BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The "sin of Sodom" was not what we refer to as "sodomy" today.

For anal or oral intercourse to have amounted to the "sin of Sodom," (1)They would have had to occur in this instance. They did not occur though; only the threat occurred. Tangentially related to this, I have not been able to find anything suggesting that the threat of committing a sin was itself a sin in ancient Hebrew law, regardless of what our views on that might be post-Christ. The city had already been judged by God, Abraham had tried to bargain with God to spare the city if he could find just 10 righteous people in the whole city; the angels were sent to destroy the city not "investigate". True, it is not explicitly said here why the Sodom was "wicked", but I don't think that the men of Sodom just decided to take up "sodomy" on that particular night. Neither you nor I can prove in an absolute manner what the "sin of Sodom" was, we can both only speculate. Note, if you had said "homosexuality" instead of "sodomy" your argument would be much simpler to prove, since you only have to rule out one specific act. If you had said the "sin of Sodom" was not exclusively sodomy you would also be correct. I would not have ventured to take up this argument in either of those cases, but you chose an absolute statement that can be thought of logically in this manner: "Sin of Sodom" = different possible sins, but does not include "sodomy" If there is a reasonable chance that "sodomy" is a significant part of the "Sin of Sodom" this statement is false and your argument is negated. (2)They would have had to be a significant portion of the sin that led up to God"s (for lack of a better word) audit of Sodom prior to its destruction. There are no such descriptions of this in the Bible that I can find, despite numerous examples (cited in Round 2) of sins for which Sodom was judged. You use the term "incidental", meaning it was a very minor part, to describe the role "sodomy" played. Furthermore, you seem to suggest that the idea that if the men of Sodom had been more pleasant to travelers, but still committed rampant sodomy, then the city of Sodom would not have had enough "sin" to warrant destruction. You say that it is just "word choice" that gives a sexual connotation to the "sin of Sodom" in the New Testament, but it seems pretty clear that a connotation of "unnatural" is warranted, and the reader can use discretion in this manner to determine if "sodomy" is sufficiently "unnatural". The New Testament speaks in this manner to a great extent, granted they are different chapters, but they still give an idea of what the writers of the epistles were talking about when they think of unnatural acts. Therefore, since it appears to be split as to the veracity of "sodomy" not being part of the "sin of Sodom" it would be false to conclude that it is definitely not the "sin of Sodom". Pro has advanced many sound arguments for overall greed and lust for personal wealth being the "sin of Sodom", but this does still not preclude sodomy from being a significant part of the equation. Sodomy was a significant part of Sodom's sin, not a misnomer that resulted from misinterpretation of the Bible itself.
The "sin of Sodom" was not what we refer to as "sodomy" today.

This debate will be on the topic of the so-called "sin of Sodom," which traditionally has been interpreted as male homosexual intercourse (hence the term "sodomy" in English). I am taking the Pro stance, which is that this interpretation is incorrect. My opponent will be taking the Con stance, which is that the traditional interpretation is correct. Format:Round 1: Acceptance only. No arguments. Round 2: Make your case. No addressing any points made by the opposing side. Round 3: Rebuttals and (if so desired) further arguments. Round 4: Closing argument (and additional rebuttal if so desired). Rules: The debate will primarily use the Christian scriptures (i. e. the Bible) as accepted in the Protestant canon: that is to say the 66 books of the Old and New Testament. Deuterocanonical books (the Apocrypha) can be referenced, but only anecdotally. Any third-party papers or exegetical works may be used in support of one's argument(s) from scripture. The primary English version of the Bible to be used in this debate will be the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV); this is (currently) the most accurate English translation. Greek or Hebrew may be addressed in matters of interpretation, provided sources are cited. Other English translations may be used in conjunction with the NRSV, but my opponent will recognize the relative authority of the NRSV in comparison. My opponent need not be Christian, or even religious at all, but must argue from the point-of-view of one who holds the traditional interpretation of the sin of Sodom as accurate. If one wishes to debate the authority of the Bible or the veracity of Christianity, this is not the place for it. A preponderance of the evidence, so to speak, will be used to make one's case. For example, if there are multiple verses stating "the door was red" and one additional verse stating "the door was blue," the verses stating the door was red will (generally speaking) hold more weight in making a case.
Feral house cats are vermin that should be exterminated.

Feral house cats are vermin because they cause disease in humans [4]. , destroy wildlife, and even cause extinction of species. [5]. The feral cats should be exterminated because there are so many and destroying them would cease the previously mentioned detrimental affects. Links. 4. . https://www.nlm.nih.gov... 5. . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Feral house cats are vermin that should be exterminated.

Feral "Full Definition of FERAL 1 : of, relating to, or suggestive of a wild beast 2 a : not domesticated or cultivated : wild b : having escaped from domestication and become wild "[1]. Vermin "1 a : small common harmful or objectionable animals (as lice or fleas) that are difficult to control " [2]. Exterminated "To get rid of by destroying completely: exterminated the termites that were weakening the wall. See Synonyms at annihilate."[3]. Pro contends that feral house cats are vermin that should be exterminated. Links. 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 3. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
is drew brees the best nfl player

I thank RussianFish99 for his fast response. Rebuttalsif that then way did he have the most passing years in that nfl right nowI have searched up "Drew Brees most passing years" and have found nothing related to what RussianFish99 is saying. {1}. (I searched it up. )==> ConclusionPro/RussianFish has not refuted many of my arguments with complete answers. I then urge you to vote Con/Lord_Logic. {1} . http://www.google.com... Guess what, another fun time!
is drew brees the best nfl player

I thank RussianFish99 for starting this NFL debate. I'm not really a big fan of NFL, sorry to say. Rebuttalsthe reason that he is the best football player is because he can from a team that was not good but now look where he is the tope passer in the nflThis argument is indeed false. He is not the top passer in the NFL. According to ESPN stats {1}, Drew Brees is the second best NFL player. Aaron Rodgers is the best NFL quarterback/player.Aaron Rodgers gets a passer rating of 122.5. {1}.Drew Brees gets a passer rating of 110.5. {1}.Aaron Rodgers also won the overall passing title in 2011.On a survey, Aaron Rodgers got more votes as a better player than Drew Brees.Drew Brees' balls were intercepted 14 times while Aaron Rodgers' balls were intercepted only 6 times.==> ConclusionFrom these above results and passing stats, I hope the readers see why Drew Brees is not the best player in the NFL. Aaron Rodgers is better. This thus shows that Drew Brees is not the best NFL player. I urge you to vote Con.{1} http://espn.go.com... {2} http://bleacherreport.com...*Fun Time*Just bringing back Koopin's speeches and legacy:KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC KFC...I'm bored...
P.E. Should not be a required class in public schools

The argument of school responsibility versus parental responsibility still stands; I never deny that obesity is a problem, in fact I offer several alternatives to PE which my opponent never addresses. Students could just as easily take a walk around the block, do a few chores around the house or even volunteer at a local shelter for those in need. P. E. is not the end all for physical activity and it even takes time away from the regular school day where someone could better spend their time preparing for academic success. Beyond that, my opponent's arguments that PE should exist, but as a class where exercise exists that fits within the student's 'game plan' is not a realistic refutation. This idea of a PE class does not exist within the status quo[7] except at optional secondary education. Realistically PE classes are a waste of time because of the commitment of the faculty and the emphasis on the program, as the cited reporter from MSNBC tells us, the focus on winning instead of health that exists as basically a constant across the United States kills the legitimacy of the program. The reformed PE classes the my opponent advocates does not exist and therefore is not a legitimate refutation of the resolution. [7] . http://www.msnbc.msn.com... Finally even though my opponent wants to tout the effectiveness of Physical education in combating obesity, every study cited claims that it does not work[8]. The goals set for physical education are unrealistic and stem from the desire for a school to interfere with a student's life; the very thing I claim is such a bad thing in my initial constructive. Even if kids did a few pushups in class or ran around the track, it would not impact their overall lifestyle as students are influences more by the actions of their parents than anything else when it comes to their lifestyle[9]. [8] . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [9] . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... All of this stated, I move back to the argument of personal privacy and right to choose. This has not been refuted throughout the course of this debate and still carries a significant impact. Con hasn't even bothered to address this argument, whereas I've been able to show the health benefits of PE that my opponent asserts are neither present nor a unique benefit to PE. Con has failed to justify the violation of students' rights that exist when forced into a program that focuses on changing the student's body; PE is not an academic benefit. No health impacts are relevant in this debate as they don not stand to refute the issue of personal privacy.
P.E. Should not be a required class in public schools

students should be required to take a physical education course. Learning to use your body to participate in individual and team sports is another aspect of education. Public schools in particular should take care to make time for this type of physical education, as it is another part of the socialization process that we rely on from public schools. Whether or not students are successful at the course could be based on effort. With obesity at nearly 50% in some areas, the need for physical education should not be a question. It should not be a class where sports are promoted, but a true class that would teach all students that there is exercise that will fit into their 'game plan'. All students should be compelled to participate. The class should be comprised of physical training or introduction to various exercise regimes and class time where the importance of physical activity would be enforced. I totally agree that phys ed should be a daily requirement at school. MCPS doesn't have daily phys ed (at the elementary school level at least), and I think they should. Physical health and growth is just as important as educational growth. Unfortunately, with all the competing priorities that schools have to face, phys ed will remain at the bottom until we're at a crisis point with the state of our country's health. The school years are the most formative time for a person. This is when they develop lifelong skills that can help mold the person they will become. Requiring them to take physical education will allow them to interact with their peers and get valuable social skills that they will need in the future. Also it will get them started on a healthy lifestyle that can help prevent major illnesses in the future.
P.E. Should not be a required class in public schools

Con has failed to refute the argument of parental responsibility and student's choice. These have been voting issues for the Pro this entire round, and Con hasn't even attempted to refute them. Instead he continues to argue that this class is a necessity for students, but fails to provide a warrant as to why the alternatives I suggest exist are nonviable as an alternative to PE classes. What this means in the scope of this debate round, is that Con has failed to fulfill his burden of clash; as the contender to Pro's proposition Con has the express burden to clash with Pro's arguments. At the point that he fails to do this there is no reason that the vote should be given to him in this debate. On the other hand I not only fulfill my burden of proof as the instigator of this debate, but I provide all of the clash in the round; I show that PE classes do not fulfill their designated purpose, I show a myriad of alternative to exercise and I show that Con's advocacy does not represent PE in the public school system At the point that a class does not fulfill it's intended purpose, violates a student's right to privacy and free choice and wastes time in a students schedule (which my opponent openly admits is important) there is not reason that it should be a required class.
P.E. Should not be a required class in public schools

Illinois is the only state that requires a physical education class every school day from kindergarten through high school. Government officials may believe retaining this PE class will help the obesity rate of Illinois go down.Humans are naturally lazy. f you don't believe look around your school.Physical education has come a long way from simple strength tests. Instead of climbing ropes, doing "X" number of push-ups or pull-ups, or running impossibly long distances, there is jogging, basic health/nutrition facts, aerobics, games that are actually fun, and much, much more. In most cases, there is also the driver's education and sex education segment. Where else are schools supposed to fit that in your schedule? Lunch? People may not like it, but these things are here for a reason. It's only better to start good habits earlier rather than later, so why stop now? A class that is meant to teach students the importance of maintaining good personal health and pass along healthy habits on exercising and eating -- just like those commercials and shows you see on TV, except now you're actually accomplishing something!
Public schools should teach creationism alongside evolution in science classes

I will begin by countering my opponent's arguments:"Science, by the same way as religion, it’s just a matter of choice."This is false, as science has absolutely nothing to do with religion. In fact, history has often portrayed these two as opposites entirely. Science can in no way be compared to religion as it is not "just a matter of choice". Science is not an idea, or a way of thinking. The word science's definition is in fact "abranchofknowledgeorstudydealingwithabodyoffactsortruths". This truth does not change from a person to another, depending on his or her beliefs. This truth is the same for everyone. Believing in science or not believing in it is the same as believing or not in the truth."To this religious person, the way of thinking is different; he or she may base his/her thinking in the Holy Bible."With no offense to Christians or to any other religious group, I find that using a book written thousands of years ago (by who knows?) to say that what people today with today's knowledge and technology prove is true is in fact wrong is rather unrealistic. "By doing that, it doesn’t matter what fossils indicate. The simple fact of he or she experimenting the world, viewing the world and recognizing himself as part of that world is a proof that God created us."As I think I have already gotten my point across, I will not say too much on this, but can one's religious beliefs really be used to revoke affirmations made by scientists, using concrete proof, such as, as my opponent stated, fossils?"You are imposing something, and this will create discrimination against those who believe only in creationism."Although I see where you may have been going with this, as I have already demonstrated, the only thing I would be "imposing" on people is the truth. Although some people that believe in creationism may be denying themselves the facts and truth about evolution, I do not think this information should be denied from others.Although, the constitution of the USA may have been created for Christian people, times have changed. Back when it was created, 100% of Americans were Christians. Is that still the case? I believe not. It would be completely discriminating to make people of one religion learn another religion's ideas.I will now proceed to giving my new points:As I have already said:1. Public school science classes should stick to the science. My opponent said that certain people who do not "believe" in science would be discriminated if we taught the scientific theory of evolution to them. But isn't the whole point of a science class to teach science and the scientific method of thinking. Is my opponent saying schools should not teach science as this discriminates religious people? Because, in that case, why should math be taught either? I believe that science classes should only teach the "the scientific method thinking" that my opponent talked about.Those are all my point for this round. I am looking forward to my opponents'.Sources:http://dictionary.reference.com...
Public schools should teach creationism alongside evolution in science classes

1. A science class should stick to the science. Scientists have ample proof that the theory of evolution is right. Although many religious people continue to insist that it is only a theory, just like creationism, and that it should not be given more importance than any other theory, it is actually a fact. There is more proof regarding evolution than there is on gravity. If they still believe that creationism is just as probable as the theory of evolution, they are just stubborn and ignorant of the facts. Not really. Science, by the same way as religion, it’s just a matter of choice. It only depends on your world view. For example, if you are skeptical, if you think with science, if you think like a scientist, you will obviously disapprove creationism for just one reason: While following the scientific method, there are no proofs of the creationism. But actually that’s just part of your world view. A religious person doesn’t necessarily follow the scientific method thinking. To this religious person, the way of thinking is different; he or she may base his/her thinking in the Holy Bible. By doing that, it doesn’t matter what fossils indicate. The simple fact of he or she experimenting the world, viewing the world and recognizing himself as part of that world is a proof that God created us. You may not accept this, but a lot of people do. Not everybody thinks with the same base. 2. Creationism is the theory of one religion, but public schools will not only enroll students from that religion as this is against the law. So teaching creationism would actually become immoral as students with different religions will be discriminated as their religion's theory will not be taught. The theory of evolution, however, does not correspond to one certain religious group's beliefs but to scientific fact, and therefore will not bring any problems regarding this. You are saying that all religious must accept evolutionism, which is wrong. You are imposing something, and this will create discrimination against those who believe only in creationism. And also, the United States is a country that was founded in Puritan principles. And here I quote John Adams (about the Constitution of the USA): “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” [1] Not only John Adams, but I’ll also quote George Washington: "While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian." [2] If there’s some student who doesn’t want to learn creationism and learn evolutionism, or doesn’t want to learn evolutionism but learn creationism, his will should be respected. If he wants neither of them, or both, that’s also ok. [1] M. Campbell and J. F. Clarke, in Revolutionary services and civil life of General William Hull, 1848, p. 266. [2] G. Washington, "The Writings," pp. 342-343.
Public schools should teach creationism alongside evolution in science classes

As has been said, I believe that public schools should not teach creationism alongside evolution in science class. This is for multiple reasons:1. A science class should stick to the science. Scientists have ample proof that the theory of evolution is right. Although many religious people continue to insist that it is only a theory, just like creationism, and that it should not be given more importance than any other theory, it is actually a fact. There is more proof regarding evolution than there is on gravity. If they still believe that creationism is just as probable as the theory of evolution, they are just stubborn and ignorant of the facts.2. Creationism is the theory of one religion, but public schools will not only enroll students from that religion as this is against the law. So teaching creationism would actually become immoral as students with different religions will be discriminated as their religion's theory will not be taught. The theory of evolution, however, does not correspond to one certain religious group's beliefs but to scientific fact, and therefore will not bring any problems regarding this.These are all my arguments for now. I hope my opponent finds very interesting arguments and counter-arguments.Sources:http://www.debate.org...http://www.justice.gov...