BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Japanese people should pay for everything they have done to the world.

First up, I would support the belief that Japan shouldn't be punished for everything they did. My adversary stated that "In modern Japan, They still have the same ideology and even young Japanese girls are being forced to have sex in public Japanese schools. The Japanese people not only lie and deny everything that they did in WWII but they Continue to do it. "He did not provide any source that is able to prove his point and it is clearly biased towards the Japanese and therefore he makes no capable argument. Also, We shouldn't punish someone for what their ancestors have done. The effect my adversary is trying to achieve is just to get revenge on the Japanese but it will just end up abominably. Nowadays, The United Nation is trying to maintain world peace, It is just foolish to seek revenge on a specific Nation for their past actions. It is people like my adversary who seeks revenge for everything others have done, Why don't we treat them better and forgive them in order to create a better place for all human races, Instead of a war zone which humans seek revenge on one another? Additionally, My adversary states that " During WWII imperial Japan annexed Korea and northern China and forced the Korean and Chinese people into sexual slavery and treated them horribly. " This is simply not true as based on historical resources, Japanese actions are just to create more land space for their growing population and to seek for more natural resources, Many countries have also done that, Thus Japan should not be solely responsible. Therefore, I think that my adversary did not provide a strong argument to start and I seek his effort to provide a strong stand and that the Japanese should not pay for what they have done to the world.
Buddhism is a religion.

I will be arguing that Buddhism is a way of life, and not a religion. I believe it can be taught with a religion, but Buddhism by itself is not a religion. Definitions from the Internet: Buddhism- is a religion and dharma that encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs and spiritual practices largely based on teachings attributed to Gautama Buddha, commonly known as the Buddha ("the awakened one"). Religion- the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods Way of life- the typical pattern of behavior of a person or group.
Homosexual Ministers

But what about those who are born gay? This can be caused by being born a Hermaphrodite: "an individual in which reproductive organs of both sexes are present. Compare pseudohermaphrodite." or "combining two opposite qualities. " This disorder can cause them to be sexually confused and cause them to like both gender's, so how is being gay a sin when god made them that way? You would think that God wouldn't let these things happen but they do, yet it's a sin? Do you know what people did in Biblical time to homosexual's? "If a man has sex with another man, kill them both". Leviticus 20:13 Explicit verse #2: Their blood shall be upon them Honestly, reading this scripture, if you believe in the bible and abide by it, what homosexual would want to go to a regular Christian church knowing that MOST Christians feel this way about gays? I know I wouldn't want to go, knowing that if I was gay they think I should be dead and my blood upon myself. Last scripture to finish the debate. "God says not to bring any whore, sodomite, or dog into the house of the Lord. For "these things are an abomination to the Lord." Sodomites and dogs are biblical names for homosexuals." Deuteronomy 23:17-18 So basically like you said, "we must follow the bible right?" Well a dog in the bible refers to a "homosexual" therefore, a homosexual is NOT ALLOWED IN THE HOUSE OF THE LORD thus being a church. I have successfully proven that churches will judge gays and dislike them for their orientation, while if we had gay ministers, they could relate much better and be saved. Vote Pro! :) Sources: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com... http://dictionary.reference.com...
Homosexual Ministers

I get God/Jesus will forgive you and your sins, but technically if you are gay aren't you doing a sin over and over again? Your verses mention God is forgiving and will be patient with you, but if being gay is a sin and you don't change yourself, would he still save you considering the bible calls being gay a sin? Wouldn't this technically be the same in his eyes if you were a murderer or thief and never changed your lifestyle? (I'm not saying those things are even comparable, but they are all sins in the bible.) I think many people would not want somebody teaching them about Christianity when the teacher himself is a sinner. I have nothing against gay people at all, but I know a lot of other more serious Christians do. I don't think homosexuals can only relate to homosexual ministers as you state. They can connect with people in other ways separate from their orientation. If a gay person feels like they are being judged at their church, there are churches that will accept them. Many churches have already said they accept gay people to attend the services, but gay ministers is another story. I did not imply God hates gays, but in the bible being gay is a sin and sinners who don't repent don't go to heaven, am I not correct? Romans 1:26-27 states "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." There are many verses that imply God does not accept bisexual behavior, including this one. "Due penalty for their error." This to me says homosexual people don't go to heaven, therefore they aren't accepted by God. I don't think they should teach God's teachings when many bible verses claim their behavior is unacceptable. Another thing I would like to add is that i'm Christian and support gays. You don't have to believe everything in the bible to believe in God. But, if you want to truly teach His word, I think you should agree with everything in the bible. I would not want a homosexual minister to be bias because of his orientation. Source- http://www.openbible.info...
Homosexual Ministers

Con states: "If God loves all the world, why does the bible call gay people an abomination and a sin? " Therefore, she is implying that got hates homosexuals. Yet homosexuals have the desire to serve god and repent of their sins. I will answer your long awaited question : How can he teach something to others he himself doesn't believe?My answer: Allot of people have to teach other people things even if they don't necessarily believe in them. For instance, a science teacher will have to teach evolution weather or not she agrees with it. But there comes a point, when you are being discriminated by others of a congregation you don't want to go anymore. It's better to go to a church then to not go to one at all right? and its better to at least follow god in your own way then to not follow him am I correct? John 3:17 New International Version (NIV) :For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 2 Peter 3:9 New International Version (NIV) T"he Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." God loves us enough to give up his only son for the remission of our sins. He keeps his promise, always to love us, and if we sin then we shall repent and be forgiven by him. Now back to the gay ministers, homosexual's can only relate to these people. Most churches will have already judged you once they find out your orientation. So how are these people suppose to be saved if they are being condemned by these so called "Christian's"? I say its better to follow god's word than in your own way. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://r.search.yahoo.com...- https://www.biblegateway.com...
Homosexual Ministers

The definition of the word 'minister' doesn't include he can't be gay because, as a preacher of the Christian religion, I would think this would be expected of him. I still have one large question you haven't answered: How can he teach something to others he himself doesn't believe? I know he believes in God, but if he's homosexual he obviously doesn't agree with all the bible's teachings. If God loves all the world, why does the bible call gay people an abomination and a sin? That doesn't make much sense to me. The bible states that a man should be with a woman and vice versa, that's how God wanted it to be. In passages that contain instructions regarding marriage, such as 1 Corinthians 7:2-16 and Ephesians 5:23-33, the Bible clearly states marriage as being between a man and woman. I think gay people should be able to attend church, but not teach at a church. There are different types of Christians, and some are more religious than others. I get some people are born gay, I can agree with you on that, but they can't be fully religious if some of their own choices go against what they would be trying to teach with others. It's like a math teacher trying to teach a class a formula he doesn't think is true. Source- http://www.gotquestions.org...
Homosexual Ministers

Good luck. First off I'd like to say that our god is a loving god. He loves all of his children! John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. Let's define the word "Minister"-attend to the needs of (someone) act as a minister of religion. Notice how the definition doesn't say " A straight Man, A man whom only loves women. *But this person dose attend the needs to act as a minister. Many Homosexual people feel obligated to going to a church. They are afraid of the congregation and how they would react and judge them because of their orientation. Just because someone is gay, doesn't mean that they CANT love god! Some people are born gay, how can they help it? Having a gay Minister should still be able to preach the word of god so other's could get to know god. Isn't that the most important? It doesn't matter if the minister is black, green or purple. But as long as he loves god and wants to share his word. Sources: . https://dictionary.search.yahoo.com... . http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com...
Homosexual Ministers

According to the Oxford dictionaries, a minister is "a member of the clergy, especially in Protestant churches." A clergy is "the body of all people ordained for religious duties, especially in the Christian Church." The minister will preach the Christian belief and provide spiritual guidance to the community. How can he do so accurately, when his own beliefs would go against what he would preach? There are several places in the bible that condemn his own behavior. Leviticus 18:22 identifies homosexual behavior as an abomination and a sin. Romans 1:26-27 declares homosexual desires and actions to be shameful and unnatural. I have nothing against homosexual people myself, but wonder how they can preach something to others they themselves don't believe in.
Homosexual Ministers

First off, making the assumption that most Christians hate gays isn't true. Many churches WILL accept gays and allow them to attend services. But, like you said, if the church wouldn't allow homosexual people to attend, why would they let a homosexual person teach the service? I feel like your argument there is contradictory. If churches judge and dislike gays as you say, why would they let a homosexual minister in their church? Those who are born gay can't change who they are, you're right. But since the bible calls their behavior a sin, we are back to square one. I don't see how a hermaphrodite's situation would be any different from a regular homosexual persons situation. Homosexual people can follow the bible and God's word in their own way if they feel they are being judged. But, I don't think they should be able to teach at a church when they themselves don't believe in some of the bible teachings. For these reasons, I believe I should win. The bible states in many place homosexual behavior is a sin and unnatural. Therefore, I don't think technical sinners should teach the bible's word. Thanks for the awesome debate!
FireFox is Better than any other browser.

Firefox does not offer a feature similar to Opera's "Speed dial." Firefox does not have the ability to act as a BitTorrent client Opera does. Firefox does not show the user a thumbnail when they mouse over a tab, Opera does. Firefox does not have mouse gestures, Opera does. Link for more info. http://www.opera.com... Firefox does not have the ability to act as an email client, Opera does. Not only can I imagine these things, but Firefox does not have them. Not only does Firefox not have them, Opera does. And Opera is faster than Firefox. In the quest for superiority, I think we all know which one wins. Please bring up any vital Firefox features that make it better than Opera. Otherwise, admit defeat. The choice is yours.
Christianity is false.

Ok... Thank you for your kind acceptance. I can assume that you are a very highly educated individual judging by your instantaneous hatred towards me. Since you did not bring up any arguments I will go ahead and start the debate now. To start this debate I will take a look at why god is not all mighty. It took him six days to make earth. I mean clearly this is a sign of not being all mighty. If something made the earth in five days it would be greater than god. This should not be possible because then god would not be the most powerful thing in the universe. Now we will look at the earth only being 6,000 years old. Dinosaurs. How would we have dinosaurs if the earth was only 6,000 years old? They would just eat Adam and Eve. Why would there be no more dinosaurs? If the meteor that hit earth to wipe them all out happened 6,000 years ago we would not be alive today. I'm going to end here to make sure you actually want to debate and not just waste my time. If so, please respond to these arguments. Thank you.
The communist theory isn't bad

Thank you for joining my debate. I understand your point of view but my resolve remains the same. The working class are those who provide labor for an employer in exchange for wages but do not have any ownership in the company. Most members of the working class have no controle or say in their own labor and do not share in the majority of the profits which to go to the employer. Because the working class have no say in thier jobs and are reliant on the money to feed their families, they are easy pray to the aristocratic type of people who become evan more wealthy by exploitation. This is how the modern capitalist system works with the poor being abused by the rich. Private ownership of the means of production are what give the rich so of their power. However if the ownership and mans of production were siezed and handed over to the working class to be owned collectively and equally workers would fare far better, exploitation would end and the social classes that divide our nation would disapear. As for your statement that the system would not work you are mistaken. History has shown that it has worked in the past evan without forming a dictatorship. Think about the Soviet Union under Lenin, Yugaslavia under Tito, and the people's socialist republic of albania. Evan the legend of Robin Hood was based in the Communist theory of raising from the poor to give to the rich, and who argues with Robin Hood.
Christianity is the Truth

Every religion in the world takes the stance that theirs is the true religion. Objectively, how can this be true? The world's religions have evolved, morphed and changed throughout history. Many have shared historical pasts with parallel storytelling and mythology. They all have explanations on how the world was created, descriptive on how one should live one's life and methodology on how to worship God. It can make one think on what is the truth on the matter. On the premise that there is an omnipotent being, would the religion of one group verses another be of importance? Or is the mere belief in a God sufficient enough? I don"t think an all powerful being capable of creating all of existence would lower itself to this level of pettiness. The metaphysics of truth differs from culture to culture, person to person, group to group.
Christianity is the Truth

All religions, except when radicalized, have a grounding of peace and charity toward others. Though the thought that one's religion is the only true religion is also held by others of a different faith. My premise is institutions of religion were created by man. This is not to negate the merit of their teachings, but historically religious institutions have been developed to explain the unexplainable in the world and to create a sense of community and social order amongst those of like minds. To say that Christianity is truth; for you within your belief system this is the case. For others religious truth lies elsewhere.
DNA is irrelevant to the morality of homosexuality

Thank you for responding. Thank you for calling me a liar, thank you for explaining that i didn't really contend your source for DNA, we really didn't get that. As for the liar issue, I wanted you to clear up the debate because your previous argument did not clearly state where your standing was. Also, I said that I would assume that I was arguing for one side, not that I really did get it. You asked for deduction on conduct? Well, simply stating rather rudely that I was a liar would put us even, to put it mildy. Plus, you defended your source of Wikipedia, and said that I was actually going against the sources on the bottom. There is no garuntee that those sources are valid, especially since random people posted them. I could say that all my statements are supported by FOX news, or that they were from an article in New York Times. Frankly, there isn't an argument in the world that can defend Wikipedia. It is a known fact used in public schools worldwide that Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source. Thank you for suggesting that I might be a troll. Because I didn't define DNA as Dangerous Nanite Activity, I believe that that point is rather off topic. Sorry for the contradiction: I meant to state that bravery is a virtue, not in the sense of good conduct, as being brave in school might not be a good thing. Also, PRO has given us a second definition that he says fits my definition...I think that is rather useless, as they mean the same thing. Thank you for clearing that contradiction up. I have another contradiction to show forth: "but morality is not based on what is natural for people to do..and would urge you to discipline yourself to act contrary to your impulse" If you are doing something that is not what is natural, then what you are doing is directly related to naturalism. My opponent has not stated further points, merely defended his introduction, given new definitions for my definition, which I think is against the rules, and stated that I am a liar. In that context, i would like to give one more contention. DNA puts a different light on morality of homosexuality. Readers, think about this. Why would the issues of genes and the "gay germ" be brought up so frequently in debates of homosexuality if it doesn't change the entire debate? Once you blame it on DNA, your opponent has to discard all points which state that "it was their choice", or that "it would impact children in the future," because it was DNA: it was predetermined and therefore had nothing to do with choice! This greatly impacts morality. The very idea that it does not change morality is absurd! This is depending on your thoughts, reader, and I believe that this point will balance it in my favor.
DNA is irrelevant to the morality of homosexuality

Hello Marauder, Thank you for posting this debate. I find it slightly unnecessary for you to define "irrelevant" for this topic, but that is just my opinion. However, using wikipedia is not a valid source, as wikipedia is posted by random people and is not considered valid. I do completely agree with the statement that "bravery" is a virtue, however, I would not say that that had anything to do with morality. In fact, the basic standards of behavior most of the time has little to nothing to do with morality. I would like to define morality via dictionary.com, and I find that definition 3 is rather relative to our topic. 3. virtue in sexual matters; chastity. However, in a more general sense: conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. is a better definition. As bravery has no sort of connection to virtuosity, I would say that your argument is null and void, and should be discredited. I cannot directly refute your points, since you haven't clearly stated which side you are on, instead going directly into a confusing argument about morality and naturalism. Also, I do not quite understand your statement "what is natural is not moral," since right after that you said that "I did not say it being natural made it immoral," but you did say that...Anyways, that is a direct confrontation in your statements. Also, can you clear the topic up? Am I arguing for the fact that DNA is relevant or is not relevant to the morality of homosexuality? Based on the fact that the topic is that it is not relevant, and that you are PRO, I would assume that I would be arguing for the statement that "DNA is relevant to the morality of homosexuality." If that is the case, there is a very simple statement that I think that you cannot disprove, since it is very obvious from the way that this topic was stated. If DNA is directly related to the cause of homosexuality, then it puts an entire different view on this matter, instead arguing about whether naturalization made it moral or not, rather than the normal argument, where you take into fact that it hasn't been proven and instead go into different directions, such as human rights and such.
Participation Trophies

I really dislike participation trophies. They make kids think that they can be rewarded for doing little to nothing at all. They make children think that there are rewards for not doing your best. People argue that they make the kids feel good but I'd beg to differ. For one, as a child when my team I received participation awards, we felt disappointed. It was like a consolation gift. Needless to say, they always ended up in the trash. And two, they destroy incentive to work hard. If I play soccer and I know no matter what that I'm going to get an award, what incentive do I have to do my best? If we stopped giving out participation awards, kids wouldn't feel good when they didn't get awards if they lost. And that's actually not a bad thing at all. Because now they realize they have to work hard if they want to win. Sports are competitions, regardless of who is playing. If you want to win, you should work for it. You shouldn't get a consolation trophy. In the real world, there are no awards for participation.
Leon is the best hero in the Resident evil series

Yes, he survived the Raccoon incident and he defeated the Los illuminados but that doesnt make him the hero of the series autotomatically. Dont forget that Jill also helped Leon escape and that she with the help of Chris took down Umbrella. Definition: hero: a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities Of course since you use "THE", you refer as Leon as the only hero in the game. Of course thats not true, and i have my reason here why. "1)He has survived the Raccoon City incident." Same applies to Jill and Chris except they both got out alive from a bloody zombie infested mansion too. Aren't they then heroes too? "2) He has defeated many enemies in the games he has been in fighting non-human beings." Chris and Sheva has done that too, they've been defeating many Majinis in RE5. They even defeated Wesker and blew up his entire facility, certainly thats what heroes do. Unless you can prove that Leon is the only hero in the game, tough luck.