BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abrahamic Religion & Morality

You asked where is slavery condoned. I assumed since you are so familiar with the Bible that you already knew all the references. Here is one, Per your request, Which I also previously posted in the comments to this debate: Exodus 21:20-21 Leviticus 25:44-45 1 Peter 2:18 You said "This is a false synergism. All I'm arguing is that the Bible has the right morals. ". There is nothing "right" about the morals in the Bible. Here are some more examples since you want references. There are lots more, You can Google the others. - Genesis 19:8 - Deuteronomy 22:20-21 - Deuteronomy 21:1 - Deuteronomy 25:11-12 - Leviticus 21:18-19 - Leviticus 20:9 - 2 Kings 2:23-24 - Psalm 137:9 You said "You COMPLETELY disregarded my explanation above. " Yes, I completely disregarded your need to cherry pick. I explained that the Bible is taken in it's entirety by Christians, Not selectively. Well, At least it's supposed to be. . You said "If there is no absolute standard, Then you can't know what are the right morals. " You're assuming absolute morals exist and they are the only ones. We disagree here entirely. You said "Remember, A society is made up of people with different moral beliefs. In your position, It is impossible to determine what is actually right, And what is actually wrong. Societies can be wrong! The Mayans performed child sacrifice! " This is true, But it's easy to determine what is moral based on whether or not it affects someone's well being. In you're own belief system, You can be a serial killer and still go to heaven simple by accepting God. There is nothing about your system that is superior in any way. You said "-wrong. Tell that to necrophiliacs, Pedophiles, Murderers, And selfish people. How do you know your determination of what is rational is trustworthy? " Is it or is it not against the law? I rest my case. Sure, You'll always have people who act immoral, But there are consequences for those people. This is an issue in your system as well. Trustworthy? I don't understand what you mean. You said "I'm not cherry-picking! Read my argument! I'm using a consistent hermeneutic; if you don't know what that means, Look it up! " I know what it means. It's subjective because it was determined by people. These were not directions from God. God didn't write anywhere that it's ok to ignore almost all his rules. I already addressed this previously. You said "How can you tell me I'm wrong, But another group that they're not? ! " Easily. Read your own Bible and actually read it - front to back. REALLY think about what it says and the things it condones. Then tell me you still think it's morally correct and "right".
Abrahamic Religion & Morality

Where in the Bible is slavery condoned? Stop stating it and give proof, Please. "If morality was a result of religious belief, All religious people would be moral"-This is a false synergism. All I'm arguing is that the Bible has the right morals. "Christianity teaches that slavery is permissible, Stoning people to death is ok, Rape is ok (if you buy her afterward) and women are just property - to name a few reasons. "You COMPLETELY disregarded my explanation above. -If there is no absolute standard, Then you can't know what are the right morals. Remember, A society is made up of people with different moral beliefs. In your position, It is impossible to determine what is actually right, And what is actually wrong. Societies can be wrong! The Mayans performed child sacrifice! "It's in everyone's best interests to look out for each other's well being"-wrong. Tell that to necrophiliacs, Pedophiles, Murderers, And selfish people. How do you know your determination of what is rational is trustworthy? "There is nothing directly from God stating "You can cherry-pick the pieces you want and ignore the rest". I'm not cherry-picking! Read my argument! I'm using a consistent hermeneutic; if you don't know what that means, Look it up! How can God tell one group of people A is ok, But then tell another group it's not? How can you tell me I'm wrong, But another group that they're not? !
Abrahamic Religion & Morality

I am glad to debate! Is this all just interpretation or is this literally spelled out somewhere? This is an accepted hermeneutic for interpreting laws given the Old Testament; it is consistent. Since God is immutable and doesn't change his beliefs, moral laws (which deal with morals; determining them is simple) such as "do not murder" and "do not kill" are morally unacceptable to him in the Old Testament, Therefore, They are morally unacceptable now. For laws dealing with stoning and how to wear clothes and what clothes to wear and especially what meat to eat deal with civil problems and ceremonial problems of the Israelites, Therefore, They are considered civil and ceremonial laws. Paul in the new testament says himself that it is okay to eat meat. We are not bound to the civil and ceremonial laws of the Israelites. Also in the new testament, Adultery is condemned. Even though that law was given to the Israelites, It deals with morals, Therefore making it a moral law, Therefore being applied to us. We both know by saying moral laws that I mean dealing with morals specifically. He is not fallible, I didn't say that. If someone is performing an action that would be considered a violation of another's well-being, It would be immoral. What if someone else's morals disagree with this? It would come down to what is beneficial or non-beneficial to the well-being of the collective group. . . Who's to determine what's beneficial for a certain group or not? There is no absolute consensus on what is beneficial or not. We're not talking about overall religion, We're talking about Abrahamic religions. In these religions, There is no need for evolution, There is no need to improve, Since the best option is already there. It is more simple than moral relativism (Occam's razor).
Abrahamic Religion & Morality

Hello, Welcome to the debate, Thanks for accepting! You said, "The ceremonial and civil laws (which mainly make up Leviticus, Numbers, And Deuteronomy) were given to the Israelites and are not meant to be followed today. However, Moral laws, Such as the ten commandments, Are meant to be followed and are talked about by Jesus when he states, "I came to fulfill the law. " This is meant to clear up confusion on which laws Christians follow and why. " Is this all just interpretation or is this literally spelled out somewhere? I am pretty familiar with doctrine, And I am unaware of anything in the Bible clearly articulating which commandments to follow and which ones not to follow. Are you saying some of Gods laws are not moral? Are you saying he is fallible? Are you saying parts of the Bible are not intended for certain people? I would argue that when Christians are faced with conflicting moral standards, They cherry pick the pieces that suites their underlying morality, Further proving my point that morality does not originate from religion. Some reject the old testament, Some make excuses for it. It's all one collective book and allegedly sourced by the same God. Secular morality can be relativistic, But it's also objective. The concept behind secular morality is the overall well-being of its participants. If someone is performing an action that would be considered a violation of another's well-being, It would be immoral. So slavery, For example, Would be immoral because it violates well-being. It's not up to each individual to decide what is moral and immoral. It would come down to what is beneficial or non-beneficial to the well-being of the collective group, Which is why it is objective. It is also able to self-correct and evolve to become better over time as cultures change and definitions for well-being improve. Religion cannot do this as it is considered to be an absolute morality.
Abrahamic Religion & Morality

After the Abrahamic covenant, Laws given by God can be divided into three categories that help us to understand what to follow now and what not to follow:1. Ceremonial Laws2. Civil Laws3. Moral LawsThe ceremonial and civil laws (which mainly make up Leviticus, Numbers, And Deuteronomy) were given to the Israelites and are not meant to be followed today. However, Moral laws, Such as the ten commandments, Are meant to be followed and are talked about by Jesus when he states, "I came to fulfill the law. " This is meant to clear up confusion on which laws Christians follow and why. Secular morality is relative and therefore is not constant. If we all were left up to our devices, There would be anarchy. What would make one's morals better than another's?
Abrahamic Religion & Morality

I argue that the Abrahamic based religions are not a foundation for morality and in many ways they actually impede morality. Although there are a few generically moral guidelines in the Bible, Such as the Golden Rule, It really doesn't provide anything that you cannot get elsewhere. In additional to the generic morals it provides, It also provides a bunch of useless or completely immoral guidelines such as commandments against wearing multiple types of linen, The condoning slavery, The subjugation of women, Genocide, Rape, Any many other things. Religious practitioners generally are not racist, Genocidal, Etc; therefore, They are not getting their moral principles from their religion. There are also cultures without religion, Or different forms of religion, That have overlapping morals with those of the Abrahamic followers. Secular morality is superior because it is dynamic and can change as needed to serve the interests of the participants.
Being gay is a not a choice!

"I say that being gay is not a choice because They have no choice to any other alternative besides being someone who they aren't." But they can die. Then they're neither themselves nor gay. "Just because they die does not mean that they are no longer gay." Gay - homosexual - "of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Dead people have no desires. Therefore, dead people are not gay. "Thus your argument is useless. Death is not a way to defeat a homosexuality argument." Yes it is, if the argument is that gays have no choice besides being gay. "The point is that gays should be treated like everyone else, they are who they are, get over it." That doesn't establish them to have no choice. In conclusion, people can be dead rather than gay, and the resolution is negated.
Being gay is a not a choice!

I disagree. What my opponent describes is actually a lack of choice, not abundance of it." My opponent clearly misunderstood my definition. I say that being gay is not a choice because They have no choice to any other alternative besides being someone who they aren't. "Suicide is the other alternative to being gay. Gays can kill themselves, and no longer be gay. Suicide is "always an option" [1]. Therefore, gays have the option of no longer being gay, negating the resolution." I also disagree, Just because they die does not mean that they are no longer gay. It is who they are, when they die, they are still gay. For instance, if someone dies a female, they are still a female but they are dead. Thus your argument is useless. Death is not a way to defeat a homosexuality argument. The point is that gays should be treated like everyone else, they are who they are, get over it. see if I copy and pasted that...I'm simply showing you the fact, the research explains itself a lot better than my words. thanks for the quick reply!
Being gay is a not a choice!

Even though they are sourced, my opponent simply copied and pasted information from the source. That is not how debate works. You state your facts, and your source backs up your facts. "I would like to define choice in this debate as: NOt being able to control the matter or feeling as though there is no other alternative. " I disagree. What my opponent describes is actually a lack of choice, not abundance of it. Suicide is the other alternative to being gay. Gays can kill themselves, and no longer be gay. Suicide is "always an option" [1]. Therefore, gays have the option of no longer being gay, negating the resolution. 1. . http://www.antipsychiatry.org...
Being gay is a not a choice!

However I did copy my information only for the starting of my debate, it was misfortunate on my behalf that I forgot to put the website. I would like to define choice in this debate as: NOt being able to control the matter or feeling as though there is no other alternative. I believe that being gay is not a choice but is a combination of genetic and other biological factors. 1. In May 2009, Swedish researchers reported finding important differences in how the brains of straight men and gay men responded to two compounds suspected of being pheromones - those scent-related chemicals that are key to sexual arousal in animals. The first compound came from women's urine, the second from male sweat. Brain scans showed that when straight men smelled the female urine compound, their hypothalamus lit up, showing physical stimuli on the brain scan. That didn't happen with gay men. Instead, their hypothalamus lit up when they smelled the male-sweat compound, which was the same way straight women had responded (Swidey, 2005). . http://davidsmalley.blogspot.com... 2. There is a significant difference in brain tissue in gay males compared to straight guys. S ome scientists say the new findings are part of an increasingly convincing body of evidence that suggests sexual orientation results from fundamental developmental differences that are probably caused by hormonal exposures in the womb. Gay men tended to have brains that were more like those of straight women than of straight men -- the right and left sides were about the same size, the researchers found. Gay women's brains tended to be more like those of straight men than of straight women -- the right side tended to be slightly larger than the left. . http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Being gay is a not a choice!

My opponent's argument is not only plagarized (http://www.jeramyt.org...), but also completely missing the point. People who claim that they have no choice in the matter actually have two choices: 1. Be gay. 2. Suicide [1]. If a person suicides, then he or she is no longer gay, but rather, dead. In conclusion, gays always have the choice of being either gay or dead. Being gay is obviously a choice. The resolution is negated. Good luck. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Being gay is a not a choice!

"However, homosexuailty is defined as an orientation which takes on the identity of teh person almost like gender." However, dead people don't even have any orientation. Therefore, they are still not gay. "But in fact you are. if they have no choice but to die then its not even worth a debate." They don't have to die. They can either be gay or die. Nowhere have I said that being gay is a bad thing, nor have I said that they must suicide. They'll obviously die eventually, but so do we all. "Death is not the end of someones identity and memory of that person. They are still remebered as gay thus they live on in the person who remebers them, in a sense that is." We remember Reagan as an intelligent man. However, he had Alzheimer's disease before he died, decreasing his intelligence. He was still remembered as an intelligent man, but he was no longer intelligent. When he died, he had no intelligence whatsoever, because he was dead. Currently, Reagan is not intelligent, because he is dead. [1] Just because we remember somebody as gay, does not make that person gay. "Good point but im refering to homosexuality as an identity that doesnt die with someone" Your identity dies with yourself. A person's homosexuality, by definition, dies with the person. "You are centered on the fact that they must DIE!" No, of course not. I'm centered on the fact that they may die. It's their CHOICE. "If you would have played this debate right then we wouldn't be debating about death." There's more than one road to Rome, my friend. "It was a debate based on genetical and biological factors asssociated with homosexuality." Death is most certainly a biological factor that rids people of homosexuality. Anyway, my opponent's final contention, that homosexuality lives on after a person, doesn't hold water, and is incorrect by the definition of homosexual. The resolution has been negated five times over. Vote CON. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Being gay is a not a choice!

"That was never a restraint in this debate. All rules have to be established in Round 1." However, homosexuailty is defined as an orientation which takes on the identity of teh person almost like gender. http://en.wikipedia.org... "No. Of course not. I'm just saying that if a person who is gay decides that they absolutely can't stand being gay, then they have the option of death. They should only suicide if they want to suicide. I'm real big on basic human liberties." But in fact you are. if they have no choice but to die then its not even worth a debate. Death is not the end of someones identity and memory of that person. They are still remebered as gay thus they live on in the person who remebers them, in a sense that is. "Well, I'm speaking about death, so your contentions don't refute mine." well then let the debate continue, we shall see in the end. "So you think that people still have desires after they die? Prove it." Good point but im refering to homosexuality as an identity that doesnt die with someone "Ad hominem. Where did I show any arrogance whatsoever? Please tell me." You are centered on the fact that they must DIE! If you would have played this debate right then we wouldn't be debating about death. It was a debate based on genetical and biological factors asssociated with homosexuality.
Being gay is a not a choice!

"I'm speaking of and relating to when a person is alive." That was never a restraint in this debate. All rules have to be established in Round 1. "Death is a irrevelant excuse for homosexuality..." Of course it isn't. It's a method of no longer being homosexual. "are you saying that homosexuals should die because they cant change who they are..." No. Of course not. I'm just saying that if a person who is gay decides that they absolutely can't stand being gay, then they have the option of death. They should only suicide if they want to suicide. I'm real big on basic human liberties. "I'm speaking from being alive, it is NOT a choice." Well, I'm speaking about death, so your contentions don't refute mine. "I disagree entirely..." So you think that people still have desires after they die? Prove it. "your argument is based on arrogance..." Ad hominem. Where did I show any arrogance whatsoever? Please tell me. "your argument needs more evidence and a better foundation if you wish to win." I have a very simple foundation: dead people have no desires, and are therefore not gay. In conclusion, my opponent really didn't do anything with my contentions.
Being gay is a not a choice!

I'm speaking of and relating to when a person is alive. Death is a irrevelant excuse for homosexuality. .. are you saying that homosexuals should die because they cant change who they are because if that's it then your argument is weak. I'm speaking from being alive, it is NOT a choice. I disagree entirely and your argument is based on arrogance. .. your argument needs more evidence and a better foundation if you wish to win.
gangsters are bad for the society and there is nothing good about them

MY OPPONENTS ARGUMENT: gangs on the streets are bad robberyof important banks shootings and muggings kiddnappings they are all bad its not like there any adding to the world why not just give every single one of them the chair if they save maybe 2 or 3 people does does that make them any more good when they become gangstars their already bad if someone who had came in to your town robbed a few stores killed a few people commited sexual crimes and then rescued say a bunch of people out of a burning building(could you call them heroes) or would still put them away like they diserved if you didnt who nows what else theyll do they could rob you of your families jeweles or valubles its a thing that needs to be taken care of others wise it just gets worst our governments let murderers and rapists out on this parole crap this is ridiculus why cant we just go back to the old days when they had whips for the children hangings and the lot of punishments. all i now is they dont belong,they dont deserve another chance, i think they should drop them in the middle of the desert MY ARGUMENT: I had to double check the title of this debate multiple times while reading my opponents argument. Clearly, as you can read above, he mentions that gangsters are, and I quote "bad robberyof important banks shootings and muggings kidnappings they are all bad its not like there any adding to the world why not just give every single one of them the chair" Well, this is clearly a PRO point. Why not just give every gangster the chair? The topic of this debate is "gangsters are bad for the society and there is nothing good about them". Well, I clearly win. Because if you read my opponents argument thoroughly, you will notice that he said my argument for me....in a 5 year olds context. I urge a PRO ballot on this topic not only due to my opponents 500 word sentence, but also because the ebtire argument of my opponents is in support of the PRO. Enough said. If you are the PRO, you must prove that Gangsters are bad for society and that Gangsters are a menace. If you are the CON you must prove otherwise. By saying all of those PRO points within his argument, he has just practically forfeited the entire debate. I URGE A PRO BALLOT!
gangsters are bad for the society and there is nothing good about them

gangs on the streets are bad robberyof important banks shootings and muggings kiddnappings they are all bad its not like there any adding to the world why not just give every single one of them the chair if they save maybe 2 or 3 people does does that make them any more good when they become gangstars their already bad if someone who had came in to your town robbed a few stores killed a few people commited sexual crimes and then rescued say a bunch of people out of a burning building(could you call them heroes) or would still put them away like they diserved if you didnt who nows what else theyll do they could rob you of your families jeweles or valubles its a thing that needs to be taken care of others wise it just gets worst our governments let murderers and rapists out on this parole crap this is ridiculus why cant we just go back to the old days when they had whips for the children hangings and the lot of punishments. all i now is they dont belong,they dont deserve another chance, i think they should drop them in the middle of the desert
In matters of justice, John Rawls' Difference Principle ought to be preferred over Robert Nozick's

At the very least I have no defene to counter here. On a side note Con, if you're looking to lean, a dialectical method is pretty much assumed in this format. Posting reactions, counters, problems, etc. along with a defense of what you take to be the right position would better faccilitate learning about the subject then simply listening to me. If that was your only purpose in making this debate, I'd say you chose the wrong format.