BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Masturbation is not a sin

1.that doesn't address the verses i gave regarding masturbation. Adultery is havingsex w ith another person's wife or husband. This obviously cannot happen to someone who fantasizes of another. We weren't discussing the beliefs of catholic , we are debating whether or not masturbation is a sin from the Bible. This doesn't show that masturbation is a sin. 2. Still doesn't prove masturbation is a sin. 3. Okay? Well you haven't shown biblically how masturbation is a sin through hermeneutics.
Masturbation is not a sin

1. Catholicism actually uses the Sixth Commandment (as per sources) for the basis of their argument presenting that adultery is any form of inconsistent or inappropriate sexual behavior as an all encompassing command versus attempting to segment it as you have relating to masturbation as an action, lust as a thought, and the presence of what you consider to be appropriate sexual interaction (Despite the Bible openly stating one-man to one-woman and David [and all the kings for that matter] having many concubines). "Genesis 2:22-24 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, ' for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." Not all of what is written within the Bible is necessarily backed by God though it may be an accurate reflection of what was at the time therefore books like the Song of Solomon which is essentially erotic poetry may not have been appropriate or sanctified despite it's inclusion in the holy book. 2. As Catholicism expands (as you did) on the Sixth Commandment I see no reason to further expand upon the Sixth Commandment as it does so adequately. 3. As Catholicism is using the Bible for backing it is inherently questionable of whether it can be denied based on the source being Catholic itself. It's exclusionary and is being invalidated based on basically not being what you wanted to talk about.
Masturbation is not a sin

Masturbation is considered a sin in Catholicism. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action" (CCC# 2352). Whatever the motive, solitary sex in itself contradicts the meaning of human sexuality, which is meant by God to be shared between a man and a woman in marriage." (http://catholiceducation.org...) The Catechism on Chastity: "By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."138 "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."139" (http://www.vatican.va...) Cited twice masturbation is a sin in Catholic teachings based on the fact that it goes against the purpose of sex. As this is a Christian teaching it is difficult to discern whether or not the official doctrine is sufficient or if I need to produce some element of debate based on my own thoughts versus simply showing for this as the base truth of the religion.
Taking the word GOD out of all things pertaining to government e.g. "pledge of alligence" dollar bil

Well you may think "that children now days do not learn who he really is except in the church and Bible" but I might think that children don't really learn who they are unless they pray to a Banana. That is your opinion.It is your right to have your opinion as it is my right to have mine so why should your opinion be on public money and public national anthems. You may believe this is one nation under god but I do not. So why should your opinion count more then mine when we are both American. I am not asking to put "one nation under atheism". If you believe in god that is perfectly fine with me but it is not fine that there should be your god all over my money, that is saying your opinion counts more then mine yet we are both Americans and in that case that is bias and discriminatory. You can do what ever you want, build as many churches as you want, pray as much as you want, it is perfectly ok with me but it is not ok when your opinions are plastered on my money, or the pledge of allegiance to my country or have to swear on your bible to whether or not I am telling the truth in a court of law. This is not the the united states of christians. There is supposed to be separation of church and state our founders understood this and it should be reimplemented.
Taking the word GOD out of all things pertaining to government e.g. "pledge of alligence" dollar bil

I here by find that the word god should be placed on the dollar bill and in the schools and the Pledge of Allegience as a tool of learning I think that children now days do not learn who he really is except in the church and Bible. I find that most American people when asked if they believe in God they say yes. They believe that we are One Nation Under God.We are also equal as men and women.We are all God's children.
Taking the word GOD out of all things pertaining to government e.g. "pledge of alligence" dollar bil

there should not be any mentioning of the word god when it comes to government. this is not one nation under god becaue i do not believe in god yet i am apart of this nation that i was born in. i herd that originally there was never any mentioning of god and that it was placed into our currency and our pledge of alliegence by some religious people, though i have no proof for that claim nor the desire right now to look it up but it sound right to me. wheather some people like it or not not everybody believe in god and they shouldnt be biased against for it. if you believe in god and dont want to accept my beliefs that is fine but a religious person has no more right to be here than i so they should not have their gods plastered all over my money and my pledge of alligence. I pledge alligence to the United States of America not to ur gods. i treat religious people fair so people who dont believe in god should be treated egual as well.
Taking the word GOD out of all things pertaining to government e.g. "pledge of alligence" dollar bil

In conclusion I still fail to see your logic in taking the word god out of everything pertaining to the governnent and the dollar bill. You being Atheist has no bearing to why we have the word god on the dollar bill.If it is just a word why should it offend you if it is on the dollar bill and in the government? which brings me to my next thought. You said that this debate was a waste of time .This debate was very interesting and enlightening.I also feel that we as Americans are not biased to one thing or another .next thought please. I want to explain myself to you to clarify what I meant when I last spoke about the constitution. WE as Americans should fight for what we think is right ,which is what our founding fathers did by implementing the Bill Of Rights.One of which are the Miranda Rights. Thank You for this lively debate Italia, because maybe later we can be friends and discuss this topic in more detail.
Taking the word GOD out of all things pertaining to government e.g. "pledge of alligence" dollar bil

this debate suucks! what are you talking about james? Having the word god on the united states currency only says that the united states government supports a particular religion. god on the currency show bias against those who do not believe in god. government is supposed to be completely unbiased and neutral, that is the way it was formed over 160 years ago. the founding fathers new what were the problems of societies and new how to fix them which is why they did such a good job at building a foundation for this country to grow on which allowed United States to become one of the greatest countries in the world. But now 160 or so years later, with more corrupt government then ever, and a Texas aristocracy, the foundation to which our country was grown on is being changed. Our whole country is being turned into a bunch of hill billies by people like Bush. What i always find ironic is if i said i believe in the boogy man, people would look at me like i'm crazy yet if i said I believe in an invisible man in the sky, and devils, and monsters beneath my feet, not only would i be looked at normal, but i could even use the fact that i believed in the devil monsters and god to aid me in becoming the president. I don't mean to be rude james but for the government to support a particular religion over another is wrong, government supporting a particular religion unconstitutional, and the only reason you support the government in it's decision to support a particular religion is a shameless reason, which is that the government happens to be supporting your religion. Don't you see james if the goverment supported my religious opinions then you would be the one upset and arguing. But since the goverment happens to be supporting your religion you are perfectly fine with it, that is why i say it is shamless. Year 2007 and we are having this debate, wow, what is happening to this country.
Taking the word GOD out of all things pertaining to government e.g. "pledge of alligence" dollar bil

Since you so lovingly bring up Atheism , let's address the topic. If what you are suggesting is right we have no freedoms at all. We should keep the word god on our dollar bill to remind us that we do have these rights and freedoms. Atheism is not believing in the one who created and watches over you.On to my next point of view . The constitution of America was written by our founding fathers one of which was our first president George Washington, and John Adams who were very influential at that time and place. The constitution was written so that people of this country would be free.Which brings me back to my main argument that you still havenot proven beyond a doubt why we should take the word god out of everything pertaining to the government or the dollar bill. Your theory makes me think of a communist or socialist point of view not of a point of view that is of freedom. Atheism is as you have stated in previous rounds that One Nation Under Atheism,I find is an insult to us as Americans,because we are One Nation Under God. My main recommendation for you would be to open your mind instead of seeing one way.
Taking the word GOD out of all things pertaining to government e.g. "pledge of alligence" dollar bil

Well tell me this James, why "should" we put the word god on the dollar bill or in government? "Whether you believe in god has no bearing on this debate".(james) James, in order for me to say the pledge of allegiance to my country from which I was born I have to pledge allegiance to your god. How does me not believing in god have any bearing on this debate? Since we are all equal, and as you said we are all free, would you object to me asking congress to change the current pledge of allegiance from "one nation under god" to something like "one nation under Atheism"? You have no more right to be here then I, so the fair thing to do would be to change motos such as "one nation under god" and "in god we trust" because those statements are not true for every person. Our founding fathers had no mentioning of creating a christian government in the constitution. They only spoke of religious freedom for which I am completely for. I found an interesting quote about one of the founding fathers and religion, " When Benjamin Franklin proposed during the Constitutional Convention that the founders begin each day of their labors with a prayer to God for guidance, his suggestion was defeated.(We are not one nation under god, David Greenburg) I believe it is my responsibility to re establish the foundation from which was established by the founding fathers from which our country arose. Freedom, democracy, equality. When government favors some Americans religious views over another it creates division. We are not the christians of America we are the United States of America. Religion in government does not unite you and I it divides us. Our founding fathers realized that government should take no favor towards religion which is why in the first amendment it reads " "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." (The First Amendment) The words "one nation under god" wasn't inserted till 1954. Government should be completely un biased and non supportive of any religion to ensure its place as the calm, neutral center that is there for all Americans not just those who believe in god. Lets be united. Some History of pledge of allegiance, source from David Greenberg. I did some reading on the history of the United States motto and the United States pledge of allegiance. It turns out that original pledge of allegiance had no mentioning of god. The pledge of allegiance was written in 1892 by the socialist Francis Bellamy, it went like this, "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all". The words "under god" were added in 1954, more then 160 years after the official ratification of the constitution when Charles Oakan introduced a bill for doing just that.
Taking the word GOD out of all things pertaining to government e.g. "pledge of alligence" dollar bil

Italia ,after careful thought it was brought to my attention that you have not been successful in backing up your statements as to why we should not put the word god on the dollar bill or in the government .That being said, Whether or not you are Atheist this has no bearing on whether or not to put the word god on things pertaining to the dollar bill or the government. Our constitution,was well documented by christian men who I spoke about in the previous round of this debate, about our freedoms.Whether you believe in god has no bearing on this debate . You might read your history book about the constitution of the United States ,it will enlighten you to the fact that we should keep the word god on the dollar bill and everything pertaining to the government. Again I restate the fact that we are One Nation Under God.
Taking the word GOD out of all things pertaining to government e.g. "pledge of alligence" dollar bil

Yea but, James I don't believe in god brother. God whether you want to admit it or not is an opinion that is why you need faith to believe in it. Your opinion is all over my money. The dollar bill might as well say on it "atheists are stupid". James, what if the dollar bill said one nation under Atheism? Would that bother you? The only reason your not bothered is because the opinion is in you favor. Do you see my point? I am an American just like you are an American yet your beliefs trump mine and I don't think that is right.
Taking the word GOD out of all things pertaining to government e.g. "pledge of alligence" dollar bil

Italia ,you still have not proven why we should take the word god out of everything pertaining to the government,and the dollar bill.Our founders have proven that we have the freedom of speech ,freedom of religion and freedom of government,also freedom of the press.If we were a communist country we would not have these freedoms. I am not trying to be discriminative when I say that we should keep god on our dollar bill I am simply stating the fact that we are all equal in gods eyes. You made a complaint that your opinion does not count as much as mine does , that is not true,because in America every opinion counts as equal.We as Americans have the freedom to do as we please within reason. This brings me to my next thought. We are One Nation Under God ,which means that god is watching over us as humans.
The legal system should have the option to charge juveniles as adults.

"Maturity has nothing whatsoever to do with age at all." Age and maturity are very closely linked... The "example" you provided is one of your own fantasy and a majority of 35 year old men are of sound mind and not utterly insane. The older you are the more mature you become, that is undeniable when looking at 99% of the population who is sane and normal. However, age still doesnt provide an ideal example of whether or not a person is mature enough to be tried as a juvenile or as an adult since theres no fine line between age and whether or not the criminal in question has the maturity of his age group or not. There is a grey area between juveniles and adults, and because age alone cant set a standard for sorting through the mess, the courts use the severity of crimes and criminal record to determine whether or not a person should stand trial as a juvenile or as an adult. As for your conclusion, it appears that your entire argument for why the legal system should not charge juveniles as adults is because if sentenced then those people may get raped in prison.... When a juvenile or an adult commits a crime then they have accepted the consequences of their actions, disregarded them, carried out their actions anyway, got caught, and now must face the consequences of their actions, thats just life. However your ideas for addressing this problem are even more absurd then your reason for why juveniles under no circumstances should be tried as an adult. 1) You want to build an entirely new prison system to solve a problem that might not work? Its not just juveniles who are abused in prison, people who are short and weak are also easy targets. Should we build two additional prison systems just for these people so they do not get abused? The cost of such a scheme would be stupendous and a very poor way to address the problem you seem more concerned about. 2) Your quotation of the word killers concerns me as if you think that all juveniles who alledgedly commit murder do not commit murder, here are some examples of juvenile killers. 1) CJ Jones who killed his mother, slashed the throats of his two sisters, killed himself, and at the same time burned down the family house, 14 years old http://www.nypost.com... 2) Cody Posey, who killed his entire family when he was only 14 http://articles.cnn.com... 3) Here is the most grisly one of all, Tyler Hadley who is 17 years old went out to party with friends after the killings........ he beat both his parents to death with a hammer http://abcnews.go.com... Juveniles should be tried as adults because their crimes may be just as haneous and because the juveniles may represent an equal threat to society then any adult who committed the same crimes.
The legal system should have the option to charge juveniles as adults.

Not only is this my very first debate, it's not completely copy & paste as you stated. But yes, that was the site I obtained the majority of my information from. First my rebuttals: ". .. age is not a perfect indicator of the maturity or state of mind of each and every juvenile. .. " Maturity has nothing whatsoever to do with age at all. For example, using the phrase, "He's as mature as a thirty-five year old man," is an unreliable statement. You could have a thirty-five year old man who sprints through a department store releasing flatulence on random people, throwing glitter in the air, and screaming "SPORK! " at the top of his lungs. That doesn't seem very mature to me. But then again, you could have a thirty-five year old man who is the head of the countries leading law firm and works hard every day. He knows what he needs to do and he does it. Now that's mature. Now for my conclusion: I do not believe that the legal system should have the option to charge juveniles as adults mainly because of the abuse and rape that occurs at adult jails and penitentiaries. Also, why not just put them in a maximum security juvenile facility? Then, everyone else would be better protected from the "killers" they're oh so worried about. I again thank my opponent for debating me on this topic during these busy holiday times. I thank the readers for taking time out of your schedule to read and vote on this debate.
The legal system should have the option to charge juveniles as adults.

2 things, 1) I found the article the Con completely copy-pasted his entire argument from, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com... 2) Its not really plausible to call for people to vote Con when I havent presented a single argument yet. Anyways, as the Con, or really the article, says the age that teenagers are considered juveniles vary from state to state, and this implies that there is sort of a grey area between what is an adult and what is a teenager. Since then there is no easy way to define who is a teenager and who is an adult there are compromises made in the court system of the person on trial, and those compromises of which teenagers may be tried as adults lies on one thing, the haneous crimes they committed and their criminal history. Age is used as the first indicator of whether or not a person is a juvenile or an adult but juveniles are usually charged with small crimes such as trespassing or maybe vandalism, not murder or robbery. That being said if the actions of the teenager mirror the actions of an adult more than of other teenagers then why would we not make him stand trial for his crimes? "Actions speak louder than words" is a term that in case summarizes quite nicely the age conflict between juveniles and adults. Because there is no set scientific indicator or test to ultimately prove whether or not a criminal is a juvenile or an adult, then often the courts look at the crime committed and see whether or not these crimes are the norm for juveniles or adults. Now I couldnt find any other information about this Ronnie Vera kid so I couldnt argue about his possible criminal past or if he even has one. However there are many, many teenagers out there who have a long history of usually minor crimes on their record which implies they are always a threat to society. Now when you take that and then you combine it with the person's latest crime, which may be murder, homicide, armed robbery, etc. and it is especially haneous then the teenager in question by all means could be tried as an adult since in some cases their criminal record could rival that of many adults. I believe that juveniles should be tried as adults since age is not a perfect indicator of the maturity or state of mind of each and every juvenile, and because the actions of the criminal in question more accurately shows the state of mind of the criminal in question than age does.