BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is no such thing as gay "marriage!"

Thank you for letting me use religion in this debate. First of all. With your claim on King Solomon who was a polygamist, this was never God's ideal for marriage. I mean, how can you love 1000 wives at once? God meant for marriage to be between one man and one woman for life:"Do you not know that God made them male and female. For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and they shall become one flesh" (Ephesians 5:31)As we can see here, God meant as has always meant for marriage to be a union between one man and one woman until they die. And I see marriage as much more than just a legal binding between to consenting adults. Yes a marriage should have love companionship, devotion to both spouses, but all marriages should have the possibility of bringing new life into the world. Homosexuals couples are incpapble of doing this. Infertile couples are different. Being infertile is usually not their fault. They are either born with it or they develop it later in life. Despite what everyone says, I don't believe you are "born" gay. If they were, God would not condemn it as "immoral" and "unnatural". Homosexuality is a choice, not a genetic mark.Anyway. I thank you for this debate and that it was civilized. Good luck!!!
There is no such thing as gay "marriage!"

Haha agreed, I didn't really read the comments just saw there was a bunch cluttering up the comment section! You are free to bring religion into the topic, I am an Atheist but I believe in freedom of religion. Everyone should be free express whatever religious beliefs they believe in (as long as they don't negatively effect others.) Everyone's definition of marriage is different. There are many forms of marriage and it has been subject to change in history. The definition of marriage is funky and subject to change over time, for example: The King of Israel Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. That may have been a marriage accepted for his time but in the 21st century it's frowned upon severely. Anyway marriage in my view is just a legal binding uniting two individuals together for rain or sunshine. It's also to express love and devotion for each other. Marriage is deeply engraved in our culture, a bachelors in his 40s may be looked down upon for not being married by his peers and boss. That is why I support marriage for any two people regardless of sexual preference.
There is no such thing as gay "marriage!"

Great. Now first off. You are entitled to your own opinion and I accept that. And sorry for that little fiasco in my other debate. That other guy was just an intolerant bigot and I was just defending myself.I will try not to bring religion into this as I read on your profile that you are an atheist so I imagine that you would declare my Christian beliefs invalid or null.So anyway. Here's my opinion on gay marriage. It does not exist. I'll take it like this: you have a nut and a bolt. The woman is the nut and the man is the bolt. When put together, they fit perfectly. But with a homosexual marriage, there are two nuts and two bolts. Two nuts nor two bolts can fit together. They cancel each other out. This is what I feel about a homosexual couple. They cannot unite their bodies like a heterosexual couple can. It is impossible because their bodies don't fit together, nor their personalities. I know there is more to marriage than just sex so I will go further into this explaination in the third round.Good luck!!!
There is no such thing as gay "marriage!"

Oh boy this is the quickest debate I've ever had on this site! Anyway I'll provide my source for Solomon's wives below, I don't agree with him but he did still did it. The definition of marriage changes over time, I don't believe the bible is a good source for marriage. Genesis 4:19: "Lamech married two women." Samuel 1:2 "He had two wives. The name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other, Peninnah. And Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children." The bible allows the practice of polygamy as shown above. If there is a God, he supports polygamy based off the bible. That is why I do not support the idea of God dictating marriage. This is my definition of marriage Marriage: the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship. I don't know too much about England but in the United States our constitution believes in the separation of church and state. So if a church opposes gay marriage I believe they are more than welcomed to forbid gay marriage in their own church. However two people regardless of gender should be free to legally engage in marriage in the eyes of the law. In the law marriage is defined by the government who derives it's power to govern from the people. If the majority of people do not support gay marriage than gay marriage should not be legal. If the majority of people support gay marriage then gay marriage should be legal. Anyway thanks for the quick, efficient and civilized debate! Source: https://www.biblegateway.com... http://biblia.com...
Jesus Christ Has Not Done Everything In His Power To Save People From Hell.

I don't feel debating with someone quite as ignorant as you. I'm not calling you ignorant for beleiving in God, because i just recently converted from athiasm, but if you guys look at his arguements, he twisted things around and lied. Also I meant how did the Greeks know an atom exsists. I kinda-sorta worked it into an anology, because you can't EVER be 100% sure about something unless you can harness it and see it... Hence gravity and the ozone layer
Jesus Christ Has Not Done Everything In His Power To Save People From Hell.

"I don't neccisarily beleive that if you are a different religion, then you burn in hell. All sins are equal, and you are judged on your heart. " Um, isn't the whole point of the Christian theology that if you do not accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal savior you will go to hell? "How do we know an atom exsists? How about the ozone layer? How about gravity? How about intelligent life? Whether people admit it or not, space is infinate, and it'd be extremely ignorant of us to assume that other intelligent life didn't exsist. How was EVERYTHING created, even space? The only answers we have are God, and he proved himself to me. " Obviously, you don't know something about SCIENCE. We can show you with evidence that an atom exists. When can show you how our ozone layer even FORMED. All the rest, we've verified and tested with science. God of the Gaps, ever heard? God isn't our only answer. If he was, we'd be cavemen still. But besides that, my opponent has completely missed the point of the debate. He has failed to show why Jesus Christ has done everything in his power to save people from hell.
Jesus Christ Has Not Done Everything In His Power To Save People From Hell.

I don't neccisarily beleive that if you are a different religion, then you burn in hell. All sins are equal, and you are judged on your heart. "If your religion is based solely on blind faith, then why do you deny all the other gods of every other religion? Or is it perhaps because you think you have evidence in support for your god? How do we KNOW whether or not God exists? How do we KNOW which religion to choose? If God just appeared and showed himself, billions of people would not have to burn in hell. How can you justify the eternal suffering of billions of people simply because they had "faith" in the wrong religion? How were they supposed to know which religion was the right one?" How do we know an atom exsists? How about the ozone layer? How about gravity? How about intelligent life? Whether people admit it or not, space is infinate, and it'd be extremely ignorant of us to assume that other intelligent life didn't exsist. How was EVERYTHING created, even space? The only answers we have are God, and he proved himself to me.
Jesus Christ Has Not Done Everything In His Power To Save People From Hell.

" Hello, and thank you for bringing up this debate. i go to a christian school... which might help me :P" ew. "Also, to make things easier, I beleive in God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit." Yes, those three buddies are included. "Triune" "Why does he have to prove it? All religion is based around faith, and you took up a scientific standpoint. You don't "beleive" in science, you back it with evidence. Religion is the exact opposite. You put your faith in him, and that alone can and will save you from hell." If your religion is based solely on blind faith, then why do you deny all the other gods of every other religion? Or is it perhaps because you think you have evidence in support for your god? How do we KNOW whether or not God exists? How do we KNOW which religion to choose? If God just appeared and showed himself, billions of people would not have to burn in hell. How can you justify the eternal suffering of billions of people simply because they had "faith" in the wrong religion? How were they supposed to know which religion was the right one? Heck, basically, why is to God, faith superior to rational thinking?
Jesus Christ Has Not Done Everything In His Power To Save People From Hell.

Hello, and thank you for bringing up this debate. i go to a christian school... which might help me :P first off, i would like to quote you "He may have given us the opportunity to be saved, but this is presuming that he exists. The biggest step of all is to believe that he exists, and I do not believe he has done everything in his might to prove to everyone he exists either. " Also, to make things easier, I beleive in God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Let us pretend (even if you don't) that you refer to thge christian faith as if it is real, so we don't get completely off topic... I worded that wrong, best I can do. Why does he have to prove it? All religion is based around faith, and you took up a scientific standpoint. You don't "beleive" in science, you back it with evidence. Religion is the exact opposite. You put your faith in him, and that alone can and will save you from hell. I want to quote some things, that will hopefully show that he does not have to prove himself and be physically here to be known to everyone, because it is pure faith Scripture is clear that if you seek, you will find (Deut. 4:29). Of course, "seek" means seek, and God responds to a serious and diligent effort (Prov. 2:1-6; Matt. 7:7-11). If you put FAITH in him, he proves himself. Why should he prove himself to probably don't even care I beleive Jesus did enough. He shouldn't have to say "wow, we are in a desolate land with no technology. heres a computer, go play." No, he doesn't have to, and he shouldn't have to. People that contstantly perform miracles are fakes.... Like ancient egyptians, many of there prophets utilized this stuff that made wild sparks and then small explosions as signs... Stupid. We know how to do that now, but what HAVEN'T we figured out? How to cure cripples, leppers, and the bling with skin and saliva. Jesus performed miracles to better the world, and many others did to wow people. Jesus wanted people to beleive in him trhough truth, not through amazing acts.
Jesus Christ Has Not Done Everything In His Power To Save People From Hell.

Being Pro, I support that the Christian god has not done everything in his power to save his people from eternal damnation. He may have given us the opportunity to be saved, but this is presuming that he exists. The biggest step of all is to believe that he exists, and I do not believe he has done everything in his might to prove to everyone he exists either. It is up to con to prove that he has done everything in his power to save us from eternal damnation. Already, billions of people are suffering in hell (supposing he exists of course) because he has not done everything in his power to prevent this.
Creationism(P) vs (C)Popular Non-theist Theory of Creation

Wow. My opponent really likes to talk about darkness. Alright. To respond to your "evidence" that you have presented, I will describe some inconsistencies and my theory. The Universe is ever expanding. We can agree on that. However, it is not necessarily expanding in the same way that the Bible describes. It's not as spontaneous. In Genesis 1:3, the popular "Let there be light" quote is written. That isn't specific. Think of it like Java coding. You have to be very specific. Why doesn't it read "Let there be a sun for this planet"? It doesn't. It merely says "Let there be light". This technically means that our sun should provide light throughout the entire universe. As I stated in my previous argument, there is proof of evolution in microscopic organisms. There is no speak of evolution in the Bible, nor does it even mention microscopic organisms. This is inconsistent and evidence that the Bible really doesn't cover much of the Universe. This goes for all of the holy books. Let's looks at some facts. DNA in organisms is very intricate. It is a coding filled with genes and traits such as a widow's peak (a very basic example). Evolution is really the major editing of this code. When the edit of the code lasts through natural selection, it becomes an evolution in the organism and most of the future generations will share it. This is a much more reliable source than a books that sounds like a bunch of archaic superstitions grouped together. Religion provides explanations for things that we do not know. Do you know the origin of the term "Bless you" when someone sneezes? At one point in time, people thought a sneeze was your body ridding an evil spirit from you. This is obviously not true, but it is an amazing example of people putting God and myths in place of unknown scientific facts. I will continue with errors in a creationist model. All creationists believe that a god or group of gods created the world and the Universe. However, none of them mention the Universe. They all talk about EARTH. This is due to little scientific evidence. However, we are talking about books that are meant to guide you through life in worship of the god(s) you worship. You would think they would ensure that it was accurate. Also, there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence for any of the religions to have advantage over others. Religion is not usually a decision, it is spread my missionaries and parents who manipulate people into believing their religion by telling them they will go to heaven. I believe I have presented an adequate argument for non-theist origins of the Universe. Thank you for the opportunity to rebut.
Creationism(P) vs (C)Popular Non-theist Theory of Creation

I challenge anyone capable of defending the Non-Theist Theory of Creation. The debate will be entirely based the scientific mechanics of the known universe. You must believe in the theory you are defending, and not be sitting on the fence or theist. Round One; is an acceptance round, an opportunity to ask questions and make remarks regarding technical perspectives you share on the matter. Round two; Present your Model of creation from the beginning to end; Explaining the philosophical data and the transition stages. Leave any remarks you desire to elaborate on the idea, but ensure all information is capable of being supported with data. Round Three. WE search for any missing information, and or errors in each others debate, and contribute such missing information in a logical manner. IN addition, summarize the model of creation and explain where All transition stages were accounted for using data, science, and if necessary the inconclusive evidence acquitted to the theory without scientific method ( stipulations of the mechanics leading from transition to transition). Round Four: A polite acknowledgement of our opponent and his presented argument. And a potential Post-debate challenge regarding the lack of factual, relevant or substantial evidence used as substance to support each others debate. Please be thorough in your debate and the illustration of your accepted Model of Creation.
Evidence of God is Strong

Thanks for that "response" Pro. I'll keep this brief, and address parts of Pro's response. Pro mentions: "Con wants proof of God being the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being." My response: Yeah, and so do readers/voters of this debate. It's literally the whole point of this debate. So Pro claims: "If you prayed to God for it to rain money, and it did, you might believe God exists." My response: Or that the water cycle has been taken over by Lil Wayne... Pro continues: "If you prayed for 500 things and it all came to fruition, it would be nearly impossible to not believe, even if you never saw Him with your eyes." My response: Who? Lil Wayne? I'm confused. If I prayed for 500 things and it all came to fruition, and one of those things was the eradication of gullible beliefs, then it would be impossible to believe in "Him" which I assume to mean the god you're purporting, not Lil Wayne. Pro gets relevant: "What makes the Bible right?" My response: Yes! Finally, someone is going to address this crucial point. Pro provides the answer: "It predicts the future. I assume Con does not believe in the power to predict the future with omnipotence. Thus, if it does, it could add a new dimension to his thinking." My response: Ok, show me that the bible predicts the future. Pro claims: "According to the Bible...a false being claiming to be God will overcome the Christians...to wage war against God's holy people and to conquer them...during the Crusades there were...many losses...in its finality the Temple Mount of God is still today under the control of Islam." My response: False god = Temple Mount of God is run by Muslims = Bible was right? I'm not convinced by this. I don't view the seizure of the Temple Mount as a fulfillment of the prediction you quoted in the bible...care to elaborate here? So, at this point, I'm going to ignore the rest of Pro's 3rd round, because it's either irrelevant, incoherent, religiously intolerant, disjointed, or annoying to read, and more importantly, it never explains how god created the universe, how god rules the universe, how god is the source of all moral authority, or why we should consider the bible authoritative on matters of the universe or moral authority. Sorry Pro, but your 3rd round was garbage. So, I've thrown it out. Any actual arguments Pro?
Evidence of God is Strong

Oh boy, here we go. Thanks Pro, for that "argument." I don't necessarily understand any of it, but here we go. *The Resolution Is Not True* God is defined in this debate as the creator AND ruler of the universe AND source of ALL moral authority, yet none of Pro's 2nd round mentions ANY of these qualities. So, I reject that there is any available body of facts/information that indicate that the god that Pro has mentioned is the creator AND ruler of the universe AND the source of ALL moral authority. Pro has also randomly quoted scripture and made some connection between the actions of some Muslims of today and the scripture Pro provided. 1. Pro, can you demonstrate that your god created the universe? None of your quotes reference it. 2. Pro, can you demonstrate that god is the source of ALL moral authority? Again, none of your quotes reference it. 3. Pro, why should we consider the bible authoritative on matters of the universe or morality? Without these questions being answered, one must vote Con, because god, in this debate, needs to be shown to be the creator of the universe and source of moral authority, and without any reason to accept the bible as authoritative on these matters, Pro quoting scripture doesn't amount to much. I await an actual argument from Pro...
Evidence of God is Strong

Definitionsevidence - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...god - the alleged creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...strong - likely to succeed because of sound reasoning or convincing evidence. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Pro?
Our rights exist in every individual and come at no one else's expense

If inalienable is what you say it is, then we don't have an inalienable right to life either, because people can end their own life (euthanasia). "I wouldn't really call it affirmative action for apartments. And why is he not allowed to discriminate, assuming we use your definition of liberty as stated above? Wouldn't saying he's not allowed to discriminate be a "legal obligation" and he 'would have no choice in [his] life'? I really just don't think you have thought through that logic." That is one way to look at it. Here's another way: For anyone to make a decision about who can rent their apartment, or work for them, based on anything other than merit, is a threat to capitalism and an infringement on other people's right to sustain their life through their own efforts. "Anti-discrimination laws are by their very nature IMPOSING A LEGAL OBLIGATION not to discriminate, and essentially those people would HAVE NO LIBERTY to discriminate as they wish." So are anti-murder laws by their very nature imposing a legal obligation not to murder? And essentially those people have no liberty to murder as they wish? I find discrimination and murder both infringe on other people, and no one has liberty to do that. Let's use a coffee example. You pay me $5 for a latte. In that, you are saying that the latte is more valuable to you than the $5, and I'm saying that the $5 is more valuable to me than the latte. We both benefit from a free transaction, and no government intervention. I had the right to sell it for what I wanted, and you had the right to buy or not to buy it. Your race makes no difference as to whether I'm better off, so for me to discriminate on that basis is, as I said, an infringement on other people's right to sustain their life through their own efforts (well, people don't need coffee to survive, but same idea). Or put another way, I'm all fine with enabling people to start at the same start line, have the same distance to run, and the same difficulty of obstacles in the race. But I am not fine with the idea that those who end up behind then have a right to slow someone up in front of them while giving themselves a boost in speed. On rent control, again, I find it a total affront to liberty to force one group of individuals to pay to fix a societal problem that they didn't create. Social programs aren't a right, but that's a different ballgame from whether we should have them or not. So yes, I can say they're not a right but still have a conscience, and no, I would not be tossing your aunt out in the streets.