BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible does not teach that women should teach men in church

This text can be wrapped up rather quickly. My opponent's basic argument is that the old testament was sexist and the New Testament isn't, and that because we can all be saved women can teach men. First off, my opponent is basically calling the Bible sexist. Would the Bible portray women lower if that was sinful? The Bible would have a clear marker showing that it is wrong to think of women that way. There are many clear verses showing that men should be the leaders. That doesn't mean women should be slaves, but they're not supposed to be the head. Secondly in response to this blatant statement, I'll remind you of the prophetesses and a few of the women leaders. There weren't many, true, but there were some. That shows the Bible has balance. The Bible obviously is not sexist. Con then moved on to quote Galatians 3:26-28 and paraphrase John 3:16, which basically state that we can all be saved and there is no distinction. I agree that this abolishes the distinction of standing in Christ that was present in the Old Testament. (Eg. Jews had a different standing with Christ compared to Gentiles, and Men compared to Females). But! That's where we draw the line. If you go to Galatians 1:6, where Paul is introducing what this letter is about, we read: I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; Thus Galatians is discussing the gospel and our standing in Christ, NOT the functionality we have in Church. This verse is "untopical", or in other words does not apply. It is fallacious to use it in such a way. Same goes for John 3:16. It's showing our standing in Christ. Not our functionality in Church. But with this rebuttal of my opponent's fallacious arguments, I have only proved neutrality. Neither of us have proved Pro or Con. Thus I will present my own verses which ARE talking about functionality in Church. 1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. This is the New Testament. Thus my opponent's argument about "everything is changed in the NT" falls apart. But there's more. 1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. As you can see, this point is clearly proved by Pro with these two verses. They are both in the New Testament. I agree with Con on the fact that male/female standing in Christ is the same. But functionality in the Church is different, as evidenced by these verses. In order for Con to prove his point, he must prove these verses are faulty and bring up verses of his own proving HIS point. We both have equal burden of proof. Thank you for reading and voting on this debate. I give it to Con.
The Bible does not teach that women should teach men in church

I am con, therefore i am to argue that woman can teach(Preach) the word of god. Sexism is one gender, usually male, having dominance over the other gender, usually female. The Bible contains many references to women that, to our modern mindset, sound discriminatory towards women. But we have to remember that when the Bible describes an action, it does not necessarily mean that the Bible endorses that action. The Bible describes men treating women as little more than property, but that does not mean God approves of that action. The Bible is far more focused on reforming our souls than our societies. God knows that a changed heart will result in a changed behavior. During Old Testament times, virtually every culture in the entire world was patriarchal in structure. That status of history is very clear—not only in Scripture but also in the rules that governed most societies. By modern value systems and worldly human viewpoint, that is called "sexist. " God ordained the order in society, not man, and He is the author of the establishment principles of authority. However, like everything else, fallen man has corrupted this order. That has resulted in the inequality of the standing of men and women throughout history. The exclusion and the discrimination that we find in our world is nothing new. It is the result of the fall of man and the introduction of sin. Therefore, we can rightly say that the term and the practice of "sexism" is a result of sin. The progressive revelation of the Bible leads us to the cure for sexism and indeed all the sinful practices of the human race. To find and maintain a spiritual balance between the God-ordained positions of authority, we must look to Scripture. The New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old, and in it we find principles that tell us the correct line of authority and the cure for sin, the ill of all humanity, and that includes discrimination based upon gender. The cross of Christ is the great equalizer. John 3:16 says, "Whoever believes," and that is an all-inclusive statement that leaves no one out on the basis of position in society, mental capacity, or gender. We also find a passage in Galatians that speaks of our equal opportunity for salvation. "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:26-28). There is no sexism at the cross. By examining the references from the bible we can also concede that god would have no problem and would even look highly upon woman Ministers. Thank you and i will now wait for the next round posting.
The Bible does not teach that women should teach men in church

My argument is that women should not teach men in church. eg. Pastor, according to the Bible. My opponent may start with whatever verses he/she chooses. Rules: 1. This debate is based on the Bible. (The Christian Bible, not the Pali Canon which some other person did last time) 2. Forfeit means losing all 7 points. Even if you come back after the forfeit. 3. Dropped arguments are conceded. 4. If you must extend your argument for any given round, you can start a "new debate", write the rest of the arguments, and cancel the debate immediately. (If you're unsure how to do this you can PM me) 5. (Optional) It's preferable if you're a Christian as well so that we have a real Bible clash, not just someone's view of the Bible. (By Christian I mean protestant, Baptist, around those lines. Mormons and Catholics are not in my list) 6. No semantics. 7. My opponent is to argue that the Bible does overall show that women can teach men. 8. Before accepting this debate, my opponent should message me and talk a little bit. I've had enough lame versions of this debate, so I want to ensure a quality debate. Sorry if all these rules seem stingy, but I've had many a ridiculous round with semantics, forfeits, dropped arguments, etc. Let's keep this round professional but fun. I await an opponent.
REGLION SHOULD BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE SCHOOLS!!!!!

My opponent mistakingly assumes that I must prove why religion should not be brought back to (public) schools. In actuality, Pro must prove why religion should be brought back to the schools -- I only have to dismantle his arguments if I want to win. In this debate, my opponent has failed to make a good case for the resolution. On the contrary, I have more than fulfilled my role as Con by voiding all of my opponent's "arguments" and providing more insight than necessary to support why religion should NOT be brought back to school. Pro failed to refute my arguments as well. Therefore I urge a CON vote -- thanks for the debate.
REGLION SHOULD BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE SCHOOLS!!!!!

In Round 1 my opponent suggested that Christianity be taught in school; those of a different faith would attend a separate school. In Round 2 Pro now claimed that school would promote all religions and not just one over another. These statement are completely contradictory. I'm confused. And didn't I already say in a previous round that school already does/should teach a very brief overview about the major world religions (in a secular way)? Anyway even if schools did somehow teach "all" religions... which would be impossible given the number of denominations and their conflicting beliefs... that still does not address any of my points from Round 1, including the fact that there are laws that already exist to allow students to pray individually during school; the importance of the Separation of Church and State; the lack of (good) teachers; overcrowding; not enough money in the budget; inconsistencies regarding subjective grading experiences; equity and equality (education in poor cities vs. education in more well-off cities); concern about standards/quality of education (in comparison to other nations especially); pupil's lack of interest/attendance; the exaggerated occurence of violence in school; the fact that there are already private schools and free religious education; and the problems that would occur should religion in school be taught and funded by the state. Finally, Pro has yet to provide sufficient reasoning behind the resolution.
REGLION SHOULD BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE SCHOOLS!!!!!

i feel that even if you have religion in school that should not be a big deal...if you are serious in your faith then it should not affect it..i think that with the promotion of religion in school that you don't have to promote or emphasizing any one in particular. I have always felt that this is the proper role of religion in schools. my opponent say 'that favoring one over another would only lead to more problems,'..like i said you don't have to promote just one religion. I feel that if you are confident in your religion then learning about another religion would not hurt...
REGLION SHOULD BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE SCHOOLS!!!!!

I BELVE THAT IF CHRISTIANITY WAS BOUGHT BACK TO THE SCHOOL SYSTEM THEN IT WOULD BE BETTER OFF.EVEN THOUGH MANY THINGS HAVE HAPPEN BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT RELIGON WAS IN SCHOOL,I THINK THAT IN TODAYS SOCIETY THAT IS IS A NEED.....I THINK THAT IF REGLION WAS BOUGHT IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM THEN ,MANY OF THE PROMBLEMS WOULD NOT BE THEIR.I UNDERSTAND THE MANY REGLION BELIEFS,BUT IF THATS THE CASE THEN THE SCHOOLS SHOULD BE DIVIDED BY REGLIONS THEN...I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE BETTER OFF.
Circumcision

Again with the poems, How interesting. . . 1. I wanna defute the part of the poem about, " but suddenly something happens" circumcisions actually aren't forced upon people as your poem suggest or randomly decided by the doctor. The parents cam actually decide if the foreskin stays or not or if it's for religious reasons then the parebts can get it removed, So the parents know before hand also the baby doesn't even know what's happening so it can't comorehend like something is happening, So this whole suddenly a circumsion happens line doesn't make sense. 2. The foreskin area of your penis can actually trap alot of dirt and catch alot of bacteria so parents and dr's remove the skin for health reasons. 3. People with circumsions are actually whole, Becuase as a newborn you can't remeber or experience the pain so it's like it didn't happen and people feel whole all the time. To suggest foreskin can't make someone whole is illogical and actually insane. 4. Morality, Yeah drs do procedures to make circumsions not painful becuase then just cutting away as your poem suggest would kill the baby, For health reasons it's better to get it removed and for religious reasons it's moral to get it removed and the parents are aware and may know the benefiets of circumsions so to your line in your poem, " is this right? " Clearly it can be. Besides what do you care about what is right or wrong? In your last debate I had with you ; you openly admitted to having desires of molesting 4 year olds.
Circumcision

Poem about circumcision Pretty little baby boy He was just born, He is but a newborn But suddenly, Something happened he is strapped, He is tied up What is happening? It is his circumcision Pretty little baby boy You don't need your foreskin So we will take it away While you cry in pain I know that this hurts The knife that cuts through Through your little baby penis Is this wrong? We dont care We are going to do it anyway Because we want your foreskin We dont want to imagine you Growing up with your entire penis So we will take a bit of penis away No more sliding mechanism, You will never be the whole again It's too bad for you, But you should get over it We already have
My Opponent's Username on Debate.org is Trailsend

My opponent still holds to his irrational belief that he is not, in fact, my opponent. His ultimate goal is to defeat me, and thus gain victory. This he has stated. Trailsend, despite whatever rambling, incoherent, agreeable response he might give next round, is still in opposition to me in this debate, both due to the fact that he still vainly tries to gain victory, but also due to the necessarily antagonistic relationship between "Pro" and "Con". None of my arguments have been sufficiently refuted. If Trailsend truly is in agreement with me, he will agree that I deserve to win this debate that I have clearly won. If he does not agree that I should win, as I have claimed, then he is in opposition to me, and is thusly my opponent.
My Opponent's Username on Debate.org is Trailsend

My ally is absolutely correct. Someone else might argue that a rose by any other name smells as sweet, and the mere label of a stance should be subordinated to the actual content of the stance for the sake of determining whether it constitutes an "opposite position." However, this idea is clearly rubbish, as my ally will correctly demonstrate in the next round. Indeed, by my ally's own admission, I will be the obvious victor in this debate--so even that is no point of contention between us. In short, there is no facet of my ally's argument to which I take an opposite position, nor am I opposed to the truth of the resolution. I look forward to more opportunities to agree with my fellow interlocutor.
My Opponent's Username on Debate.org is Trailsend

Opponent:: one that takes an opposite position (as in a debate, contest, or conflict) (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary). Trailsend is my opponent a priori to the debate because the very format of Debate.org establishes me as Pro and he as Con. Therefore, since Pro and Con are necessarily opposed on the truth of the resolution, and I am Pro, and Trailsend is Con, Trailsend must be my opponent. This is evidenced by the fact that he will be the obvious victor. For him to gain victory, he must vanquish me, which means that he is ultimately opposed to me. He has offered no response to the claim of self-evidence. The username of he who opposes me in this debate is Trailsend.
My Opponent's Username on Debate.org is Trailsend

I agree that my username is Trailsend. Since Valtarov and I are in agreement, Valtarov does not, in fact, have an opponent, and therefore his assertion that his opponent's username is Trailsend is false. I accept that, by affirming this as my position, I establish myself as an opponent, thus making Valtarov's proposition true. However, by such acceptance, I render once more an environment of agreement, which implies once again that Valtarov has no opponent for the statement to refer to. My ally in this debate is free to chase this train of recursion in as many circles as he pleases, but I feel obligated to point out that I currently plan to agree fully with him in the last round, rendering his assertion false and myself the obvious victor.
Teachers Assign Too Much Homework.

Adding to where I left off, students complain about the workload given failing to realize the good that can come of it. They are too focused on the work rather than thinking that homework might have a positive impact on their education. Teachers assignment homework so that students get the extra practice and actually learn. Its to help students retain information and better their education. As stated by the NAEP, which stands for the National Assessment of Educational Progress "If kids are invested and engaged, homework can really help them learn. After all, the more a student practices something, the better they get and the faster they become." This just proves to show that homework actually helps students by improving their skills and continues to show that students can use the extra practice. As stated in research done by the The National Education Association, "the notion that students who do homework do better in school than those who don"t. Beyond achievement, homework can also lead to the development of good study habits and a recognition that learning can occur at home as well as at school." Students who actually take the appropriate time to complete their assigned homework develop better studying habits. Also, the extra practice allows them to learn more and do better in school. Teachers assign the homework needed for students to continue to accomplish big things in life. Teachers do not assign more homework than what is needed for them to be successful. Students just do not see the positive aspects of the assigned homework.
Teachers Assign Too Much Homework.

My opponent mentioned that students procrastinate and therefore complete their work so late, but it's because these students have other work to do. They don't have too much time on their hands, so when they are given an excessive amount of work, they're forced to push back dates of when to do it because of the other work they have. My opponent also stated that high school students receive less than an hour a night of homework and that the amount of homework they've received has been a constant amount for decades. However, over the past decades, according to a U.S. News article, written by Allie Bodwell, the amount of time students spend on homework has increased profusely. In the research done by the University of Phoenix College of Education in 2014, it was concluded that on average a high school teacher assigns 3.5 hours of homework each week. Although it doesn"t seem like much, don"t forget that the average high school student has six classes. That"s about 17.5 hours of homework each week, excluding AP students, who usually receive more. This can lead the students to stress. My next claim is that teachers assign too much homework because the students do not have time to spend time with their families. In an online article written by Ken Robinson in April of 2018, it states, "many parents and educators are increasingly concerned that homework, whatever form it takes, is a bridge too far in the pressured lives of children and their families. It takes away from essential time for their children to relax and unwind after school, to play, to be young, and to be together as a family." This quote demonstrates the frustration of both the student and parent because of the time that is being taken away from them. Students should be able to do their homework without stressing about it and still have time for other things.
Teachers Assign Too Much Homework.

As the years go by students continue to complain about the workload given and that it is way too much. They claim that are up all night and the amount of homework given is just increasing as the days go by. This is incorrect due to the fact that teachers provide the same amount of homework and does. Completing the amount of work given does not have to be completed so late if students would manage their time better and not procrastinate. As stated by the American Journal of Family Therapy through a study, "that while younger children are assigned too much homework (30 minutes is onerous?), most high school students get less than an hour a night." This just proves that even students who are nine to have too much homework when in reality it will only take them about half an hour to complete their assignments. Students tend to over exaggerate the amount of hour they truly get. In most cases, it is just because they are too lazy to sit there and complete the work. The amount of homework has remained at a constant amount for a while now. According to Tom Loveless, who is Brookings Institution scholar "during the past three decades, the homework load "has remained remarkably stable." In other words, the amount of homework given to students has been the same for an extremely long time. There have not been complaints before until the recent years, due to the fact that there are many things that can distract a student from completing their homework at a reasonable time. This is mainly way most stay up late completing their assignments.
Teachers Assign Too Much Homework.

As a student, I can agree that many teachers in high school assign too much homework. In fact, it has been evident, in myself and in others, that students are even being affected by the excessive amounts of homework they are receiving. Nowadays in school, teachers are more concerned with students doing work than actually learning and students are more concerned with passing than learning. Too much homework has led these students to be stressed, to be sleep deprived, to avoid time with friends and family, and etc. In an article published by Stanford University on March 10, 2014, researchers discovered about 56% of over 4,300 students find homework the primary source of their stress, while 43% decided that tests and exams were their primary source, according to a survey they took. This demonstrates that more students are stressed in their excessive amounts of homework than they are in important exams. In fact, less than 1% of the students surveyed said that homework was not a stressor at all. In addition, the Stanford researchers also concluded that many students have openly admitted to reductions in health. According to the article, it says, "many students said their homework load led to sleep deprivation and other health problems." (University, Stanford). This is an example of the pitfalls homework has that most teachers are unaware of, and proof that students find their excessive amounts of homework to be overwhelming, especially considering that they have many classes, and has led them to stress. To further defend my claim, the amount of homework the students have been assigned is affecting their health. In a CNN article published on August 12, 2015, and written by Kelly Wallace, it is stated that, "the impact of excessive homework on high schoolers included high stress levels, a lack of balance in children's lives and physical health problems such as ulcers, migraines, sleep deprivation and weight loss." This proves that the amount of homework teachers are assigning to their students is too much because it is causing them problems mentally and physically. 1) https://news.stanford.edu... 2) https://www.cnn.com...
Glue dots are better than Liquid glue

Yes but if people are expecting a permanent hold with glue dots they will be disappointed. Glue dots come off and the only way to keep your project going for a few weeks is to constantly replace the glue dot. Not to mention all sorts or things can get stuck to glue dots! Hair and lent and dust. Those things make the glue dot a lot less sticky and might interfere with your project. (Causing like a little bump or what not)
Glue dots are better than Liquid glue

How about applying a thin layer with a paintbrush? There are many ways you can make liquid glue work. Most people do not like liquid glue because it can get messy and uncontrollable, but if you take the proper steps and prepare before using it you will have a nice and tight paper, wrinkle free! I will admit glue dots do save time and are very reliable for temporary projects, but liquid glue gets the job done just as well and makes what you are gluing stick together much better and for a very long time. Most people just do not know how to handle liquid glue.