BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Secular Morality is superior to Christian morality

This is boring, I'm forfeiting the rest of the debate.The outline of what I was going to say is this:1. Slavery = kidnapping, if you do not know this then you are ignorant of how this thing called owning people works.2. The Pharoh had 2 million people that would kill all Hebrew men. So killing the Pharoh wouldn't do anything, he'd continue. There's this thing called "believing in what a leader says", it's pretty cool, look it up some time.3. This isn't a debate about if God is real or not, and if we accept that the Bible is the enerrant word of God (for this debate, we must accept that he is real, otherwise we are literally debating secular v. secular morality), then it has this thing called "the word of a perfect being that is entirely moral".4. Rape actually is an attack on the foundation of the household. Rape is not amoral according to your guidelines, saying that if it harms one individual then it is not moral. God-1 you-0.5. I don't need to read your Euro-whatsit, since I am only supposed to read what is actually in the text of the debate. I used my discretion and didn't point out that you are advocating for outside of debate knowledge when voting, but whatevs.6. It is about Molech worship - you literally have no defense against it, it just says to kill homosexuals (when referencing Molech). Yeah, people worshipping a false God and having sex with tons of prostitutes is kind of not moral, so *shrug*.
Secular Morality is superior to Christian morality

I'd like to say sorry if I was condescending or rude during this debate, I never meant for tempers to flare or anything.You won this debate since I forfeited. But in my mind, as an atheist, you haven't proven that a morality that has no basis for confirmation of if something is moral or not, other than circumstances. I agree that secular morality is superior, but for the reasons you gave, I wouldn't be persuaded. Now, I wouldn't be persuaded by mine either, but I had said earlier to throw away internal biases that may impact voting (you didn't >:D), so IF the Bible is the word of God, and for the purposes of this debate God exists, then it's on a moral absolutist level of morality, something that cannot be confirmed with secular morality.Anyways, it was fun to think about, thank you for allowing me to debate you, and again, sorry for any harmful words I have brought into this debate.
Is art an essential in learning

No, I would submit that it is not a tenable position to say that Art is essential to learning. The implication there is that you cannot learn without Art, which is of course not true. Learning is, in many cases, possible in the absence of Art. In response to your initial arguments, one at a time: Argument 1: "yes because when your learning is it easier to learn by someone just telling you something or to actually do it. that is like art you cant describe art in its true depth unless you show someone or do it so when your learning art can help to make every subject easier." Response 1: We can agree that it's easier to learn something by doing it rather than just being told about it ("I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand" - Confucius), but that's both irrelevant to this argument and not a contentious point. I agree that the above statement applies to Art, but you have made an illogical progression in your reasoning of the last part of this statement: You've said A: "Learning is easier if you can actually do the thing", B: "Art is easier to learn if you see it rather than hear it described", therefore C: "You need Art to help make learning every subject an easier task". Upon inspection, C of course does not follow A and B. Argument 2: "also, art is everywhere you go so why not learn more about it. many jobs involve all kinds of art designers, architects, home builders so if you are not learning art then how are you supposed to get better at designing and building." Response 2: I can't see a way to spin this as relevant to the discussion, either. Art IS everywhere, but that's not what we're debating. Sure, many jobs require an understanding of Art. But again, while an art designer may well benefit in their career from an understanding of Art, what about someone who's job does not involve Art? Does a garbage disposal worker need Art to learn how to do his or her job? If the answer to this is no, we can only possibly conclude that Art is not essential to learning, as you have proposed. Finally, Argument 3: "one easy way make art an essential well learning." Response 3: I could be mistaken about what you mean by this because it's pretty tough to make sense out of, but I can only interpret it as saying that one easy way to get better at designing and building is to make Art a requirement in the education of people who design and build- which, often, it is. If they need it, it is already a requirement. If they don't need it, see response #2 for how this is still an invalid argument.
Is art an essential in learning

yes because when your learning is it easier to learn by someone just telling you something or to actually do it. that is like art you cant describe art in its true depth unless you show someone or do it so when your learning art can help to make every subject easier. also, art is everywhere you go so why not learn more about it. many jobs involve all kinds of art designers, architects, home builders so if you are not learning art then how are you supposed to get better at designing and building. one easy way make art an essential well learning.
Mark 7:19: should read "cleansing all food" rather than "Thus he declared all foods clean"

Mark 7:15 does not refer to the digestive tract: "There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man." The 'meat' is a metaphor for what we encounter. A frankfurter is to meat as the canon is to fact; Whatever you say is 'meat' to me.
Mark 7:19: should read "cleansing all food" rather than "Thus he declared all foods clean"

shnarkle: No, the food mentioned in these passages of scripture are all literal food. There is nothing in scripture to suggest that literal of figurative food is going into anyone's heart. The food is literal and it goes into a literal belly, and through the digestive process into a literal sewer. There is no Metaphor here in this passage, and even if there were the food would still be literal due to the fact that the figure is contained only in the copula, or verb else no one would know what the metaphor means in the first place. In other words, the figure Metaphor states that one thing "IS"(i.e. represents) another. We don't have that in any of the passages cited. Some might argue that what is written could also be written, "Thus he declared all food IS clean", or "everything IS food", but again the problem here is that in the Greek the articles modifying these words would be reversed as this is the tell tale sign of the figure Metaphor. There is no violation of the laws of elementary grammar in this passage so we aren't dealing with a Metaphor. If by "metaphor", you mean figurative, then which figure? The immediate context has some figurative speech(Epanadiplosis, Irony,etc.), but nothing that changes the meaning of the specific parenthetical passage in question. The parenthetical statement with the added words, "thus he declared"doesn't fit the immediate context, nor that of scripture as a whole. The problem is one of interpreters redefining what is food and what isn't. There is no such thing as "unclean food" in scripture. There are unclean animals which aren't food. If someone decides to eat it that doesn't make it food in God's eye's. However food can become defiled or "common", but only what God has already defined as food in the first place. In other words, one cannot defile swine. Under the Mosaic law an Israelite could take a goat, sheep, cow etc. and if it wasn't property prepared according the the kosher laws, give it to a gentile. If the animal was torn by wild beasts, or not properly drained of blood it was defiled or made common(not to be confused or conflated with "unclean"). Under the new covenant guidelines we see that this was no longer acceptable for gentiles who had become part of the fold. (Acts 15:20) To say, "Thus he declared all foods clean" makes no sense to the context of this passage nor to the context of scripture as a whole for there is no such thing as "unclean food" in scripture; only common food which is food that is not fit for consumption by a holy people. It would have been more accurate for this redactor to insert, "Thus he declared all things to be food" which is effectively what he is saying due to the fact that swine, shellfish, catfish, vultures,etc. aren't food.
The Doctor should not have left Donna.

All of your arguments are based on the assumption that Donna has the ability to regenerate, which as never been shown. Unless you're suggesting the Doctor use a regeneration on her to bring a happy, successful person, back to a dangerous and heart-breaking world. Yes, the Doctor could go back. But how many people would he hurt? It would be wrong and kind of dumb to use what you believe to be your last regeneration on someone to remove them from a happy life, only causing dread and fear in her loved ones.
The Doctor should not have left Donna.

This is assuming that there was no way for Ten to delay, which he easily could have. He never said that blocking her memories was permanent. Quite the opposite, in fact. He said that any stimulus may bring her memories back, and cause her mind to burn. Ten could have blocked her memories until she had become a little stronger and healthier, and then unlocked her memories. Then, while in full health, she could have survived the regeneration. Thank you for your time.
The Doctor should not have left Donna.

While Tennant was able to gain a new hand after freshly regenerating, that was only because he had freshly regenerated. Let us also remember when almost every Doctor was weak after regeneration. Tennant fell into an almost coma, Smith went kind of crazy, and McGann suffered severe amnesia. While the growth of a hand may have been easy, and taken little to no effort, being in such a weak state and only being part Time Lord would make it extremely hard to regenerate a whole body.Eccleston did have the Time Vortex in his brain, but his brain is more complex, and capable of containing it for a short time, much longer than a human brain can contain a Time Lord's. Even assuming the ratio is the same, Donna had just gone through a partial regeneration, and was weak before the event occured. Eccleston was in perfect physical and mental health, so wasn't as greatly affected by the Time Vortex as Donna was by the Doctor.
The Doctor should not have left Donna.

As seen in the first episode of David Tennant, we see that the regeneration abilities of a Timelord is very formidable, with the capabilities of restoring the flesh and bone of a hand to working condition with the remains of his regeneration energy, which had already changed his entire body. This is especially formidable if you understand that his mind was literally burning up with the Time Vortex. If even a small portion of this transferred over to Donna, I have no doubts that she could have easily survived. Donna only had a Timelord intelligence burning her mind up as compared to Nine's time vortex burning up his.
The Doctor should not have left Donna.

Your argument is that since the DoctorDonna can't regenerate, Donna must be able to. However, in the episode it was never specified if the new Doctors had split abilities, or the exact same abilities, but weaker than the original Doctor's. We also don't know if Donna could survive long enough to regenerate, if she could. While in the Classic series characters could regenerate after death, the new series has stated several times it is an impossibility. Donna's supposed regeneration would be nearly impossible according to recent canon, as there is almost no way she could survive being burned up for long enough to activate a regeneration.
Scorpions are good pets in general.

I will be arguing that scorpions are good pets in general, and Con will be arguing that scorpions are not good pets in general. Good- To be desired or approved of Scorpions- A terrestrial arachnid (order Scorpiones) Pet - an animal kept in confinement General- not confined by specialization or careful limitation First round is for acceptance. The debate will be back and forth arguments and counter-arguments. All sources must be linked and available online, and no semantics are allowed.
Gay Marriage and/or Relationships

I. I look forward to a good discussion on the issue presented. II. Burden of Proof The burden of proof lies on Pro regarding the assertion "gay marriage is perfectly fine". As Pro has requested that religion not be brought into this debate, I will take this assertion as a legal issue rather than a moral issue. III. Response In 1996, the United States Supreme Court"s decision in the Romer v. Evans case prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation. As a result of the finding that this sort of discrimination was unconstitutional, the United States government must be blind to sexual orientation (among other things) when enacting policy. But the concept of "gay" marriage proposes to do just the opposite. In the case of traditional marriage, the law is blind to sexual orientation. A heterosexual man is legally able to marry a heterosexual woman, a homosexual man is legally able to marry a heterosexual women, a heterosexual man is legally able to marry a homosexual woman, and a homosexual man is legally able to marry a homosexual woman. In no way does the traditional idea of marriage discriminate based on sexual orientation. This traditional idea is consistent with the 1996 Supreme Court ruling. In contrast, if "gay" marriage were to be enacted into law, it would mean that only homosexual (I"ll use this term when referring to the orientation and the term "gay" when referring to the marriage idea) men and women would be allowed to be joined in a "gay" marriage with other homosexual men and women. This means that while a homosexual man would legally be able to marry a homosexual man, and a homosexual woman would legally be able to marry a homosexual woman, a heterosexual man would be prohibited from marrying another heterosexual man, and a heterosexual woman would be prohibited from marrying another heterosexual woman. The orientation-based discrimination in this case is clear. The idea of "gay" marriage would unconstitutionally discriminate against a heterosexually-oriented individual"s right to the same type of marriage that would be given to a homosexually-oriented individual. I will leave it to Pro to clarify whether they would like to discuss the idea of "same-sex" marriage (which would be blind to sexual orientation) rather than "gay" marriage, which is clearly unconstitutional. Thank you, and I look forward to Pro"s response! IV. Citations . http://www.law.cornell.edu...
Gay Marriage and/or Relationships

I am pro for gay marriage and most of you are going to say "Oh you're 14 you have no idea what you are talking about." I'm just going to say that i'm intelligent for being a 14 year old. The thought of being against gay marriage is horrible. DON'T TRY TO PULL ANY TYPE OF RELIGION RELATED THINGS INTO THIS. You can if you want to but you will just be shot down. Gay marriage is perfectly fine.
In the Year 2012, the world will not end.

"Viewers do not be persuaded by the physiological manipulation which the heretic has inflicted onto are souls. Look at reason not the chaos that is imposed by dark age mystics to but to the abyss which is perpetuated by those who fear and want to hide the revival of freedom and prosperity. Mayan civilization is freedom Oh hast the new glorious age of Mayanism!" I do not see an argument here. Through the reason of the mayan calendar, it describes a new change, mathematically. Yet the new change is not necessarily the end of the world. So far my opponent has not attacked by points, again. I extend these and he cannot refute them because he had 2 chances to do so and didn't attempt to. Therefore Pro has won, and in the year 2012 the world will not end. Thank you. I enjoyed this debate and proved my burden.
In the Year 2012, the world will not end.

Good luck! Con rebuttals: "The Thirteenth [b'ak'tun] will end" I am assuming you mean 2013. This is not what we are debating about. As for the others I cannot comprehend them. Please define your arguments. His evidence: Ever since the movie 2012 came out, people have been putting ridiculous assumptions. Such guesses cannot be accurate. His video evidence talks about fixing disabled people with robotic limbs. This also occurs now but technology is so slow that considering by 2012 we would have created humanoids that will cause our extinction is simply absurd. "Again Just because Mayan Civilization collapsed doesn't disprove my claims and besides the burden of proof is on those who reject reality. " I didn't mentioned the civilization collapsing. You stated the BoP is on those who do not accept the truth. Well the truth is that in 2012 the world will not end. Natural disasters will not cause a human extinction. Pro's arguments: Con has failed to attack any, I will extend all arguments. Below are some evidence. "If anything, the Mayans predict a religious miracle, not anything sinister. " . http://www.universetoday.com... . http://www.experiencefestival.com... . http://www.telegraph.co.uk... . http://apnews.myway.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org... Thank you. I look forward for some arguments.
In the Year 2012, the world will not end.

Huatuapa says that it is correct EVIDENCE: Tzuhtz-(a)j-oom u(y)-uxlajuun pik The Thirteenth [b'ak'tun] will end (ta) Chan Ajaw ux(-te') Uniiw. (on) 4 Ajaw, the 3rd of Uniiw [3 K'ank'in]. Uht-oom Ek'-... Black ... will occur. Y-em(al) ... Bolon Yookte' K'uh ta-chak-ma... http://en.wikipedia.org... wikipedia proves mayanism This is another possible apocalyptic scenerario much deadlier than anyone has seen before http://video.google.com...# Again Just because Mayan Civilization collapsed doesn't disprove my claims and besides the burden of proof is on those who reject reality.
In the Year 2012, the world will not end.

I affirm. Definitions: 2012: 12/21/12. Supposedly, that's when the world will end. Clarification: In the year 2012, the world wouldn't end. Contention 1: In the past people believed the world will end on a certain day. Well a vast majority of this didn't happen. For examples: 6/6/06 didn't happen. In the year of 2000 the world didn't end. So in the year 2012 the world will not end. Contention 2: We are using the Georgian Calendar. Only the Mayan Calendar says in 2012 the world will end.
Children are too restricted

So my opponent has still not answered to my question and didn't rebut my argument as well. I would like to mention my opponent's many flaws. First, I would like to ask how the quote about sharp leads relates to this debate today. We were mainly supposed to be focusing more on children being restricted, but the proposition has not elaborated on how pencils in the classroom is related to restricting. Not only that, I find her speech on round #3 already rebutted in my round two speech, in which I had already proved that children are not being TOO restricted in anything. Also, throughout her speech, she hasn't necessarily proved how the children are in desperate restriction, but instead, just gave the example that she experienced or thought. Yet, she didn't do her duty of defining the motion or stating the exact status quo. Lastly, there was no connection between her three speeches, which made this entire debate very chaotic. Therefore, I find no reason to state another argument of my own when my previous argument had not been attacked by the proposition and when her speeches made no sense. Thank you, proposition, for bringing up this debate. Thank you, readers, for reading this debate instead of skipping it. Therefore, I am proud to oppose to this motion today.
Children are too restricted

Parents controlling the way we play has resulted in lessons in anything and everything. Instead of playing dress-ups with friends, we have drama lessons. Instead of learning to surf at the beach with our Dad " we have special surfing lessons. Instead of writing a story at home on our bed " it is off to a creative writing class; Instead of skipping, elastics, handstands and cartwheels " it is off to gymnastics Sure - all these things keep us active but it is still not play. Play is spontaneous, created by kids - not monitored and managed by adults. And schools control our play too. There are schools that ban running, handstands and even making daisy chains (for hygiene reasons apparently). Playgrounds are being torn down and declared too dangerous. This is because schools fear being sued by parents whose children have injured themselves on it! Okay then, let"s remove pencils from the classroom in case a child is pricked by a sharp lead point! So with technology enticing us, Parents hovering over us, Schools restricting us and our lives packed with activities " When do the children play?
Children are too restricted

What the proposition had said just now is not necessarily called 'restriction.' It is when the parents do what is best for their child. Also, I would like to demand my opponent to give further evidence about how children are being 'too restricted'(in her words), since what she has stated was just one example, and we cannot judge the status quo by just one example that the proposition experienced. Not only that, I would like to ask my opponent how round 1 (her speech) and round 2(her speech as well) is related. Next, since my opponent did not define the exact age range for 'children', so I will assume that children are people under the age of 19. Now, I would like to continue with an argument that I would like to present. I personally think that they are not being TOO restricted. So, I ask my opponent one question. If children are being restricted, then why are there children doing drugs and drinking, and doing all kinds of things? Is this the result of the children becoming too restricted? The answer is definitely a NO. In the case of little children, I say that they are not being TOO restricted. As long as there are big safety risks, there are no limits to playing. Is that really being too restricted? Or is that just a small restriction to keep a parent's child from getting hurt? The answer is that it is just a small restriction for a child's own safety.
Children are too restricted

By restricted I mean that parents and teachers at school are restricting them by not allowing them to play freely as the fret about their safety.... Another reason why children don"t get to play freely is our hovering parents. I recall a time when I was at a park, waiting for my turn on a flying fox. One kid had jumped on the seat and was just about to push off, when a stressed out mother appeared out of the blue and prevented the poor boy for going any further. The boy was around 9, my age at the time. Surely he should be allowed to go on a flying fox without his mother interfering! Parents these days are irrationally frightened of letting their children outdoors by themselves , they worry they will be injured or believe there is a child attacker hiding behind every telegraph pole! There actually as not been any increase in attacks on children since the 1960s! Monitoring too closely can have negative effects. It stifles creativity, imagination, confidence, learning, and independence. Children who are dependent on adults are less likely to think for themselves and take risks. Yes, parents are allowed to be concerned about the safety of their children but is it really necessary to control the way we play?