BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The same-sex marriage debate is unethically rooted in Christianity

I understand what you're saying. It's not Christianity, but it's the concept that the American population and humanity in general has a collective fear of changing. However, whose to say that religion hasn't influenced this? As of 2014, 70.6% of Americans affiliate themselves with Christianity. (http://www.pewforum.org...) Even with this percentage decreasing, I would still regard this country as a Christian nation. Also as an atheist, there are seven states that will not allow me to run for office. (http://americanhumanist.org...) I find this ridiculous, but it proves my point that America is rooted in Christianity. As for your other remarks, something that stuck out to me was that you declined to say anything about love. Which led me to make the assumption that you believe that the goal of humanity is to procreate. As this may be, "sex" as lack of a better word is an integral part of love. And as our society is designed, one would come to have sex with a significant other if and only if love was present. The human is not a perfect being, that can procreate when ever he/she needs to, there is time and consent involved. Now if everyone was homosexual this would clearly be a problem, yet homosexuality does not affect everyone. As much as I would consider homosexuality as different, I would not consider it to be a unnatural trait of human nature because it is not a choice to be one. And isn't that truly the essence of humanity? It's very well the same as not having the choice of gender or race. Now I'm not a homosexual and that may be a point to refute on. However, my parents divorced because my father was in the closet for nearly 30 years. Through the years I've not only inquired information from him, but also some of his friends that also affiliate themselves with the term.
The same-sex marriage debate is unethically rooted in Christianity

Without a shadow of a doubt, the whole notion of marriage will and has created a surging reaction amongst the religious community. As an atheist, I can sympathise heavily with this, whilst also being critical of religion. For all of the flaws we can draw out of ALL religions over the millennial, the one thing it cohesively draws upon is the inherent moral and ethical obligations of simply being a procreating race of mammal. Whilst I'm stating the obvious, if I were to be homosexual (as a male), I would not be able to procreate with another man; as the sexual acts I would partake in would not be conducive to the fertilisation of an [female] egg. This alone is illustrative of the unnatural state of homosexuality, and whilst there are many forms of corruption within the Protestant & Catholic faith (with regards to paedophilia etc.), the religious doctrine in its abstract form, and by its followers, strictly forbids 'sodomy'. And to round off this question, no, I do not think the debate is unethically rooted in Christianity, but is a theological/ideological belief system that inherently is threatened by the 'subversive' cultural implications of same-sex marriage; and therefore is a massively prominent force for the 'anti-marriage' stance. And this is my main point, even as an atheist, I cannot and will not be forced into viewing the immoral and simply unnatural, social and psycho-sexual state that homosexuality is rooted in, and has been perpetuated by the LGBT lobby and state. You may try and rebuttal this with the pseudo-science of 'Epi-genetics', but there is little evidence of this scientific method proving anything other than many homosexuals coming from unstable - in one way shape or form - homes/backgrounds etc. Likewise, I also appreciate that 'what's done behind closed doors, is none of my business'. I never have treated those who are homosexual in any way other than is expected by usual social conventions, so long as I feel their sexuality is not being forced onto me, I will not ostracise them at any un-called for degree. But to me, as well as the religious community, same-sex marriage is something that I feel has been trumped up by the state, more so than the LGBT/homosexual community, in an order to undermine and subvert traditional pillars of western society and its cultural values. Make of this what you will and feel free to get me to elaborate, but I do not want to skew too far away from said question.
The same-sex marriage debate is unethically rooted in Christianity

If you have ever glanced at the news in the past year you have probably heard something about same-sex marriages being legalized on a federal level. As a matter of fact, this may be one of the most important debates of today and if you ask me I'm clearly for it and wondering why it already hasn't happened. However it didn't take me long to figure this out. When researching, I came across a few refutations and videos against same-sex marriage and conclusively regarded them as rubbish. But I noted that all of the videos had mentioned the bible. Now this is delusional. Biblical morality cannot overcome love simply because love is something that cannot be controlled.
Pirates vs. Ninjas

Well, I will take my opponent's forfeit to mean that he concedes that Ninjas are in fact better than pirates. To reaffirm my position, here are the basic points. ========== Arguments ========== Training: Ninjas had a significantly greater amount of training in all combat related fields, thus proving that a ninja would win in any bout of tactics. Weaponry: Ninjas had simpler weapons, however the ninja could use anything as a weapon more effectively than a pirate could use it's most sophisticated weapons. Survival: A ninja was trained in several arts that would be vital to surviving anything. A pirate, which operated mostly on water, couldn't even swim. Overall Awesomeness: A ninja wield legendary weapons of death and is capable of utilizing tactics far superior to any warrior of its time. A pirate is a drunk wielding a rusted sword and an inaccurate pistol. To all, it is clear that a Ninja is infinitely better than a Pirate.
Pirates vs. Ninjas

To be clear I hope when doing this debate we won't reference them having special abilities like naruto and one piece. Weapons of a ninja: Ninja stars (shurikens) throwing knives smoke bombs disguises katanas (swords) Big sticks darts arrows chain sickles I don't know... numb chucks Pirates weapons: uh... I don't know it think it was called the... GUN Cannon Sword Stinkpots (tear gas) Hand Grenades So yeah the ninja has a lot more flashy weaponry and fighting techniques that are cool, but have a pirate fight a ninja and seeing that we aren't talking like this is a cartoon, the pirate can just shoot around the ninja till he hits, a human is not faster than the bullet. Ninja vs Pirate= no contest. A pirate has a more modern arsenal of weaponry and has survived well into the 19th century while ninjas died off during the 15th century. History has shown those who have more modern technology wins the battle. Plus the pirates have a naval attack specialty they can find refuge in the water whereas ninjas fighting is on land. A pirate can just bombard the ninja's homeland from the safety of the waters. You cannot fight a gun with ninja stars it will not end well. http://www.thepiratesrealm.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Pirates vs. Ninjas

This is my first actual debate on Debate.org, so I thought I should make it a light hearted one. Thank you to whoever accepts this debate, and good luck. This debate is a general comparison of Pirates and Ninjas. Pro is for Pirates, and Con is for Ninjas. I would prefer that this didn't become a debate of semantics but rather remain an examination of the topic at hand. I will allow pirates to open with their position.
Moon Landings Live TV Broadcasts impossible

It seems most of the people here just like to play word games and are debating for the sake of debating and winning points. The reason for a debate is to get to an acceptable logical result that most people can relate to and accept. If you are just going to manipulate words and ideas and avoid the main subject then I believe I have already won if winning is what ts all about. The subject is: NASA Live TV broadcast of Moon landings in July 1969 Instigator's argument: that the above broadcast was faked and made from earth and not the moon. Reason: Sending a RF signal from the moon to the earth requires tremendous power and such a power source did not exist at the time. Now please do some research of your own on how RF signals work and what requirements are there to be able to send them across great distances such as the distance from the Moon to the Earth. If more word and Idea manipulations occur then perhaps this is not the proper venue to discus this subject nor any other subject for that matter. As it would be just a wast of time and effort. For the benefit of others please check the science and ask a RF signals engineer if need be.
Moon Landings Live TV Broadcasts impossible

Again your manipulating ideas and words... you think you gain anything by searching a keyword in Wikipedia and then copying and pasting the text here? You know you may fool a debate system and pass as a great debater... but any human being who can read this will know you have not accomplished anything. I already specified the subject of the debate... you go around it and discuss irrelevant issues, We are not debating whether Apollo 11 was real or fake... The subject of the debate is the the 1969 live TV broadcasts of the moon landing... I argue they were fake. I stated the reason as the absence of a power source powerful enough to make such a transmission possible across the distance from the moon to the earth. Now go and convince yourself that you won this debate when you have avoided the subject of the debate all together and copied some paragraphs from Wikipedia. what a great accomplishment... Imagine the kind of person you will grow up to become! good bye
Donald Trump would make a great President.

I used my first argument as a counter to the narrative you have over Trump and as an explanation to why someone would vote for him. Politifact You shouldn't point to him being false most of the time as him being a "liar", there's a difference in being uninformed and intentionally misinforming others , until you can point to a multitude of times where has has proven to do on purpose (as you can with Clinton) , this has no bearing as an argument because you can't prove his intentions. Economic Trump has filed for bankruptcy four times, each being a chapter 11 bankruptcy, this is different to chapter 7 to which you (most likely) believe he filed under. The main difference is that C11 allows for the restructure of businesses without closing them down completely, C7 is a form which liquidates the company and forces them to sell all non-exempt assets to pay off creditors. Two of the said bankruptcies were associated with the collapse of the Atlantic city Casino industry during the early 90's. ".... Suggests Trump was personally responsible for the failures of these businesses, but in reality, much was out of Trump"s control -- such as a struggling casino industry." - Politifact Trump airlines This was a failure, but once again not solely to blame on Donald. Trump also didn't personally finance the project, he arranged for a loan of $380 million (defaulted) from a group of nearly two dozen banks. It's also idiotic to point the main cause of it's failure to the gold that Trump added
Donald Trump would make a great President.

Hello, it's really hard to counter argue your argument because you don't have much of an argument. Anyway your first and only point states that Donald Trump is credible and will do what he says he will. So in my first point i'll be questioning his credibility and showing what a liar he is. PolitiFact PolitiFact is one of the most well known and trustworthy sites there is when it comes to US politics. It has many uses one of it's most famous being the "Truth-O-Meter TM" this simply gets everything a person has said then checks for their credibility, Donald Trump has achieved a stunning 76% false. (http://www.politifact.com...) His economic policies Donald Trump loves to say that he's a great business man in fact that's pretty much his entire campaign. However he has suffered so many bankruptcies and failures. Trump Airlines He bought an airline company then stupidly decided to plate the insides with gold. Because of this he had to increase the price and nobody used his airlines. It went bankrupt. Too lazy to write full list, check it out here: http://content.time.com... I anxiously wait for your counter argument.
Donald Trump would make a great President.

It's difficult to deny out of the remaining Presidential contenders that Donald Trump represents something the rest of the field doesn't, "change". The American middle-class are tired of bullshitters and want someone with a large pair of pendulous balls, someone who will stand up for them and restore their class to what it once was. He is a statement to the establishment of :both: parties that their selections aren't trusted anymore, we need change, in whatever form it comes.
My Ten commandments are better then the Bible's Ten Commandments

Since the parametres of your argument are unclear, let me establish some of my own. The Ten Commandments only mean anything if the idea of god is a reality. Should god exist, these commandments (There a theologically rich explanations for each of them, that cover more social offenses than your "exhaustive" list, and I have only provided one because the amount of characters I am alotted only permited me to write in detail about only one of the commandments. So, to make thte argument for the existence of god is really what this comes down to, for if a force of absolute good does exist, to not partake in it would surely be to do evil, would it not? This is what I will propose for the "existence" of god. Too often in the secular as well as evangelical culture the idea of god as being a "highest being" is what is usually refuted by the atheists. Of course, this is natural, for what we know of the world certainly doesn't allow for a "being" to be the progenesis of existence. However, that is not what serious christians (which I daresay includes Catholics) mean by god. God is not a being, but rather how St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) defines god, as "IPSUM SUMMUM", or "being itself." God is the sheer act of existence. This is what was always meant by the use of the term god as well. The writings of both St. Aquinas in the 13th century as well as of St. Augustine in the 4th century account for this understanding of the judaeo-christian god. A philosophical proof extended by Aquinas follows thusly: To explain this, suppose there exists a causal chain of infinite contingent beings. If one asks the question, "Why are there any contingent beings at all?", it won"t help to be told that "There are contingent beings because other contingent beings caused them." An adequate explanation of why some contingent beings exist would invoke a different sort of being, a necessary being that is not contingent. That non-contigent explanation is being itself, God.
My Ten commandments are better then the Bible's Ten Commandments

"Atheism, which rejects the existence of God, foundded often n a false conception of human autonomy."Whoa there, its very possible that Atheism is in fact correct and that a sh*t ton of people are in for a big disappointment when they die..... We dont know which religion, if any, is the correct one. All we can do is place our bets and wait it out. Until then though, the 10 commandments are meant to guide people to be good people in life, which is what mine does but God's doesnt do as well. You can more then be a great person and not be a christian, or even religious for that matter.... Believe me, I've met Christians who Ive wanted to run over with a truck while Jews and Atheists I know are some of the nicest people you could ever meet! Apart from everything my 10 commandments do that God's doesnt, mine also dont put archaic rules on which religion you have to follow in order to lead a good life and be a good person, whereas the other ones do. If you want to believe in a floating spaghetti monster or be a Scientologist, then I advise you to seek professional help but that is still ok as long as you dont rape anyone, kill anyone, AND ARENT A MASSIVE DOUCHEBAG. Religious affiliation doesnt madate who is or isnt a terrible person, which is what the ten commandments are supposed to address. I extend all my other arguments and rest my case
My Ten commandments are better then the Bible's Ten Commandments

Well, I do admit that you'd win on thee basis of humour, but I have a job to do, and thus I shall go ever the Decalogue (St. Augustine's wording for the commandments, and the basis upon which modern Catholic theology. I cannot speak for any interpretation given by Protestants or Orthodox Christians, on the Roman Catholic view. I. The First Commandment What is implied in the affirmation of God: "I am The Lord your God?" When we say 'God' we confess a constant, unchangeable being, always the same, faithful and just, without any evil. It follows that we must necessarily accept his words and have complete faith in him and acknowledge his authority. This means that the faithful must guard and activate the three theological virtues (Faith, Charity, and Hope) and must avoid sins which are opposed to them. Faith beleives in God and jejects everything that is opposed to it, such as, deliberate doubt, unbelief, heresy, apostasy, and schism. Hope trustingly awaits the blessed vision of God and his help, while avoidng despair and presumption. Charity loves God above all things and therefore repudiates indifference, ingratitude, lukewarmness, sloth or siritual indolence, and that hatred of God which is born of pride. By this commandment, God prohibits Polytheism and idolatry, which divinizes creatures, power, money, or demons. Superstition which is a departure from the worship due to the true God and which also expresses itself in various forms of divination, magic, sorcery and spiritism. Irrelgion which is evidenced: in tempting God by word or deed; in sacrilege, which profanes sacred persons or sacred things, above all the Eucharist; and in simony, which involves buying or selling spiritual things. Atheism, which rejects the existence of God, foudnded often n a false conception of human autonomy. Agnosticism which affirms that nothing can be known about God, and invlves indifferentism and practical atheism.
My Ten commandments are better then the Bible's Ten Commandments

BEHOLD, MY TEN COMMANDMENTS (In order of increasing importance): 10) Thou shalt not say yolo, swag, yoloswag, or anything else that beith retarded. 9) Thou shalt not act like thou kid isnt crying on an airplane when he/she is 8) Thou shalt not take up two parking spaces with thou car when thou can easily fit into one 7) Thou shalt not writith laws pertaining to body parts you dont have 6) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors Wi-Fi 5) Thou shalt know what thy want before thou reacheth the front of the line 4) Thou shalt always give thy sexual partner at least one orgasm 3) Thou shalt not rape 2) Thou shalt not kill And the holiest commandment of them all!........ 1) Thou shalt not beith a douchebag =========================================================== The main ten commandments from the Bible are 1) I am the lord thy god, thou shalt have no other gods before me 2) Thou shalt not worship idols or worship other gods 3) Thou shalt not take the lords name in vain 4) Keep the Sabbath day holy 5) Honour they mother and father 6) Thou shalt not kill 7) Thou shalt not commit adultery 8) Thou shalt not steal 9) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor 10) Thou shalt not covet they neighbors goods ============================================================= Now mine are better because: 1) My first commandment covers many of the old commandments such as coveting stuff your neighbor has, lying, stealing, committing adultery, etc. 2) I ACTUALLY SAY NOT TO RAPE PEOPLE UNLIKE THE ACTUAL 10 COMMANDMENTS. DICK MOVE THERE GOD 3) My top four commandments arent centered around myself Unlike the other ten commandments, God thinks so highly of himself he must think hes all powerful and all knowing or something 4) my commandments actually addresses important issues that God didnt take care of with his, such as crying babies on planes and people who take way too f*cking long to order something while the rest of us wait 5) Mine are funnier
My Ten commandments are better then the Bible's Ten Commandments

Alright, present your ten commandments and let's see how it goes. I shall be taking the Con side, supporting the already established commandments. Let it also be known that although ten is the usual number used when referring to Christian (I am Catholic) commandments, in truth there are over 600+ commandments, so these ten are by no means exhaustive. Let's begin. What are your ten?
All laws in the U.S. based solely upon religion should be overturned

despite popular belief there is actually three sides of a coin the heads tails and the edge picking my opponents side in today's debate would be like picking the edge in a coin flip you simply can't win with it. my opponent completely agreed with my contention one so he forfeits that argument so therefore it stands however building on my contention two if the government would overturn all laws based solely on religion they would have to overturn the freedom of religion which would cause chaos between religions and belief's then they would have to overturn the law of religion of separation between church and state so in conclusion we can't allow religious laws to be overturned because we will loose our freedom of religion please vote con in today's debate thank you
All laws in the U.S. based solely upon religion should be overturned

it is important to keep religious laws in the united states it keeps the balance not only in schools but in the workplace as well while some people may argue the freedom of religion what we must see is it doesn't violate that you may practice what ever religion you please so I will be analyzing this topic with two main points of analysis first being the importance of keeping religion out of schools and finally the importance of preventing religious discrimination contention 1 it is essential for public schools to remain religiously neutral it seems not to long ago we where able to celebrate religious holidays like Christmas and Easter in schools but that time has long passed we have to maintain the balance between religions it is the key to academic prosperity contention 2 it helps prevent religious discrimination if you think religious discrimination isn't a thing you need to take a long sniff of reality and having religious laws helps keep the balance for example if we where to overturn these laws and would make all the ground gay people have made disappear if we are a really a free country we would believe what our pledge says "with liberty and justice for all and that includes gays or any other minority so in conclusion we need to keep schools religiously neutral and do everything we can to prevent religious discrimination so for all these reasons and many more vote con in today's debate thank you sorry it wasn't longer and more in depth I'm busier then what I thought I would be this weekend.