BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
You cannot be Christian and a homosexual.

Eating shellfish it is NOT a SIN, it is FORBIDDIN.They are not neccesarily the same thing. A lot of Semitic cultures and religions prohibit eating animals that eat the flesh or the waste of other animals. And by following the verse about Oysters, you are protecting yourself. If you want scientific reasoning that backs it up, there's diseases like red tide that can infect some species of shellfish, and be entirely untraceable. Also, all of the verses forbidding homosexuality are probably for our safety. One of my friend's uncles was gay and died from AIDS.For your information, the Bible is not the only book that forbids homosexuality, so does the Quran (Islamic) and the Tanakh (Jewish).
You cannot be Christian and a homosexual.

Since Pro's arguments that homosexuality is a sin in R2 are still based on Leviticus and I showed that eating oysters is equally abominable let me simply switch them out in Pro's R2 arguments. How can someone eat oysters and believe in Jesus as Christ? Do they simply just ignore the bible? Or do they just not believe parts of the bible? There is no such thing as an oyster-eating Christian...if it can be found in scripture...then please enlighten me. Eating oysters is sin. I think that you can be a Christian living in sin. But You can't possibly not feel guilty about eating oysters and be a Christian at the same time… The absurdity of Pro's argument as given is obvious. Besides you will not find Jesus condemn homosexuality one single time.
You cannot be Christian and a homosexual.

Sorry, I am new to this, but let me rephrase myself. How can someone be homosexual and a believe in Jesus as Christ? Do they simply just ignore the bible? Or do they just not believe parts of the bible? There is no such thing as a gay Christian...if it can found in scripture...then please enlighten me. Living a homosexual lifestyle is sin. I think that you can be a Christian living in sin. But You cant possibly not feel guilty about being a homosexual and a Christian at the same time, Then there's no way Homo's can go to church, because preachers usually talk about how wrong homosexuality is wrong. All Christians struggle with sin, but God always takes them back. I do not believe that you can be a gay Christian. It's an oxymoron!
You cannot be Christian and a homosexual.

Pro has the burden of proof and I can refute his arguments to win. Christian: Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus (1). Homosexual (person):adj.Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex (2). Pro supplies a verse from Leviticus to show that homosexuality is an abomination. However, Leviticus 11:10-12 states that eating shellfish is an abomination. Does this mean that people who eat oysters or mussels can not be Christians? To be consistent Pro would have to say "yes", but this is obviously absurd so the argument must be invalid. (1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (2) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
You cannot be Christian and a homosexual.

How can it be possible that a Christian can be gay if in the bible, Leviticus 18:22, it says "Thou shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female. It is an abomination". According to the bible, its obviously wrong to be a homosexual. NOTE: I don't want people commenting hate comments or people who are just going to diss the religion of Christianity.THANKS! :)
Pot should be legalized, but not taxed, unless you are selling it for profit.

I can't tell if that was an argument or a rebuttal, but he hasn't done anything to rebut my arguments. CONCLUSION:My opponent fails to rebut my arguments or post any arguments that I haven't already rebutted. I therefore urge a vote for Con due to the economic failures of legalzing cannabis, and how many health problems are ensued with it. I thank you for reading my arguments unlike my opponent has done.
Pot should be legalized, but not taxed, unless you are selling it for profit.

What I believe your argument states is that you will decide what plants are good and which are evil Government profits from the evil plants through taxes, because of course, no government agent would be evil, in your pea brain. My pea brain believes that there is no such thing as an evil plant, only evil people that wish to reap the rewards of legislation. I am not a control freak, and you?
Pot should be legalized, but not taxed, unless you are selling it for profit.

Marijuana is a plant that has evolved itself naturally and can easily be reproduced with just a seed, some dirt, water and manure. Pot is not a right granted by politicians, it is exactly the opposite. Ganja is a plant that the politically correct tyrants, with the full support of both communists and capitalists in politics, have attempted to eradicate, without success as the human will of freedom, trumps all. Leave the people that grow their own alone. Stop trying to control everything (commies) Stop trying to profit off the control of everything,(capitalists) If you both just ignored this plant, what would happen? Freedom? The herb is just a damn plant, remember when they started taxing tea? Our politicians are all stupid when it comes to assesing human nature, unless it directly benefits themselves. Bring it.
Is The Illuminati Real.

Why are you leading this debate with unicorns?Are you living in a fantasy world?This debate is talking about a simple question i had presume to you.The Challenger.As myself,is going to stay with the topic. Unicorns do not exist,in fact,you waisted your time on talking about unicorns. . If the Illuminati existed, and had ties to freemasonry — as suggested on National Geographic — I can see how they'd try to hide this super-secret existence from the world. But I don't think such as unicorns in th
Is The Illuminati Real.

On 1:What does this have to do with their existance? But regardless, There are many unicorns, with different traits. Anything you might say about them will be false for some unicorns, but true for others, which only adds to the confusion and mystery. Therefore unicorns exist. On 2: You have still failed to prove their existence. You just said they take over stuff. And what regarding black jokes? What? Offense, unicorns have been know to kidnap children and drink their blood. Oh my!
Is The Illuminati Real.

There are many Illuminated groups, with different kinds of secret knowledge. Anything you might say about them (including this) will be false for some of the Illuminati, but true for others, which only adds to the confusion and mystery. The Illuminati infiltrate and take over organizations of all kinds, from churches to the post office to the corner grocery store, and turn them to their own ends. And, just as a black joke, some of their subject organizations advertise themselves as SecretSociets
Is The Illuminati Real.

The argument my opponent's making is that because the Bible talks about the Illuminati, they must be real but we can say the same about unicorns. In Deuteronomy 33:17, it says "His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh." Therefore we can conclude that unicorns exist right?
Is The Illuminati Real.

I Believe The Illuminati Is Real. God told us in his word, in revelations, what was to come near the end times. It is happening right in front of our eyes, and the Illuminati is at the forefront of this. Most of the people involved are heavily into Satan worship, and the history of these families is quite extensive, right down to the breeding they have done within their own families to keep the bloodlines pure. There plans of taking over this world is really really short......................
The Brooklyn Union Gas tanks should never have been demolished

BOLD=Quote from Opponent's Argument PLAIN TEXT=My RebuttalI didn't concede. I said that the tanks should have converted to landmarks, maybe a mini museum. It did gain a cult status amongsts many who grew up with the 50 year timespan of the Tanks. It was popular. As I said before, it was used in many movies. Me saying that they were not useful did not mean they should have been taken down. What I tried to say was they should have been converted to landmarks, with a mini museum on the inside. You didn't concede, but you ignore the fact that turning these gas tanks into landmarks would put an unjust economic bruden on KeySpan Energy. And you NEVER rebutted that point. Who would have payed for this landmark and museum, and since nobody requested for them to be in an official setting why should they have been? You haven't any of these major questions and therefore I win this point. Again, look at the top. We're talking about unique looking tanks. Unlike the other tanks in Brooklyn, this one is very unique. There was a similar one in Queens, though not like this one, that was converted into a little park, also keeping in memory of those gas tanks. They were the Elmhurst TanksOkay, so the tanks looked unique, that doesn't mean we have the right to place a burden on KeySpan energy or the tax payers to pay for such a museum. Nobody expressed interest in buying them or paying for the cost therefore they should not have been spared. Again due to an economic argument you NEVER rebutted I win this point. I've shown you youtube videos in which two users said that they were going to miss them. Even the New York Times article stated that it was a landmark well know to those who lived in New York or commuted via New York. So two youtubers and one article discussed a slight sadness they were going away. If they were so sad that they wanted landmarks, why did they never go and request they become one? Why did they never discuss this with KeySpan Energy? It is because they shouldn't be made into landmarks, even if a small group do miss them, KeySpan can't be responsible for a small group of people's sentimentality. That is irrelevant. We're not talking about the safety of doing this, but rather whether these two should have been preserved. This merely proves there are no cons to taking them down and no reason to keep them up. Like I said before, it would have been much more rad and wicked to keep these tanks as a museum and convert them to something that can be preserved, than just demolishing them. In the real world, just because something is rad doesn't mean it remains. Unfortunately we have to deal with money. In this case the only economically sensbile course was to destro them, therefore we can not debate that they should stay up because they are quote "rad. "Thank you for the debate, even if you do not thank me.
The Brooklyn Union Gas tanks should never have been demolished

My opponent admits that: "I didn't say the tanks were useful anymore." In this he nearly concedes the debate, because this shows that the gas company, originally named Brooklyn Union Gas, can not benefit from them. Brooklyn Union Gas has since changed their name to KeySpan Energy. http://www.nytimes.com......I didn't concede. I said that the tanks should have converted to landmarks, maybe a mini museum. It did gain a cult status amongsts many who grew up with the 50 year timespan of the Tanks. It was popular. As I said before, it was used in many movies. Me saying that they were not useful did not mean they should have been taken down. What I tried to say was they should have been converted to landmarks, with a mini museum on the inside.KeySpan Energy was losing property, space and money with these two tanks that were decommissioned in the 1990's. It was better for the company to demolish them economically, and the company is the only entity that lays any claim to the two towers, so legally it is fine to destroy them and in the interest of the company and all those who work there it is the best course of action.Again, look at the top. We're talking about unique looking tanks. Unlike the other tanks in Brooklyn, this one is very unique. There was a similar one in Queens, though not like this one, that was converted into a little park, also keeping in memory of those gas tanks. They were the Elmhurst Tanks (the ones in this picture). Furthermore, my opponent argues many people miss the two tanks and they should have been made landmarks, yet according to the chief of staff of the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission quoted at the time of demolition, 'We have not received any calls about this' (Terri Rosen Deutsch). Therefore, if nobody officially filed a complaint or expressed a desire for it to be kept a landmark, why should it have been?I've shown you youtube videos in which two users said that they were going to miss them. Even the New York Times article stated that it was a landmark well know to those who lived in New York or commuted via New York.Finally, every safety precaution was taking to assure no harm to the community by Controlled Demolition Inc. of Maryland. They had handled many demolitions of the sort before this with no accident. So there is no reason to believe any citizens were at risk. Based on these reasons you must vote in the negative.That is irrelevant. We're not talking about the safety of doing this, but rather whether these two should have been preserved. Like I said before, it would have been much more rad and wicked to keep these tanks as a museum and convert them to something that can be preserved, than just demolishing them.
The Brooklyn Union Gas tanks should never have been demolished

My opponent admits that: "I didn't say the tanks were useful anymore." In this he nearly concedes the debate, because this shows that the gas company, originally named Brooklyn Union Gas, can not benefit from them. Brooklyn Union Gas has since changed their name to KeySpan Energy. http://www.nytimes.com... KeySpan Energy was losing property, space and money with these two tanks that were decommissioned in the 1990's. It was better for the company to demolish them economically, and the company is the only entity that lays any claim to the two towers, so legally it is fine to destroy them and in the interest of the company and all those who work there it is the best course of action. Furthermore, my opponent argues many people miss the two tanks and they should have been made landmarks, yet according to the chief of staff of the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission quoted at the time of demolition, 'We have not received any calls about this' (Terri Rosen Deutsch). Therefore, if nobody officially filed a complaint or expressed a desire for it to be kept a landmark, why should it have been? Finally, every safety precaution was taking to assure no harm to the community by Controlled Demolition Inc. of Maryland. They had handled many demolitions of the sort before this with no accident. So there is no reason to believe any citizens were at risk. Based on these reasons you must vote in the negative.
The Brooklyn Union Gas tanks should never have been demolished

Here's a quick note for those who are going to vote: I didn't say the tanks were useful anymore. What I am suggesting is that instead of being demolished in 2001, they should have been registered as Brooklyn landmarks. I mean for all of you who grew up in Brooklyn, or in the Big Apple, or even in the Tristate area, who commuted to work in New York City, you can't deny that the stacks were a cult landmark. We grew up on them. Whenever we took a ride on the BQE, not only did we get a view of the Manhattan skyline, we also got a view of these fun-looking smoke stacks (sure they were in use at the time). They have been put in countless classic movies. It's a shame they couldn't designate these as trade marks. Who can forget the checkered formation on the top (which was used for airplane traffic). I'm not the only one who feels this way:;(look at user neenykin and Leronia Boughton comments)Even the New York times considered it a landmark back in 2001 when the demolition happenedhttp://www.nytimes.com...I know this is the past. But I still am of the opinion that they should have kept them instead of demolishing them.
The god of the bible exists

Thank you for pointing that out. I completely forgot that. Internal Test: To see whether or not the document contradicts itself. External Test: This determines whether or not the document contradicts any "external" sources of historical facts. (Archaeology) Bibliographic Test: How many copies of the document were made by different people and how long before the first copy was made. My first reference to the bible I made was to the Internal Test. This if for the External Test: It would be impossible to name all the archaeological finds that help the bible pass this test. Let me give you a small example using the Mari Tablets. "There are 23,000 in all, and they contain quite a bit of information about the Kingdom of Mari, an ancient kingdom on the west bank of the Euphrates River. It existed before and during the lives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, so the tablets deal with much of the same history as the Old Testament. These tablets mention King Arioch from Genesis 14, indicating that he was a real person. In addition, they mention Nahor, a city discussed in Genesis 24:10."
The god of the bible exists

My opponent makes three points to prove that the god of the bible exists. 1) The internal test. This is not explained by my opponent, so there is nothing to refute. As there is no weight to it, we can dismiss it. 2) The external test. Just like the internal test, this also has nothing backing it or even explaining what it is. So it too, can be dismissed. 3) The bibliographic test. I'm not sure if my opponent is referring to books in general, or simply the bible. However, this test is not explained just like the other three. But since my opponent decides to go around quoting verses, I will point out that there is nothing provided to indicate that these verses, and these books of the bible, are anything other than fiction, or at best, a complete misrepresentation of what really happened. I would like my opponent to actually provide some meat to his next argument for me to tear apart. Thank you.
The god of the bible exists

The God of the Bible does exist. The bible has been proved as a historical document by using the three tests. The Internal Test, the External Test, and the Bibliographic test. The Bible passes with flying colors. If God does not exist then how would we explain The Conversion of Paul in Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 where it clearly states in Acts 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man" and in Acts 22:9 "And they that were with me saw indeed a light and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of Him that spoke to me" The issue with the English version is that they translated it incorrectly. The Greek word 'Akouo' means both to hear and to hear and understand. So before you say that the Bible contradicts ITSELF when you translate it correctly it clearly is not. If they had then the passages would be something like this: And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. AND: And they that were with me saw indeed a light and were afraid; hearing but not understand the voice of Him that spoke to me.
The god of the bible exists

Apparently my opponent never went to middle school. (Sorry to be rude but I believe that you have proved rude is ok in this debate) I take much offense that you choose to use Harry Potter as an example to help you.... WIN? Considering Harry Potter was never mentioned in an accurate historical document I believe that example is quite useless. If you do not believe that these test are accurate then you do not believe ANYTHING historical (anything you have EVER read in text books for example) as ALL historical documents are proved to be accurate or not using the 3 tests. Now the Bibliographic Test is the most important of them all. Depending on the amount of time passed in between the original Bible and the first copy of it shows how accurate the copy actually was. The Bible has over 24,000 copies and the first copy was made only 25 years after the ORIGINAL BIBLE! This supports today's Bible accuracy. Since the Bible is the word of God and the Bible is considered an accurate historical document I believe I have proved that God is real in the real world. I rest my case. Good luck. :)
The god of the bible exists

1) Internal test. This is not an accurate method for measuring whether or not something is true. While books that contridict themselves are known false, those that do not are not proven true. For example. I could write "unicorns are found on the dark side of the moon. " That statement clearly does not contridict itself, but that doesn't mark it as true, what so freaking ever. Many ficticious books do not contridict themselves, that is partially what makes them fun stories. 2) External test. My opponent gives a classic composition fallacy . http://changingminds.org.... He assumes that because some things in the bible are shown to be true, that everything in the bible is true. Confirming that a single person mentioned in the bible likely existed does not, in any way show that god is real. No more so than showing that London mentioned in Harry Potter shows that the entire Harry Potter world is real. As such, this fails to show any evidence that the god of the bible is real. 3) Bibliographical test. This is merely an appeal to repetition or arguement ad nauseam. . http://www.csun.edu... Obviously just because something was printed a lot, does not make it any more true. As shown all of my opponent's "tests" are not backed by logic and my opponent has shown nothing what-so-ever to support the resolution that the god of the bible is real. Thank you.
Consensual incest should be illegal in the United States

Or better yet don't vote at all and let this pointless debate sit as it is. Anyone who votes con is a cousin-lover :). I've failed to respond because of time constraints. It seems to me that you're using too many unverified second-hand sources, and I just want to use this website as a personal development tool (remembering information and its source, being more consistent in my beliefs) you may have won the debate but you haven't really convinced me to change my view in a "real" sense. I personally wouldn't hate someone who commited incest but perhaps its labeling or something else but its not a good idea and general society it will kill your social value, if you believe in only one true love then go for it.
Anime should be banned

You shouldn't worry, these slobs will be too ugly for molesters, and weebs have too many layers of fat for a coyote bite to be lethal. As for the immigrants, put some collars on those South American dogs, and when they try to cross the border, they will immediately be electrocuted with 10,000 milliamps of electricity, enough to cause severe burns and cardiac arrest, even death. "A depiction of an anime fight scene will not have a negative impact on children" yes it will, it will make them want to buy guns and shoot everything they see. "cleavage does not have a negative impact on children" Yes it does, it turns them into fat slobbering slobs who wan't nothing more than that anime booty. " it's actually sexist and a form of oppression whereby a female can't show off her body, but you'd have no issue with a man showing off his." Nope, its completely fine because men are superior. We are only protecting women.