BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
jesus didn't mention homosexuality

I will answer your question. Christians believe that having sex is fine as long as the couple are married. The bible doesn't say anything about how to have sex. It doesn't say that it should only be used for procreation. So if christians think that a marriage certificate can change the sin of heterosexuality into something nonsinfull, then they should be able to think the same for homosexuality. But since most of them don't it just proves that their homophobia isn't actually based on the bible.A279;
jesus didn't mention homosexuality

If you want to attack me personally without having any real knowledge on my beliefs, that's fine. Just know you are poking the wrong bear. When I opened my argument I specifically said that I would use doctrinal evidence directly from the Bible to show that the Bible does, in fact, condemn homosexuality; not that I MYSELF condemn the practice, because I don't. You are just assuming this because you are clearly a close-minded, insensitive person who would like to stereotype all Christians as being "gay-haters". Should you have taken a gander at my political views in my profile, you would have seen that I am actually pro-gay rights, as I feel as a heterosexual that I couldn't care less what other people do but rather I would like to see others pursuing their own happiness. My personal beliefs about religion may not apply to them, and that is okay. I don't condemn heterosexuals all the time for fornication and such, mainly because I am one. Your argument about the origin of the word sodomy is invalid for the simple reason that the creation of a word does not signal the creation of an idea. The concept of sodomy is an ancient one, and you are right: the Bible does condemn all acts of sodomy, not just those of the homosexual. The problem with your argument about heterosexuals (as it seems since I can barely understand what is a near illiterate final paragraph) is that Christians who use the Bible as their source of opinion on the topic do in fact condemn acts of sodomy in heterosexuals and homosexuals. However, you have to be quite ignorant to believe that all Christians scrutinize, belittle, and oppress all homosexuals for their "unholy" acts, when really, quite a lot of them are relatively unevangelical and relatively passive, apathetic, or even open-minded on the matter. However, your question asked why some Christians do condemn homosexuality, and I feel I answered this question properly. When you look at the Bible, which many Christians use as their sole source of what they believe is right or wrong, you clearly see that this act is not justified by any means. You have to be pretty simple minded to think that the Bible does not actually condemn homosexuality and sodomy. It is right in front of you. However, because Christians believe (per the Bible) that God sent Jesus Christ to die and save all from their sins (within circumstances of course), this means that those who perform these acts do have a chance at redemption, and will not go "straight to hell", as some may interperet. You also failed to answer my question I posed to you in my first argument: how can two homosexuals have sex in a righteous way according to the Bible?
jesus didn't mention homosexuality

jesus never condemned homosexuality at all. That is just on your head. Nor does the bible say anything about the Sodomites being gay. You know the word sodomy is only about 400 years old right? No obviously you didn't. yet you have drawn the conclusion that the bible condemns the sodomites for anal and oral sex. that's fine as long as you admit that those are two sex acts performed by straight people. men have anal sex with women and men receive blowjobs from women. and if christians think that God would murder people over blowjobs, then Christians have seriously messed up issues. It's Interesting people on the evils of heterosexuality according to the bible. but they already knew that. I'm sure you condemn heterosexuals all the time don't you. you just call them fornicators and adulterers because it's more PC that way.
The United Stats federal gov should substantially increase its public health assistance to Sub-S.

You're doing so good....... You are really convincing me that I am such a horrible debater and you can ownz me. Keep up the good work. For the judges and voters please extend all of my arguments. Notice that my opponent drops them all by not responding and therefor they all stand in this round today. Should he drop them for yet another round I would like you to consider him in accordance with my arguments as he will have had nearly 8 days to reply and will haven not.
The Death Penalty Should Be Used In Certain Cases

Thank you, mongoose, for starting this debate. "For example, if a man is proven that, without a doubt, he killed another man, that murderer should be killed." Impossible. There's always a chance that the man was framed. Always. Unless, of course, there's a direct confession, but in that case, it would be a plea bargain [1], and you don't reward a plea bargainer with death. What kind of bargain would that be? "While it would be profitable to use the people in prison to do labor, the prisoner should at least be given the option between death and working in prison for the rest of his life." Now, why would the option of death have to be written into the law? Everybody always has the option of death. Just throw the prisoner in a mine, and let him kill himself if he wants. Killing him for him would hardly be delivering justice. Additionally, this would be a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection of the law [2]. If a man can do work, he should be put to work, but if a man cannot do work, it would be illegal to require his death, as that would be discrimination against his physical fitness. In conclusion, my opponent has to show a realistic situation that would actually happen in which a man is proven to be absolutely guilty beyond doubt, and also has to justify killing that man rather than sending that man to do labor. He has not done this, and until he does so, the resolution is negated. Good luck. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Death Penalty Should Be Used In Certain Cases

Resolved: The death penalty should be used in certain cases There are many cases in which the death penalty is just and should be used. For example, if a man is proven that, without a doubt, he killed another man, that murderer should be killed. While it would be profitable to use the people in prison to do labor, the prisoner should at least be given the option between death and working in prison for the rest of his life. Death Penalty: http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Death Penalty Should Be Used In Certain Cases

1. Hypothetical Situation If he does not plead insane, then that's all the more evidence for the lawyer to use to plead insanity for him. To claim that everybody was brainwashed would be very good evidence for insanity. 2. Suicide "If a man refuses to do labor simply because he doesn't want to do it, he should be put to death. " Put to death? No. That's still a waste of money. What you do is deprive the convict of food until he works. In this case, death is not a punishment, but merely a cop-out from the real punishment, life enslavement. My opponent's source desrcibes capital punishment specifically as the killing of a person through legal process. Starvation is not an execution by judicial process, as described by my opponent's source (. http://en.wikipedia.org...), and fits no definition of "execution" (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...). 4. Right to Life My opponent now decides to identify the unwilling, but I have given temptation through starvation as a better method, as it requires no food wastage and might actually make the person cooperate. Additionally, if I had power over prison life, it would be miserable health care, and bread and water for consumption. Not a waste of resources in the slightest. 5. Conclusion My opponent's plans would still use up taxpayer money with appeals to insanity. If a man refuses to do labor, he should not be put to death forcefully, as my opponent began to advocate in this last round, but rather deprived of his foodstuffs until he cooperates, a win-win for both parties. NOTE: My opponent's source for his NOTE gives no reason to believe that a person could not kill himself through a rock. It's just either a cheap attempt at a source by taking my quote out of context or a humurous play on words, in which case, I hope it is the latter, although the source still has no relevance to the debate whatsoever. In conclusion, vote win-win, not lose-lose.
The Death Penalty Should Be Used In Certain Cases

1. Hypothetical Situation Let's say that he only kills Alex Rodriguez, and is then shot in the arm, forcing him to drop the gun but not killing him or permanently damaging him. He also is a clear hater of the Yankees, and has a blog called "Shoot Yankees Dead!" He also has a very high IQ. He does not plead insane. He just denies that he killed him, and says the videos were all edited, and the people were all brainwashed. Remember, this is all theoretical. 2. Suicide My opponent's source is about suicide, not assisted suicide, as it would be. I do support the right to assisted suicide. However, this also goes with the death penalty. If a man refuses to do labor simply because he doesn't want to do it, he should be put to death. In this case, it would be a penalty, of death, supporting the resolution. 3. Fitness I have changed this argument to separate not the unfit from the rest, but the unwilling. This way, it does not unlawfully segregate people. 4. Right to Life This is worthless if the man refuses to do the work. My opponent has given no substatial reasoning for not allowing the death penalty, and it is almost the last round. The right to life should be taken away for capital crimes. A mans life is better gone than spent absorbing food and health care [1]. 5. Conclusion My opponent believes that my plans would waste tax payer money, even though I have shown that they would not. The state deserves to be able to remove the burden without having to return him to the streets or making him somebody else's problem. Thank you. Vote PRO. NOTE: It is impossible to kill yourself through a rock. A rock is a very hard object. A person would die on impact if going at the speeds required. Thus, it is impractical for prisoners to have to do such, as it would take very elaborate equipment. [2] 1. http://cbs4denver.com... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Death Penalty Should Be Used In Certain Cases

1. Hypothetical Situation My opponent should realize that the armed Yankees security guard would have already shot the criminal dead before he fired fifteen shots. It is not logical for a man armed with a gun to be tackled by the umpire, but instead shot. Furthermore, it is quite obvious that if the man is arrested, he would plead insanity, and a psychological trial would be needed to determine whether or not he is in fact insane, draining the taxpayers' money. As my opponent is heavily against wasting taxpayer dollars, I assume he would not be in favor of this. 2. Suicide My opponent claims that suicide and assisted suicide are illegal. However, this is ridiculous. Just because they are, doesn't mean they should be, and we're debating "should," so my opponent has to give reasons as to why suicide should be illegal. Suicide is currently legal in the United States [1]. It seems completely illogical for my opponent to support the involuntary killing of a man by trial, but not the voluntary killing of a man by assisted suicide. It is a violation of liberty to make suicide and assisted suicide illegal. In fact, what my opponent proposes be done with criminals (giving them a choice between labor and death) is an assisted suicide at the expense of the taxpayers. Instead, the criminals that want to kill themselves should kill themselves without any legal interference whatsoever. 3. Fitness "The argument about physical fitness would only even apply if they did labor in the first place, which they don't." But they should. And you agree that they should. And the resolution says, "should." Round 1: "[T]he prisoner *should* at least be given the option between death and working in prison for the rest of his life." My argument stands. 4. Right to Life Just because we have the legal power to take away a man's life, doesn't mean we should. A man's life is much better spent working in prison, to which my opponent agrees. 5. Conclusion My opponent claims that because assisted suicide is illegal (which it shouldn't be, as it infringes on liberty), the state should be given the power to perform assisted suicide (completely contradictory). Obviously, we should not be wasting taxpayer dollars just to let a person kill himself through the state rather than through a rock. He's a criminal; he deserves to be killed by a rock rather than by a deadly implement of his choice. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Death Penalty Should Be Used In Certain Cases

My opponent has dared to challenge the possibility of there being 100% proof of a man being framed. Fun! Hypothetical situation time! So, let's say a man is at a Yankees game. He runs onto the field, and shoots their entire team dead, killing them. After this, he is tackled by the umpire, and taken into custody. This was seen live on several cameras, in front of thousands of witnesses. The man is never given a chance to escape. In this case, it is 100% proven that the man is guilty of murder. The option of death would have to be written into law. Suicide is illegal, as is letting a man suicide who one knows full well is going to suicide. This would be called assisted suicide [1]. Because of such, it would have to be written into law. The argument about physical fitness would only even apply if they did labor in the first place, which they don't. It is clear that when one person takes the life of another, then that person has lost the right to life. ".... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." [2] The Constitution supports the claim that the death penalty is just, as it includes life as something that can be taken away with due process of law. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.law.cornell.edu...
The United States are the Real Terrorists

Rebuttals"Okay, yes we didn't cause that. But there are no reasons to use it as a justification to kill hundreds of THOUSANDS, even millions in Iraq, of innocent people from both sides. In 9/11 roughly killed three thousand people. Three thousand people. That is NOTHING compared to the amount of people the War in the Middle East has caused of innocent people who had no affiliation with 9/11 besides race and religion."Please cite sources. I don't believe that the U.S. assassinated millions of citizens from Iraq after 9/11. I'm not doubting this, but please, no fraudulent lies."The U.S. Government are also terrorists because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The two were blatant acts of terrorism."Ah! This one was conducted by the U.S. during World War II. The U.S's intention for this was to make Japan surrender during the war[1]. That may have been terrorism. However, this is in the 19th century, when someone else ruled. We are now under Obama's authority. Moving on...This was conducted by the original army. THEY are the terrorists. They agreed. However, to this day, they are PROBABLY no longer alive. We did not even expect these atomic bombings!"Drones are terrorism. "What's a bigger threat to human society, B.A.E. Systems or homemade I.E.D.s? Remote controlled bomb killing off human life or man with homemade bomb committing suicide?" Are the people who are defenselessly trying to defend their country the terrorists? Or the people behind the big guns the terrorists?"These drones aren't used to murder civilians, but for war. In war, you have to defend yourself. So, they use these.By the way, please don't be semantical.I await my opponent's next set of arguments.Source[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The United States are the Real Terrorists

Okay, yes we didn't cause that. But there are no reasons to use it as a justification to kill hundreds of THOUSANDS, even millions in Iraq, of innocent people from both sides. In 9/11 roughly killed three thousand people. Three thousand people. That is NOTHING compared to the amount of people the War in the Middle East has caused of innocent people who had no affiliation with 9/11 besides race and religion. The U.S. Government are also terrorists because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The two were blatant acts of terrorism. Drones are terrorism. "What's a bigger threat to human society, B.A.E. Systems or homemade I.E.D.s? Remote controlled bomb killing off human life or man with homemade bomb committing suicide?" Are the people who are defenselessly trying to defend their country the terrorists? Or the people behind the big guns the terrorists? Barely any Muslims agree to 9/11 but they are punished. Yet, nearly every American I know supports the War on Terror.)
The United States are the Real Terrorists

The United States government is real terrorists in this world. We claim to fight terror, yet we are the terror. Using 9/11 as a justification for terror and spying is a form of terrorism. Bombing innocent people in the name of 9/11 is terrorism. Nagasaki and Hiroshima was terrorism. Guantanamo Bay is terrorism. And so much more. The government of the United States are the real problem in this world.
Male Privilege Does Not Exist

I do not think male privilege exists. . . Especially not under the law. . . Under the law there are no laws that restrict women that do not restrict men, That is why america is so great, Because we are all equal under the law. . . In terms of the social divide sure there are a few small things that women have on men but men have it way worse then women with a lot of things. I would like you to try to change my mind on this.
Abortion is crude and should be illegal

You haven't backed up any of your arguments with anything. First I will state my argument against why abortion is not crude and not illegal. Then I will rebuttal my opponent's arguments. Abortion may be a last choice among pregnant women, but in some cases it is necessary. What if a man raped a sixteen year old girl, and she was going to have a baby, but she didn't want to have it? I think she should be allowed to abort it. What if a fetus was discovered with a disease, and just after it was born it would die? Would it be crude to not abort that baby? Yes. I believe that it is possible to have abortion without being crude about it and without making it illegal. Plus, since the Earth is always growing it should lessen the rates of how our populace grows. For example, if 1 and 2 and 3 babies (A1, A2, A3) and A1, A2, and A3 married B1, B2, and B3 (who were born from C1 and C2). A1 had three babies, A2 had one baby, and A3 had none. The amount of people has just grown from 4 to 14, in a small generation. Abortion could be a great way to control the populace. Now time for rebuttals: "Scientists have proven that the fetus is a human being that can feel things" My dog can feel things too, that must mean it is a Human being too, right? Also, a corpse is still Human because it has all the same features of a Human, right? No, Human being comes from the word Homo Sapiens (in Latin meaning "wise man" or "knowledgeable man", "homo" referring to ‘Human' and "sapien" meaning wise). Fetus' are not wise. I have still yet to see any evidence that Scientists have proven Fetus' to be Human. For if they are Human they must be "wise", which they are not. It does not make sense. They are in the pre-stages of Human life, but they are not fully Human being. "There are videos out that show abortions being performed and the human inside the womb is trying to get away from the needle" Let us see these videos you have so graciously provided. Also, fetus' cannot "try to get away from the needle"; they are not fully developed yet to know what a needle even is. And yes, they do feel the pain, but they don't even know what pain is. It is like me sticking a needle in a dead person. They don't care because they don't know of your existence and the pain's existence. I believe your arguments require proof, which you have decided to assume is true and not to provide.
Abortion is crude and should be illegal

1) There is a law in affect right now that says if you murder a pregnant woman you get 2 counts of murder. 2) Scientists have proven that the fetus is a human being that can feel things. 3) There are videos out that show abortions being performed and the human inside the womb is trying to get away from the needle. people think that just because the fetus inside the womb is not completly devloped means that it can't feel pain which is completly FALSE! if murdering a human being outside of the womb and murdering a human being with another human inside of them is illegal than murdering a human inside of the womb without murdering the mother is wrong and should be illegal
Free will probably exists in humans.

Free will: "...a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) To define further, free will means that the ultimate decision comes down to the rational actor and is not wholly determined by external conditions. I negate the resolution: Free will probably exists in humans. *** Why Free Will Is Impossible 1: Determinism Every event is caused by a preceding event. To our knowledge, events do not happen unless they are caused by a previous event. This works all the way down to the molecular level. If every event is caused by another event, free will is impossible since all events are simply the effect of some cause(s). 2: First Cause The first cause (whatever it was, or if it even existed) cannot be a source of free will, since there can only be one first cause. That is, if we are accepting that everything is caused by something else. But what if we do not accept that everything was caused by something else? 3: Randomness An event that is truly independent of every other event is fundamentally unpredictable: if it could be predicted, then it would not be independent. It is therefore random. And randomness is not free will, it is just randomness. Having a set of choices and choosing one randomly is not free will. Having a set of choices and making a choice that is dependent on a previous event is not free will either. As these are the only two possible scenarios, free will is not possible. I have no sources, but need none since all my arguments so far are logical arguments and do not require evidence.