called having an abusive case.And the voters should take note that we are not here to argue whether or not gun control should be legal. We are arguing whether or not opponents to gun control laws have a basis, a matter in which my opponent completely conceded."We should have limits on what kind of guns should be purchased,"My opponent still does not have an understanding of what 2nd Amendment supporters' basis is. Gun control will not stop gang members and domestic terrorists from having AK-47s. If all hell breaks loose in America, having an AK-47 is not all that bad of a precaution.But once again, we're not arguing whether or not it should be legal."I could have said 'Since rapists don't follow laws, we shouldn't have laws against rape,'"...And I could have said "When someone steals your car in the middle of the freeway, most people would not get their car back by raping someone." "Oh, and I think that some people would attempt to track down the person that stole their car, and then set that person's house on fire."That's not a rational means of getting your car back.Nicholas Cage has no Ethos.All you really need to know:My opponent has conceded that Anti-Gun control people have no basis for their belief. That's all that matters.
Anti-Gun Control peoples' arguments have little or no basis.

"Taking guns away from the law-abiding population takes away their ability to defend themselves from those who disregard gun bans, therefore increasing crime rather than decreasing it."I, in no way, will agree with removing all guns from all citizens -- all I'm saying is that for current gun purchases, we should have limits on what kind of guns should be purchased -- you shouldn't need an AK-47 to defend your home, a Glock or something like it should do. The arson was just an example, I could have substituted it with rape, as I could have said "Since rapists don't follow laws, we shouldn't have laws against rape" as an example of my disbelief of the anti-gun control group.Oh, and I think that some people would attempt to track down the person that stole their car, and then set that person's house on fire.Are you really objecting to all gun laws?I hope you're not.But if you are...
Anti-Gun Control peoples' arguments have little or no basis.

"What on earth are these anti-gun control people going on about?"Just spitballing here, but it is likely that they are going on about Anti-Gun control. "You may say that criminals won't follow gun laws, so we shouldn't have them, but that is akin to saying that there should be no laws against arson because arsonists won't follow them."I would beg to differ. When someone steals your car in the middle of the freeway, most people would not defend themselves by setting someone's house on fire. Taking guns away from the law-abiding population takes away their ability to defend themselves from those who disregard gun bans, therefore increasing crime rather than decreasing it."No one can argue that gun violence is heinous,"I thought that's what you were doing."and we can prevent future crimes by making sure legally obtainable guns are kept under better control."Tell that to this guy: And this guy: And why don't you say that to THIS GUY: People like '70s black-sploitation star Dolemite don't care what laws say. They will own guns, and it will leave others defenseless.And so, the defense rests it's case. take it away, Pro.