BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the atomic bombings of japan were morally justifiable

we could have just waited it out, probably, sure. but at what cost? they weren't surrendering any time soon. and as said, even after the first one, they still weren't ready to surrender. how many americans are you willing to let die while we wait it out? that isn't so much rhetorical. i might value one american lost to 500 to a thousand japanese. it's hard to put limits on an american life. but i can say, the battle of okinawa alone caused over 75000 american soldier deaths. tht's one battle alone. that is close to one of the atomic bombs. that's pretty proportional. but really we dont need to look into historical numbers of deaths etc. i agree we have a duty to try to keep things proportional, but if they aren't surrendering, we have not to no choice but to keep going fiercely until they do. violating war agreements doesn't mean much. there's a saying, that all is fair in love and war. if it's a war, almost by definition you aren't going to follow the rules. perhaps we should try to keep things 'in bounds', to some extent, but when that many americans are dying, you have to take more desperate measures. it's the right thing to do, cause if we don't, we suffer the casualties.
Gay people should be allowed to be married

I firmly believe that same sex marriage should be allowed in the Catholic Church. Since when did sexual orientation become a crime? And if God wants people to respect each other, why isn't same sex marriage allowed? Marriage is a higher level of respect between two people, yet on a higher level than just a friendship. God also supports equality for all, meaning that gays should have the same marriage rights. Read my lasts posts for more of my stances on this issue.
Gay people should be allowed to be married

The Bible is still God's word, correct. So, if God says something it is wrong, it is wrong. Rebuttal: It's God's Word, yet God respects the fact that homosexuals have their opinions. And homosexuality was not as common back then, so it was not as much of a matter of debate. These days, God would respect the fact that homosexual marriage is right. A man can love another man, but not in a love relationship way. Rebuttal: As I had said before, same sex marriage wasn't an issue of debate in the early AD's. If a man can love another man, then why can't they get married? Gays have civil rights, as do all of us. Also, if back then the bible people didn't know homosexuality, then why did they write about it. Rebuttal: They just said "A man shall never lie with a man..." yet they did not know of the specific opinions of homosexuals. These days, now that it is a larger issue, God knows that gay people matter, too. And God supports equality for all, and no same sex marriage = no equality.
Gay people should be allowed to be married

But don't gays have the right to their own opinions? And anyway, it should be up to them as to whether whey should want to get married or not. And besides, back then, they did not have the knowledge of homosexuality. Rebuttal: The Bible is still God's word, correct. So, if God says something it is wrong, it is wrong. Since when was a man loving a man a sin? If God wants people to be respectful to one another, then why is a man loving another man a sin? Rebuttal: A man can love another man, but not in a love relationshipful way. People are advised to just be themselves. Mostly people can't help their sexual orientation. If a man and a woman have the rights to be married, what is wrong with same sex marriage? Don't gays deserve rights? Yes, in the bible it stated that a man and a man should never lie together, yet as I noted before, homosexuality was never discovered, and God loves everyone no matter their opinions and views. Rebuttal: Gays have civil rights, as do all of us. Also, if back then the bible people didn't know homosexuality, then why did they write about it.
Gay people should be allowed to be married

It says in the bible, don't know where exactly, "Man shall not sleep with another man, nor he should lie with a beast." Rebuttal: But don't gays have the right to their own opinions? And anyway, it should be up to them as to whether whey should want to get married or not. And besides, back then, they did not have the knowledge of homosexuality. People can have different opinions and rights, but that does not mean they are right. Rebuttal: Since when was a man loving a man a sin? If God wants people to be respectful to one another, then why is a man loving another man a sin? In the Catholic Faith, they always mention that marriage is between a man and a woman, never a man with a man and a woman with a woman. Being Gay may not be preventable, but being single is an possible option. For example, if you are straight, you can choose to be single, so gays can choose to be single. Downs Syndrome is unpreventable and uncureable. Rebuttal: People are advised to just be themselves. Mostly people can't help their sexual orientation. If a man and a woman have the rights to be married, what is wrong with same sex marriage? Don't gays deserve rights? Yes, in the bible it stated that a man and a man should never lie together, yet as I noted before, homosexuality was never discovered, and God loves everyone no matter their opinions and views.
Gay people should be allowed to be married

Yes, God did appreciate men and women getting married, yet what makes your sexual orientation a crime? And he never said he hated gays. Rebuttal: It says in the bible, don't know where exactly, "Man shall not sleep with another man, nor he should lie with a beast." Many people discriminate gay people, but God loves everyone, especially people who are discriminated. He understands that people have their opinions and rights. Rebuttal: People can have different opinions and rights, but that does not mean they are right. Restricting gays to get married is like restricting Downs' Syndrome kids from attending school. Gays have been mistreated for far too long and it has to stop. Rebuttal: In the Catholic Faith, they always mention that marriage is between a man and a woman, never a man with a man and a woman with a woman. Being Gay may not be preventable, but being single is an possible option. For example, if you are straight, you can choose to be single, so gays can choose to be single. Downs Syndrome is unpreventable and uncureable.
Gay people should be allowed to be married

Yes, God did appreciate men and women getting married, yet what makes your sexual orientation a crime? And he never said he hated gays. Many people discriminate gay people, but God loves everyone, especially people who are discriminated. He understands that people have their opinions and rights. Restricting gays to get married is like restricting Downs' Syndrome kids from attending school. Gays have been mistreated for far too long and it has to stop.
Eugenics

"If this was indoctrinated into children rather than religion" My opponent is also now promoting indoctrination as well as killing people left, right, and centre in order to "purify" the human race. I'd make some symmetries to other famous individuals, but I don't want to break Godwin's Law this debate. "You were probably raised with certain religious ideals, that abortion is murder, that all humans are above animals and we have inalienable god given rights." No, I was brought up thinking people had... you know... value? I think you see this too, and know that systematic murder of individuals for disabilities is wrong and disciminant. "100% of the population could completely agree to having Eugenics practiced on them." People don't agree on Capital Punishment, Abortion, and euthanasia. Why would people then decide that Eugenics is unanimously right? "Well why is it acceptable with cattle then? You probably have eaten a burger before in your life..." Vegetarian. " it discriminates against undesirable humans" My point is made. This argument is discriminatory and promotes indoctrination, the equivalent of brainwashing, other pepole in order to gain what he wants. Vote con, the kritik argument was unchallenged, the efficiency argument was unchallenged, the status quo argument remains unchallenged. There are 3 prima facie cases.
Eugenics

You say it frightens you that a non democratic, totalitarian government could have absolute control over your reproductive functions, and treat you like cattle being bred to perfection. Well why is it acceptable with cattle then? You probably have eaten a burger before in your life, well the cow that it came from was bred to taste good, it was bred to have certain characteristics. Humans are animals just as cattle, if we can choose which cows live or die, then humans can work in the exact same way. The type of government is not what we are debating, there could very well be a democratic government, where the people vote to have their reproductive rights put in the hands of the state. 100% of the population could completely agree to having Eugenics practiced on them. Just because the idea frightens you doesn't mean it is a bad idea. You were probably raised with certain religious ideals, that abortion is murder, that all humans are above animals and we have inalienable god given rights. Well a population could be raised to believe just the opposite, that our ovaries and sperm belong to the state, that we must be given "breeding licenses" before we can procreate. If this was indoctrinated into children rather than religion, we would accept it as a second nature, it would not be scary or foreign to us because we would be raised into this belief. Therefore it would not feel evil. Imagine a world where there are no crippled people, no mental retardation. Everybody is attractive, intelligent, and healthy. The world was full of super humans. This is possible, it is within our grasp, in less than 100 years we could achieve this goal. No children would have to suffer from genetic diseases. Everyone would have an IQ above 140. Due to the high IQs, science and technological advancements would greatly improve beyond our wildest dreams. There would be no more wars because everyone would be too intelligent to have childish religious wars like in the middle east. It would usher in a new era of innovation, and likely the space age. With our expanded minds due to selective intelligence breeding, we would discover new methods of space travel and explore the outer edges of the universe. This is just a taste of the possibilities, the true potential is limitless and I could go on and on, but Eugenics is only a positive. Yes it discriminates against undesirable humans but the end justifies the means. When everyone is perfect there will be no more suffering or pain. It is all worth it once we achieve perfection.
Eugenics

I see a lot of debates on Abortion, but that leaves the decision up to the mother. Why not leave the decision of abortion up to the State? If a fetus is going to be disabled once it is born, why not have the government do a forced abortion so that child wont have to suffer its entire life, and put a drain on our tax dollars to support this dead weight? Also if a fetus is going to form perfectly healthy why let the mother kill the baby? It will grow up to be a productive citizen, adoption is a perfectly fine alternative. If a human is stupid, or has genetic diseases such as diabetes or etc. , and shouldn't be having children because they will pass their negative genetic traits onto their children, we should sterilize them, so they can no longer have babies. If a man and a woman are of good genetic stock, and they have children together, they should get tax breaks for every child they produce, this will encourage the production of healthy intelligent babies rather than the idiots we have nowadays. Also to allow mothers to work while they have children, state sponsored daycare centers should be opened up everywhere, so mothers can put their child in the states care who will employ child psychologists so their children will be in good hands. These day care centers will be socialized and paid for by tax dollars.
The widespread use of "should of" instead of "should have" will result in the doom of humanity

First off, my opponent ended his argument with YOLO. This should result in an immediate victory for me. I am not certain what PRO seeks to prove in listing his mistakes. The resolution, as we both agree, clearly limited itself to 'should of' and its sister variations rather than the deterioration of language in general. PRO not only acknowledges this, but he also admits that I "highlighted much better examples of language-deterioration. " Since PRO is essentially conceding to me, I win the debate. I would like to thank PRO for his compliment. Allow me to become serious for a moment. I agree that the deterioration of language could have devastating consequences, and I place extreme importance on the ability to create well-constructed arguments and ideas. However, I have to wonder if the Internet truly offers a credible standard to evaluate the writing skills of teenagers. Many people adopt the mantra "informal setting, informal writing. " The same people who write 'lol k thx by' are unlikely to write those in an essay - although, as both 'should of' and 'your/you're' are grammatical mistakes, they still appear. There are still plenty of flowers blooming if one knows where to look. I agree that renewable energy resources are essential to the future of humanity. I still do not think they hold a place in this type of debate. Destruction of efficient communication poses risks far more dangerous to society. I have no response to my opponent's counterpoint to my grandma example. I cannot argue with such flawless logic. However, my other examples, including "your/you're" and "they're/there/their," still stand. My opponent does not disagree with anything I said and even admits that I provided "better examples of grammatical blunders and terrible role models. " I will admit that topping Miley Cyrus proved to be a challenge. I had a truly great time with this debate, and I thank my opponent for providing me with a chance to have a little fun! I hope he enjoyed himself as well.
The widespread use of "should of" instead of "should have" will result in the doom of humanity

As an honest debater, I must confess that there are two mistakes in my arguments that con has successfully highlighted. I will say, however, that I am not certain that con did so intentionally. Here are the two mistakes that I made:1. The words used to compose the topic of this debate were not wisely chosen. The point I was trying to make was that the deterioration of our language will have extremely harmful effects on society and the technological progress of humanity. In effect, this would have meant that con's examples would have supported my arguments. Unfortunately, since I chose the specific words that you see in the title of the debate, I am left to defend the idea that the use of the phrase "should of" specifically, will lead to humanity's doom. Admittedly, this is a difficult idea to defend since con highlighted much better examples of laguage-deterioration. I was hoping to debate someone who did not know that the phrase "I should of known." makes little to no sense. Still, I "should have" chosen better words.2. It seems that con is in fact a teenager, and the fact that he largely demonstrated excellent spelling, grammar and word choice, goes against the idea that the widespread deterioration of language has the potential to affect all youth to a devastating extent. It seems that despite the rampant onslaught of lyricists such as Ke$ha and Nicki Minaj, some youth are still able to communicate well-constructed arguments and ideas. Perhaps, there is indeed some hope for the world. Perhaps, in a desert full of morons, a few flowers may yet bloom.I also would like to point out that renewable energy sources are vital to the survival and prosperity of the human race. If we lose our ability to communicate, we will not be able to progress our quest to find them/use them more efficiently. This is why I mentioned them.One more thing that I would like to point out is that "Let's eat grandma!" might still mean that grandma will remain alive but that she will be much more satisfied sexually.In any case, I acknowledge that I have put myself in a very difficult position with my word-choice for the topic of this debate, and I do not disagree with anything con said. He did, in fact, provide better examples of grammatical blunders and terrible role models.It seems I didn't use a reference either... so... whateva... yolo.
The widespread use of "should of" instead of "should have" will result in the doom of humanity

We live in a world where our youth have role models such as Kanye West, Kim Kardashian, Miley Cyrus, Snookie, and Honey BooBoo. While it is wonderful to see that today's teenagers use technology, read a lot (even though they're just reading junk like TMZ and tumblr memes), and write a lot, it is sad to see that they are losing the ability to write proper sentences. Already, terms such as "selfie" are becoming a part of our lexicon. One the most appalling, infuriating and alarming symptoms of the deterioration of our language is the use of phrases such as "should of", "would of" and "could of" instead of "should've", "would've" and "could've". The world needs future leaders who read classics of English literature and produce speeches and works of similar quality. The use of proper language is a reflection humanity's wisdom. If we stop producing writers like Hawthorne and Dickens, and continue to produce lyrics like "we run things, things don't run we", we will lose our ability to communicate valuable and even remotely intelligible ideas to each other. Technological progress, as well our quest for renewable and sustainable energy resources will be stunted. Most importantly, poetry and prose, will no longer inspire our youth like they inspired our greatest leaders such as MLK, JFK, Gandhi, Thomas Jefferson and others. We will be lost, and we will be doomed. The lives of human beings will lose the wonder and beauty that good poetry and prose generate.
Do you think this is a great Gothic poem

"con has not addressed my question ie the poem is full of great Gothic images and themesall he said was"It is too random, and borderline incoherent."thus he has not refuted my claim"Lukily for me; you have the buden of proof to show that it was full of great Gothig images and themes. Since you did not meet it, I win by default. You did not even present an argument.
Denominations ARE the identity of 1Timothy 4:1

1 Corinthians 12:12-17 "12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body"Jews or Greeks, slaves[a] or free"and all were made to drink of one Spirit. 14 For the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15 If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? 18 But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19 If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts,[b] yet one body." This passage makes it CLEAR that though we are all a part of the body of Christ, we are all very different. If your foot decided on its own that only feet are a part of your body, and all the other "denominations" aren't, you would have serious issues. "21 The eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you," nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." 22 On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, 25 that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. 27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. " Though it may sometimes seem like a different denomination is less of a Christian than you, truth be told BY GOD ALMIGHTY, those that we see as weak are indispensable! I also love that last verse, 27: "Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. " We are INDIVIDUALLY members of Christ's body. You can not have a stigma against one or all denominations; according to God, it is up to the individual, NOT the Denomination.
Denominations ARE the identity of 1Timothy 4:1

Wow! That was quite a lot, but impressive, too! Some arguments that you made are that the Denominations are never mentioned in the Bible. Obviously, God's Word never talked about Baptists, Pentacostals, or Catholics by name, but in 1 Corinthians 1:12, Paul describes some different "groups" of Christians: "One of you says, 'I follow Paul'; another, 'I follow Apollos'; another, 'I follow Cephas'; still another, 'I follow Christ.'" Though each of these groups of Christians chose to have a different leader, Paul recognizes that they are still believers. He tries to tell them that Christ is number 1, and they shouldn't let such trivial matters divide them. Earlier on, in Romans 14, Paul gives another example of what could be called "denominations": "One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables... One man considers one day more sacred than another, another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, does so to the Lord." What Paul is trying to get across is that it isn't HOW a person worships that matters; it is WHO they worship. It doesn't matter if you are a Seventh Day Adventist or an Episcopilian; a Catholic or a Southern Baptist. What matters is that you worship JESUS CHRIST as you Lord and Savior. You also mentioned the "massive biblical illiteracy", the lack of tithing, and the betrayal of the Trinity. The first two should be attributed to the individual person, while the last one can only describe a limited amount of modern Denominations. One last point, though fairly theorizing, is to compare Christianity to America. There is only one America, just as there is only one body of Christ. There is only one Commander-in-Chief of America, just as there is only one Christ. America is divided into many different states, each with its own individuality and culture, just like Christianity is divided into many (probably TOO many) denominations, each with its own individuality. Yet every citizen in every state is an American, just like every believer in every denomination is a Christian.