BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The bible (OT + NT) is a horrific piece of work and should not be used as moral guidance

Touchï¿½. Morals are in modern society understood to be a concept held by people on whether certain actions are good or bad, by the way they affect society. Therefore, if the actions I have pointed out above can be shown to negatively affect people or society, I can prove that they are morally wrong. Firstly, women and children. With the verses from 1 Timothy Chapter 2, it tells women that they must all dress covering most of themselves, and that they may not have authority over men or teach men. This represses the individuality of women, subjugating them to the will of men. If a woman cannot teach a male, then it is also impossible for them to share information. This can create a intellectual bottleneck, as new concepts and theories cannot be put forward by women. What if instead of Einstein, a woman proposed the theory of relativity? According to 1 Timothy, she would not able to have put forward the theory of relativity, which would mean project Manhattan would never have occurred, and the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima would never have occurred, which wouldn't have acted as a proper deterrent to the Japanese, which could have turned the tide of WWII in the Axis' favor. Next, Deuteronomy 22:28-29. Why is it bad? Because imagine the unbearable PTSD from having to live with the man who raped you, who violated you in the most intimate way possible for the rest of your life? As for the verse in Proverbs, imagine the physical trauma that would be inflicted by smacking a small child with a iron rod? The psychological deterrent to ever questioning your parents? It's horrifying that anyone would suggest physically abusing a small child. They could be killed! On Homosexuality, how is it appropriate to repress someone's natural sexuality, or kill them for simply expressing it as heterosexual people do? This isn't like having someone repress their hyper-sexuality, their desire to rape. It's repressing something just as natural as heterosexuality, just as human. That is absolutely unacceptable. This leads to the portion which says to kill the homosexual, and to the verse about alternate faiths. It's disgusting that you would even propagate that I need to prove that murder has a negative impact. It's ending a life that has every right to live. This is a human life, just like yours. It's a theft, and the only kind that is of a property that can never be returned. Since I have here forth proved that each one of these verses suggests behavior that has a negative impact, P2 is now proved as well as P1.
The bible (OT + NT) is a horrific piece of work and should not be used as moral guidance

Before I begin my deconstruction of the Pro case, I would like to offer definitions of the terms of the resolution left undefined by my opponent, as well as some other terms relevant to the debate. Should: Used to express obligation or duty[1]Moral: Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character[2]For the Bible to be used for moral guidance means that the contents of it would be factored in the decision of how one ought to act. If one should not use the Bible for moral guidance then, this means that the Bible contains material which is morally dubious or wrong. The Pro case relies on the argument that the Bible promotes behavior which is morally wrong to push the proposition that it should not be used as a moral guide. ===Deconstruction===Put clearly in syllogistic form, my opponent's argument goes as follows:P1: The Bible supports actions A, B, C, etc.P2: The aforementioned actions are morally wrong.P3: One ought to do what is morally right and not do what is morally wrong.C: The Bible should not be used for moral guidance.On the argument forwarded by my opponent, I concede that the writings in the Bible supports the actions described by my opponent in his case. The description of the views purported in the Bible regarding the treatment of women, homosexuals, non-religious people, etc. by my opponent are all true. However, the reason why the Pro case is insufficient to support the resolution is because he has failed to uphold P2 (I will concede the implied assumption of P3). My opponent has not sufficiently shown why the various treatments described in the Bible are actually morally wrong, thus he has not shown why there is anything wrong with using the Bible for moral guidance (or by extension committing the acts described). If nothing can be shown to be morally wrong with the actions prescribed in the Bible, then my opponent has not upheld his burden of proof.===Sources===[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Flag Burning

I fear this will be a very disappointing debate for my opponent if he expected a rousing opposition. I mist confess that this being my first debate here, I made a critical error. While filling out my profile, I clicked the wrong position for this issue. In short, I actually agree with my opponent's view. While I abhor the idea of burning the flag, and can not guarantee the general safety of anyone who does it in front of me, I do believe it to be Constitutional. I considered presenting the opposing view, but my personal integrity will not allow me to argue a point that I do not believe in. Therefore, I will simply take responsibility for my apparent inability to fill out simple radio button forms and concede the debate.
Flag Burning

:)I will be arguing that the act of burning the national flag for reasons of protest is constitutional and should be legal. I will begin by sharing a quote by Patrick Henry one of our nation's founding fathers. He once said, 'Id rather see a man rapt in the constitution burning the flag, the rapt in the flag burning burning the constitution. 'Now, the first amendment to our constitution grants us the freedom of speech, expression, and protest. Flag burning exercises all of these rights. Therefore, it should be legal. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America reads as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. " [1]From virtue of the First Amendment, flag burning should be legal. ~~sources~~[1] . http://www.usconstitution.net...
The Old Testament Supports Polytheism

While I understand where Con is coming from (I was a Christian for a long time) I don’t see that his arguments are convincing to anyone who is not a Christian. He has conceded that multiple gods, with supernatural powers, are mentioned in the old testament and that they were worshipped. That’s polytheism. Con Has Not Refuted My Arguments I posted a long list of scriptures that Con brushed off with the general comment that while The bible admits that many others believe in gods other than Jehovah that they did not believe at the time that the other gods existed and this is obviously false. In Jeremiah 46:25 Jehovah claims that he will punish other gods. Judges 10:6 Mentions that the Israelites served many false Gods. Exodus 34:14 mentions that you should not worship other gods. Duet 32:16-17 commands adherents not to sacrifice to other gods. How can you punish, serve, woriship or sacrifice to something that does now exist? The Old Testament clearly makes the claim that multiple gods exist. Con Repeatedly References the New Testament This is telling because like many things in the bible you do need the New Testament to explain problems in the Old but remember I am not claiming the New Testament supports polytheism. Idolatry Why is it a thing? There are multiple scriptures that mention that you should not worship other gods or create idols etc when, according to Con, there are no other gods. This is completely inconsistent. Why is the god of the bible obsessed with the worship of other gods if they do not even exist? Worship I don’t think that any being should be worshipped so it’s bizarre reasoning to say to me that created beings should not be worshipped but you should worship a being that was not created. I get that Con is making a semantic point about the worship requirement in my second god definition but Obviously multiple Gods are worshipped in multiple ways all over the Old Testament. Angels, Demons and Rival Gods It’s clear that Angels and Demons are Gods by my second definition and Cons semantic assertions about worship should not affect this in any way. Rival Gods are a repeated theme in the Old Testament and virtually every tribal group the Israelites ran into had a rival god. Con has stated that Angels and Demons should not be worshipped but false god’s are, in fact, repeatedly worshipped whatever you’d like to call them. How is Con making a distinction between angels, demons and false gods? By asserting that they should not be worshipped and nothing else. He has made no other distinction. Con doesn’t dispute that the bible brings up multiple gods at every turn. They have supernatural powers and are worshipped not only by surrounding tribes but often but the Israelites. Without the post hoc rationalization that these are demons (smaller less powerful gods) we wouldn’t even he having this conversation. The Old Testament argues that Jehovah is the chief and most powerful god in a polytheistic world view.
The Old Testament Supports Polytheism

The New Testament helps us unlock a lot of the behind-the-scenes of the Old Testament. We must use these two together to come to accurate conclusions. From Genesis to Revelation the Bible is all one book and one story authored by the same person. These are not texts that we can just seperate. If you did this, one might conclude that James teaches works is required for salvation. Using other scripture, however, we know this is an inaccurate way to interpret this passage.2 Kings 19:18 - And have cast their gods into the fire: for they were no gods, but the work of men's hands, wood and stone: therefore they have destroyed them.This passage, at first, says that they cast their gods into the fire. This passage treats these gods like any other reference to a false god in the Bible. It then goes on to say, however, 'for they were no gods.' Notice the equivocal use of the term 'god' here. It recognizes them as the gods of the people, but then it goes on to say that they were not actual gods.Psalm 96:5 declares that the gods of the nations are but idols, for there is only one God.James 2:19 - "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder." Even the demons believe that there is one God. Demons are not gods, nor are they God. As I've already stated, to use this definition of god you've manufactured would also mean that we're gods too. This is simply untrue. The definition of Polytheism provided is "the belief in or worship of more than one god." The Old Testament does not teach that you should worship more than one God. Your definition of God tells us that they must require human worship. The Bible tells us that there is only one being who should be worshiped, as everything else is the creation of the one true God.In my study of the dictionary definitions provided, Webster is the only dictionary that would provide such a broad term for God. Every other definition, exluding this definition from Webster, would disqualify everything but Jehovah as being considered a god.The term polytheism comes from the Greek 'polutheos.' The first part of this word is poly, many, and the second part is theism, God. The word theos, or theism, is not referring to 'a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers..." The standard for 'God' is much more than something like that.http://www.biblestudytools.com...The Bible clearly indicates that there is but one God who created everything and by whom all exists. The only other creation we know of besides earthly creatures is the angel. Angels are many things, but they are not gods.
Tell me your thoughts on Abortion.

I wasn't trying to say that the child should be a punishment to the parents/parent at all. The fact is that the moral responsibility for someones actions should be enforced. I strongly feel that our society is quick to give too many second chances. Young women have been raising children for centuries. When women would hit puberty back in history they were ready for child bearing. My point is here that maybe they are physically ready but not mentally as tough as you mentioned. However, I would be in favor to maybe having the cutoff at age 17 but no higher. Once again I have to go back to the fact that teens know what sex is and what the implications are. Use a contraceptive. Millions of kids drop out of school because of many other things than a child. You talk about how a person that drops out to raise a child is worse off. Of course that is true, but you know that it is their responsibly and worrying about their well being before their child's is selfish. If they cant take care of their child put it up for adoption. There a thousands of willing couples that will love and nurture a child. When I take a step back and look at the abortion issue it just seems so absurd. I mean we are actually killing our own young. We are preventing a natural cycle of life because of technological advances and "convenience" of the parent. The idea of making a baby is considered an accident in most occurrences nowadays. America has a ton of systems set up to provide welfare and aid to those who do have a child and are unable to take care of it. We give millions in hand outs to help young parents/parent out each year through our tax paying dollars. Did you know that the average mother gets 1300 a month per child through just the state welfare check? They get federal aid as well as the many food programs. So there is a ton of money that can aid these mothers. The problem is that these people keep making babies and don't feel the major affects of paying for a child because of the hand outs they can fully exploit. People aren't dumb and know that having a child is expensive but also gives a lot of handouts for a person living under the poverty level. You talked about parents using drugs and such well our system right now pays/contributes to these addictions. Other then the three exceptions I have given there is no reason for ever killing a baby. It doesn't matter if it is three weeks or nine weeks, once that embryo is created it should not be destroyed.
Tell me your thoughts on Abortion.

Sorry I took so long to respond, by the way. But first of all, you never answered my first question, about the 15 year-olds and getting parental consent. Secondly, even though teens fully know the implications of having sex, they still make stupid decisions because they're not very good at reasoning and they're very impulsive. I mean, the ultimate in stupid decisions is killing someone, and we don't allow the death penalty for anyone under 18 because we know they can't reason well. If people under 18 have reasoning bad enough for us to have to add a law like that, then it warrants abortions. At the very least, you'd have to raise the age to at least 22, where the majority of people are capable of making a good decision. And I don't think many people get an abortion twice. I mean, that's mistake enough for most people, and usually the guilt gets to people enough for them not to make a mistake like that again. Actually forcing them to raise the child as punishment, as you seem to imply, is a bit drastic, not to mention outright cruel to the child, who's only crime is existing in the first place. And while some kids clean up their act and become adults, most don't. And you end up with self-perpetuating poverty where people who are just kids themselves have kids, drop out of school, and can't get a job. And of course, with such a horrible upbringing, the kid's going to do the same thing when (s)he's the same age I'm sorry, but the character someone gets from raising a child isn't going to be enough for the time and education they lost. And those are just the handful of good stories you hear about on the morning news. Dropping out of a school and raising a kid is next to impossible. If you manage to do it, yeah, you'll have a lot of character afterward, but you must have been pretty strong beforehand. More often it just breaks people and they become addicted to alcohol and drugs and other such things, and go into a downward spiral for the rest of their lives. I mean, most of your argument states that the person should have to raise the child as punishment, a consequence of their actions. But one of the very definitions of teens are that they are weak and prone to mistakes and often need to be protected from the consequences of their actions, at least until they can learn to make the right choices. And again, using a child as punishment is just inhumane. There's no way the kid is going to have a good childhood. I mean, worst case, it may just be dumped somewhere after it's born. No offense, but I have no clue what you're talking about with the ghetto... so I'm not really going to respond to that argument. And I don't think we're exactly in danger of dying out because we killed off all our offspring. In fact, if you think of it a bit brutally, we'd be culling out the worst of them, because they're the ones most likely to end up as maladjusted and potentially dangerous adults. It's better for society, really.
Tell me your thoughts on Abortion.

I agree with the idea that much of this debate is based on things that we can assume will happen in the future of infants brought into poor families. For example, you talk about the fact that it is ageist to cut it off at 15. However, my argument is that many teens fully know the implications of having sex. Sure contraceptives fail but you and I both know that there is adequate knowledge out there that enables teens, though not fully developed mentally, to know what is right and what is wrong. I feel that when we talk about things like the child's upbringing into a bad home is a result from not having an abortion is ridiculous. I know in America we are very forgiving when it comes to bad decisions; we love to give second chances making people not learn from mistakes. Yet, making a baby and being responsible for ones actions is something that our society has overlooked because of things like abortion. We are quick to take the easy way out if we "make a mistake". That isn't right. A person needs to be accountable to his or her action. Sure it is a mistake, but it was ultimately YOUR decision to have sex. Sometimes the case is when a baby is made some young kids clean up their act and become adults. As we both know in places in the "ghetto" of America we have an enormous problem with just the opposite. However, some mistakes can make a person learn and have more character because of it. The Myans use to kill of their infants ultimately leading to the demise of their society. I know this is an extreme example, but as time has told history does have a way of repeating itself.
Tell me your thoughts on Abortion.

This ought to be interesting. For the most part, I agree with you. But hey, I can't turn down a challenge, so I'll give it a try. First of all, if does this 15-year old have to get parental consent? Otherwise the abortion would be violating the parents' rights, which, of course, is illegal. Just something I wanted to get out of the way. But anyhow. Kids have the power to mess up anyone's life, regardless of age. And only allowing people 15 and under to have abortions is decidedly ageist. And how do you determine the age at which people are responsible for their actions? The reasoning center of the brain doesn't finish developing until 21 or 22. So why make 15 the cutoff for stupid decisions? And for that matter, not all unintended pregnancies are the result of stupid decisions, anyway. Sometimes contraception just fails. And who are you to tell that kid in college on scholarship that she has to drop out to raise her kid? And if people want abortions, they probably have good reason to. Forcing people to drop out of college or leave work is damaging to them, not to mention the fact that they're probably not emotionally ready for children and both the parent and child will suffer as a result. A single-parent home with an unintended child is going to be incredibly unstable, and while it probably wouldn't be as bad as a teen pregnancy would, it would still economically hurt the parent in a big way. And children raised in such unstable homes are probably going to be just as unbalanced themselves and will grow up to be angry and maladjusted people, and likely spend the rest of their lives occupying the nation's prisons.
validity of new testament

Since my opponent forfeited, I’ll start. Definitions: (All definitions below comes from Wiktionary) Jesuses- Plural of ‘Jesus’. followers- One who follows, comes after another. New Testament- The second half of the Christian Bible (Wiktionary). The second major division of the Christian Biblical canon (Wikipedia). not reliable- not suitable or fit to be relied on. bias- inclination towards something; predisposition, partiality, prejudice, preference, predilection. Case/Conclusion: Ladies and gentlemen, obviously my opponent forfeited and well, there is no evidence to suggest that the New Testament was written by this so called, “Jesuses followers”, and no evidence that suggests that they’re biased. Also, there’s not much to argue about the authors, but the The Bible (which includes the New Testament) is an accurate reference as it has been considered by religious institutions (particularly the Catholic Church) to be inspired by God, that the Bible is a scared book and a sacred scripture. I’m arguing that the New Testament and its books and gospels are but one book, the Bible. That’s according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states that the Catholic Church’s view on the Bible, saying it is the word of God and that it teaches the truth. “The Catholic Church accepts and venerates as inspired the 46 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New.” **107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72 SOURCE: http://www.vatican.va... In conclusion, I’ve proven that in some way, that the New Testament (in the Bible) is a valid reference for religious teachings.
validity of new testament

Thanks to PRO for instigating. Overview of the debate: As CON, I will be arguing that the New Testament of The Holy Bible is a reliable and valid source for religious teachings as it is the second major division of the Christian Biblical canon, and it is considered as an accurate scripture according to various religions, and in this case, I'll be referring to the Catholic Church. I will negate any of my opponent’s contentions (that are reasonable and with accurate sources) that may say that the New Testament was written by, according to my opponent; “jesuses followers” [1], who were biased. But biased against... whom? Or what? My opponent also needs to argue that. My opponent will also need to argue that the said writers are biased and needs to prove that being biased or not when writing makes the doctrine per se unreliable and invalid. If he cannot prove them, then it is sufficient to negate the resolution. I leave the floor to my opponent for his opening argument. Sidenote: [1] PRO needs to clarify the term ‘jesuses followers’ in R2 or I will define it instead.