BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage.

Taking away Heterosexual MarriageNo one is trying to take away Heterosexual Marriage. The ability of heterosexuals to get marred is, in no way, affected by also allowing gays to marry.Denying Gay Marriage isn't DiscriminationPro claims that it isn't discrimination because being gay cannot (in Pro's estimation) be shown to be determined at birth. This is a nonsequitor. Discrimination is discrimination and has nothing to do with whether or not you are born gay. For example, we aren't born old, yet discrimination based on age can be illegal.Civil UnionsWithout specific evidence or citations, Pro simply reasserts that Civil Unions are the same as marriage. I can do naught but refer to my previous citation outlining the significant differences.Morally WrongPro states that allowing gays to marry is morally wrong because they want it. It is the chief principle of liberty that all freedoms should be granted until a compelling reason exists to restrict it. Not only is Pro's statement a baseless assertion that verges on nonsequitor, it flies in the face of the principles this country was founded on.Previously Points Left UncontestedPro's previous points regarding Separation of Church and State and the dire consequences of Gay Marriage have not only gone unsupported, but have been dropped entirely by Pro. This is tantamount to a concession.It is commonly thought that highly aggressive homophobic attitudes are actually representative of latent homosexual urges. To help Pro cope with these conflicting emotions, I present the linked video.http://www.youtube.com...
Beauty is Objective

Instigator this topic is about Beauty is Objective with the Definitions: Objective: true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings (from Wikipedia) 1)Instigator agree Beauty is Objective 1.a)Instigator have strongly agreed there is definitely a mass basic idea of what beauty is which cause by media . he even supported us with plethora of sources concerning how the ideal body type for women has changed massively over time from the media. 2) Objective is relation Subjective beauty only may exist true as a Subjective when only its a Objective . you have agreed beauty is a Subjective, therefore you also agree Objective Beauty exist. 2.1) please read it clear, we are talking about "Beauty" Objective or Subjective from your define. as from your claim of "human are subjective or objective" will be another topic. 2.2) how could you only conclusion that beauty are only pleasing to the observer? this is a fully self conception claim. All supporting sources from Instigator link on round 3 show us that , in his tiny view Beauty is equal to all about female body shape,sexy human from the media, with sources of topic titles such as Female_body_shape, Hollywood hotties? How To Look Skinny in Pictures? LOL . debate is totally pointless to carry as Instigator view Beauty as only female body shape.
Beauty is Objective

First of all, i will have to stand firm of my claim, my belief is no one is ugly , everyone is beauty . the fact that , most human do judge human in term of beauty base on objective beauty. let me pick a 2nd etc for you, if you own a modeling agency and you have a summer party show to host, and you need someone for a bikini dress show, there 2 lady come for your interview, one of them are experience-beauty queen who have more than 60 years of knowledge on beauty and on degree in beauty marketing or totally no experience but a young sexy 18age beauty? now the beauty queen say to you that she is a "subjective beauty" please hire her for the bikini show. what will you do for this subjective beauty? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- let me pick a etc for you, if you own a modeling agency and you have a summer party show to host, and you need someone for to input great idea for a bikini dress show, there 2 lady come for your interview, one of them are experience-beauty queen who have more than 60 years of knowledge on beauty and degree in on beauty marketing or totally no experience but a young sexy 18age beauty? now the sexy 18 say to you that she is a "subjective beauty" please hire her for the bikini show. what will you do for this subjective sexy? let be true in real, everyone have their own beauty of taste, for me knowledge is beauty. overall beauty are judged by "objective", and its difference "objective" depend of situation.
Beauty is Objective

com)I will leave the definition of "Beauty" open for debate, because I think that is the main part of the question; I think it would be unfair of me to provide a definition, because it would beg my answer. -----------------------------What I will argue: I will attempt to show that Beauty is subjective, not objective. This will be based on an attempt to show that when people call something beautiful, they mean it gives them pleasure to see. Pro will attempt to show that Beauty is objective; that is, it does not depend on the viewer. It will be acceptable if they show that the majority of beauty is objective. Thanks in advance, I hope for a good debate!
Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) was not actually crucified.The Almighty God raised him up alive.

14 points of proof that Jesus not crucified neither was he resurrected: For a person to be crucified he should die on the cross. 1. He was put on the cross and brought down very fast in 3 hours. In 3 hours it"s difficult for a person to die. There for Jesus was alive. 2. When he was bought down his two cross mates were alive proving even Jesus was alive. 3. Jesus legs were not broken. What use is a broken leg to a dead man? Proving that he was alive. 4. The stone was removed and the winding sheets were unwound proving Jesus was alive. 5. Jesus was disguised as a gardener because he was alive trying to be saved from the Jews. 6. The tomb was roomy and spacious. What use is a spacious room for a dead person? 7. When marry Magdalene went to touch Jesus, he said, "Touch me not". He was alive. It will hurt him. He was in pain. 8. Jesus said, "I have not yet ascended unto my father". That means he was alive. 9. Mary Magdalene was not afraid recognizing Jesus. 10. In the upper room Jesus showed his hand and feet to prove he was not a spirit and that he was alive. 11. The disciples were all overjoyed to see him. Because they thought he was dead and the spirit form. There were all overjoyed to see him because he was alive. 12. Jesus ate broiled fish and honeycomb to prove he was alive. 13. The disciples had heard from Mary Magdalene that Jesus was alive. 14. Sign of Jonah. As Jonah was in the belly of the whale for 3days and 3 nights so shall the son of man in the heart of the earth alive. 15. So if he was alive that means no crucifixion, no resurrection In short Jesus was put on the cross according to the bible"but he did not die. Jesus was not really crucified. And as he did not die so there was no reason to be resurrected.
Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) was not actually crucified.The Almighty God raised him up alive.

We believe Jesus was not crucified, but was raised bodily to heaven by God, a belief also found in the Gospel of Basilides. However, this view is disregarded by Christians, who accept only the four gospels contained in the New Testament as genuine. 1- Ample Prophesies in the Old Testament about the Messiah getting saved from crucifixion. (a)- Psalm 91 is not just limited to the foot striking the rock! (b)- The Crucifixion is Symbolic in the New Testament. (c)- Indisputable errors and contradictions in the Crucifixion and Resurrection Accounts! 2- Isaiah 53 and its mistranslations. (a)- Isaiah 53's symbolic speeches - Detailed analysis on every verse. (b)- Isaiah 53:12. 3- The crucifixion would've broken at least one bone and refuted John 19:30-40! The following Biblical verses that further refute the crucifixion and resurrection lies: Being lifted and saved: Luke 4:10-12 10 For the Scriptures say, "He will order his angels to protect and guard you. 11 And they will hold you up with their hands so you won"t even hurt your foot on a stone."" 12 Jesus responded, "The Scriptures also say, "You must not test the Lord your God."" Matthew 4:5-10 5 Then the devil took him to the holy city, Jerusalem, to the highest point of the Temple, 6 and said, "If you are the Son of God, jump off! For the Scriptures say, "He will order his angels to protect you. And they will hold you up with their hands so you won"t even hurt your foot on a stone."" 7 Jesus responded, "The Scriptures also say, "You must not test the Lord your God."" 8 Next the devil took him to the peak of a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 "I will give it all to you," he said, "if you will kneel down and worship me." 10 "Get out of here, Satan," Jesus told him. "For the Scriptures say, "You must worship the Lord your God and serve only him."" Please visit: Psalm 91 clearly confirms that Jesus never got crucified.
Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) was not actually crucified.The Almighty God raised him up alive.

You shouldn't interpret the BIBLE to your liking that's immoral and unchristian, however I respect your opinion it's apparent that he died. 1. - False Bible teachers would bring in heresies, have many followers, and cause others to reject God's Word (2 Peter 2:1-2). It is very common today to find people who reject the Bible out of hand because they have heard it misrepresented by a false teacher. 2. - These false prophets would be money hungry, smooth talkers (2 Peter 2:3). A growing number of TV evangelists epitomize this. They twist the Scriptures, using misleading words, to make merchandise of the unwary.
story of noah and the references from those in the NTestament add to discrediting the bible

The fact that the volcano has erupted doesn't change the fact the that it carbon dates back 4,800 years ago and that it matches perfectly with the description in the Bible. These FACTS should be enough to end any speculation, besides who would build such a massive vessel on a mountain so far away from the coast and let animals live in it? This also credits the validity of the Bible. Many different cultures also had their own Great Flood story, for example the Greeks and Babylonians, and most show the same pattern, the human race was corrupt so an omnipotent power sent a flood to wipe them out and saved the only good family. Even Native Americans have a flood story, this is not just a coincidence. These people must have been influenced by a great event in order to all carry such similar traditions throughout the world and it must have been a very dramatic catastrophe in order for the people who drifted away, and formed many different pagan religions, to keep it. Let me remind you that you have still not responded to my first statement.
story of noah and the references from those in the NTestament add to discrediting the bible

that is a plausble argument, the 'known' world. but it still rests on a questionable event. "Despite many expeditions, no scientific evidence of the ark has been found http://en.wikipedia.org... more criticism about what was found there: "The modern "Mt. Ararat" (Agri Dagh) is a post-Flood volcano. The Ark could not have landed on Agri Dagh because it did not exist at the end of the Flood, and even if it did land on modern Agri Dagh, it would have been destroyed by the many, many eruptions of Ararat since the Flood. You can observe all the fresh lava flows on Agri Dagh at Google Maps."
story of noah and the references from those in the NTestament add to discrediting the bible

The story of Noah's Ark is not discrediting to the Bible, if anything it it a credit to the mercy of God. The people of that time were committing vile sins and condemning their souls, you must recount the part of the story where Noah searches and can not find 5 good men outside his family. Therefore it was merciful for God to wipe them out before they could corrupt and condemn themselves further. When it states that the flood covered the whole world, it means the whole known world. At the time this meant the Mediterranean world, and there has been evidence that suggest that this area was submerged in water at some point. The Ark itself has also been found in the exact location described in the Bible, it also matches the exact measurements in the Bible and petrified animal dung and antlers where found when drilling into the massive petrified ship. http://www.youtube.com... There are many other videos and articles that verify it as the ark.
story of noah and the references from those in the NTestament add to discrediting the bible

the story of noah and the references from those in the NTestament add to discrediting the bible here is the text,which argues the flood was world wide, and wiped out every creature alive that was not on the boat. "The clearest verses that show the extent of the flood are Genesis 7:19-23. Regarding the waters, "They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. Every living thing that moved on the earth perished"birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark." Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org... Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." see also Luke 17:26 clearly, the scientific evidence indicates the flood being global and killing all the animals, was false. the best a person could argue, is that the story was a myth. and the people of hte new testament didn't necessarily say that it was true that it was a global flood, and that animals were all killed. but they did, however, give credence to the story of noah, a story that is basically a myth. even if the flood wasn't worldwide, it is still said to be in the OTestament. that alone is discrediting. ------------ more reference to noah in the bible: (Isaiah 54:9; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5; Hebrews 11:7) ""This is like the days of Noah to me: as I swore that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so I have sworn that I will not be angry with you, and will not rebuke you. "because they formerly did not obey, when God"s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. "5 if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;" "7 By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
Haiku is better than Limerick: debated in both of the forms

Due to thewebinator forfeiting the round, I guess the only thing I can do is wait for his counter argument in the next round. Also, if he is unavailable because of something like a family crisis, I don't want to take advantage of that. Please don't count the last round against him for not posting, something pressing might be preventing him from posting, and please don't count this round against me as well. Thanks :)
Haiku is better than Limerick: debated in both of the forms

Con says Haikus bore;An anecdote with no weight;Read and prove him wrong! Con says ease is best; A good poem should've meaning; Ease is for the weak.Though a mental feat,The haiku, enlightens man.Lim'ricks are a jest.Limericks are thin,They can hold no lasting truths,Only five line jokes.A haiku brings truth;a lim'rick, con cedes, just "yaks".Meaning wins, choose Pro.I apologize to con for me not setting enough lines for four. It was a mistake. I hope we can continue as such, with a good match.
Haiku is better than Limerick: debated in both of the forms

I must take your statements in jest. You think the haiku is the best? Although they claim to be deep they put me to sleep You read one and ignore the rest. Four limericks you say I must make? I'll show here why they take the cake. From my point of view I hate the haiku For writing them makes my brain ache. For the true point of limerick Is to pull off one simple trick You write up a crack to make anyone yak and the rest of the poem will click. One problem - There isn't enough space for 4...
Haiku is better than Limerick: debated in both of the forms

The art of debate, through Haiku, an ascension. Let us now begin. Our time we can't waste- poems remain a brief art form, But, fairness remains: Lim'ricks have more mass, for balance, five poems from me. and four go to con. The con will argue Thusly: The lim'rick is best Using that art form. Round one: But to take The gauntlet of joining in. Round two we will start.
Fortnite Vs Roblox

In Roblox, it is technically not allowed to have 'girlfriends.' The only reason they allow it us because you spend so much money on the game. Also, 17 girlfriends? You better feel lucky this isn't real life, buddy. Also, I realize this is a joke post meant to make Roblox seem like an ODing site. It isn't, and I'm sure the poster is just trying to get you to ride the Fortnite bandwagon with unproven reasons.
atheist don't have a belief in god

Pro has failed to answer my question the fact that Atheist talk so much about God proves God is real now Pro tell me this what proof and Evidence do you have that say's Atheism is accurate and correct if you cannot answer that question then Atheism is not accurate and correct thus there is a God because Atheism has no proof of Atheism being real non believe system a question Pro do you believe you are a Atheist I want a yes or no answer thank u
atheist don't have a belief in god

Pointless semantics don't prove anything. When an atheist says "I don't believe any gods exist", That is what the atheist means. Taking random words out of the sentence proves nothing. At best that is quote mining. A Christian might say things like "I don't believe that Krishna exist." Clearly this isn't an affirmation for the existence of Krishna. As for the video I can't comment on that because I honestly can't understand what you are saying.
atheist don't have a belief in god

Atheist say there is no God but I will stop the Atheist right there and say the First 2 words you said there is before you say no / Me Quote so there is a God and you want to know him here is the link to what I will say to those who say there is no God http://www.youtube.com... / Me Quote a question to the one who is debating me why do atheist talk so much about God if they do not believe in God
The Apocrypha is scripture

First of all, I would like to address that not all of those books are accepted by the RCC. This is the list of accepted books in the Catholic Bible: 1. Tobit 2. Judith 3. Greek version of Esther with additions 4. Wisdom of Solomon (Book of Wisdom) 5. Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) 6. Baruch 7. Letter of Jeremiah 8. Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews 9. Susanna (Daniel chapter 13) 10. Bel and the Dragon (Daniel chapter 14) 11. 1 Maccabees 12. 2 Maccabees My second rebuttal is that 1 Maccabees and Sirach were originally written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek in the Septuagint. My third rebuttal is that the books I listed were canonized in the Third Council of Carthage. You said that since they have no claim to inspiration, they are not inspired. However, there are many books in the Bible that have no claim to inspiration either. Such books include Esther, the books of the Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. The Jews rejection of the Apocrypha does not nullify it's inspiration. The Jews also reject the New Testament. My question is this: What offensive language is in the Apocrypha? The Apocrypha does not teach immoral practices. That is a very great misconception. In the book of Tobit, Raphael never tells Tobias to use witchcraft. The things he shows him are remedies and cures. If that is considered witchcraft than all medicine by default is witchcraft. You say that Judith lying is contradictory to scripture. The problem with that is that Esther used the same means to find favor from the king. Like Judith, she used her physical attractiveness to find favor. The Bible is full of assassination and bloodshed. It is not immoral if it is God's will. I do not understand where you got the notion that the Apocrypha teaches suicide. Please explain that to me and show me your source in the Apocrypha. I will explain more after I hear your next part of this discussion.
The Apocrypha is scripture

Definition of Apocrypha: [1] The word Apocrypha means "hidden," while the word deuterocanonical means "second canon." [2] [1] Main Apocrypha Books: 1 Baruch 1 Clement 1 Enoch 1 Esdras 1 Maccabees 2 Baruch 2 Clement 2 Enoch 2 Esdras 2 Maccabees 3 Baruch 3 Corinthians 3 Enoch 3 Kings Tobit Judith Wisdom of Solomon [2] Why Not the Apocrypha: 1. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.2. None of them are written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.3. They don’t claim to have inspiration and or claimed to be “God-breathed”.4. Not acknowledged as sacred scriptures by Jews(Old Testament Apocrypha).5. Four centuries went by before they were considered “sacred books” by the Roman Catholic Church.6. The Apocrypha contains offensive materials unbecoming of God's authorship.7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.8. Josephus a 1st century Jew and Historian, had rejected these books because they did not reflect inspiration of scripture at that time period. Here is what he had to say below. "From Artexerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets." ... "We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine..."(Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8).9. The Manual of Discipline in the Dead Sea Scrolls rejected the Apocrypha as inspired.10. [4]The Council of Jamnia(90 A.D.), had also rejected the Apocrypha, and did not consider it inspired. As the late Biblical Scholar F.F. Bruce puts it "The books which they decided to acknowledge as canonical were already generally accepted, although questions had been raised about them. Those which they refused to admit had never been included. They did not expel from the canon any book which had previously been admitted. 'The Council of Jamnia was the confirming of public opinion, not the forming of it.'” (The Books and Parchments [Old Tappan, NJ.: Fleming H. Revell, 1963], p. 98]) Other Hidden Messages within the Apocrypha: [3]The Apocrypha contains many other hidden messages within its scriptures. The Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals support some of the things that the Roman Catholic Church believes and practices which are not in agreement with the Bible. Examples are praying for the dead, petitioning “saints” in Heaven for their prayers, worshipping angels, and “alms giving” atoning for sins. Sources: [1] http://www.compellingtruth.org... [2] http://www.bible.ca... [3] http://www.gotquestions.org... [4] http://web.cn.edu...