BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Polygamy should be legal

Definition: " The state or practice of being married to more than one person at the same time".I: Human RightsIn a democracy, a person has basic political rights. These political rights gives freedom for expression, to protest, to organize, etc. The UN has an entire article on the right to marry between a man and a woman."ARTICLE 161. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationalityor religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitledto equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of theintending spouses. "However, this only covers heterosexual marriages. So, most countries have included homosexual marriages into theiir own "Right to Marry". The next, logical step is to legalise polygamy. If a person wishes so, he can have the consent from his previous spouse and marry another one. The State has no bearing upon him. As the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16, states: "Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of theintending spouses. "Why would this be wrong? There is consent, after all. II: Religious reasons1. Christianity - There are plenty of verses that implies polygamy is "wrong". The founder of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther, once wrote that "I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter."2. Other religions: Polygamy is prevalent in most of the other religions, such as Hinduism or Judaism.III: Economic Reasons: A study shows that in polygyny, the woman are more likely to be benefited than polyandry when the sex ration is more. With all the above stated reasons, I want polygamy to be legalised.Sources:1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...2. http://www.ohchr.org...3. http://www.gasl.org...4. Luter, Martin. De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329–330.5. https://www.unc.edu...
Money enslaves the populus

The resolution of: "Money Enslaves The Populous" Is as absurd as the resolution of: "DVD Players Torture People" If a person decides to smash someone's fingers with a DVD player until they give up information then it is the person using the DVD player that is doing the torturing; not the DVD player itself. Similarly, if people in power are abusing their power by using money to enslave people, then it is the people in power doing the enslaving and not the money. Money is a useful tool created to avoid the limitations of barter. If I only have apples and want your oranges, but you want pairs and not my apples, then a trade will not occur. However, with currency there is something almost anyone will accept and this makes trade easier. If it wasn't money, the people in power would be using food, water, and resources to enslave us; the money is just a tool. Since it is the people who abuse money doing the enslaving, and not money itself; the resolution is self-evidently false.
Money enslaves the populus

The practice of money, and its inevitable hoarding causes a concentration of power in a new monarchy of billionaires, who are running the world through capital. The world is now less nations and more corporations, ran by unelected CEOs who answer to none other than their shareholders and they by use of bribery control their interests in government. Democracy and freedom are dead, the destruction of the means of control is necessary, for this means also controls your daily life, each and every day we are extorted, we must work at the every whim of the money minded overseer, we must conform to the rule of not morality, not any form of justice or the community but the corporation.
Money enslaves the populus

My opponent says if money was removed the slavery would end. However, if someone wants to enslave us they could just as easily do it with control of natural resources (no money required). Without money, there is no reason to think the enslavers would just throw up their hands like "like oh well, it was fun while it lasted". There would be other ways to enslave us. So, once again, it's the people who use money that are doing the enslaving; not the money itself. The resolution is still negated.
Money enslaves the populus

It doesn't matter whether using a DVD player for torture is common or not, it still doesn't change the point. The fact still remains that money being misused by people in power wouldn't mean that money itself is doing the enslaving. The people enslaving us could just use natural resources, or credits (barter was before money by the way). Money is not the necessary component here; it is greed and control which traces back to human imperfection. Since it's the people doing the enslaving and not the money; the resolution is still negated.
Money enslaves the populus

My opponent said that before money the people who worked ruled. First off, there is no source given to believe this, secondly, even if it was true, it still only supports the notion that people use money to enslave people; it is not the money itself doing the enslaving. Pro is accusing me of defending the current system but I am not doing anything of the sort. I'm just saying that all of Pro's arguments only support the notion that people use money to enslave people; not the resolution that money enslaves people. We wouldn't say that a DVD player tortures people just because someone could use one to smash someone else's fingers. It's just as absurd to say that money enslaves people just because people use money for control. The resolution is negated.
Money enslaves the populus

Yet before money the people who worked ruled know there are ruled. How is it not slavery if I have to work here because I need money, and I can't complain because if I do that I get fired. Quite simply it's a violation of freedom as one can easy compare the life of the Proletariat to the life of a slave simply substitute a wage with food clothing and a hut. You are defending a system that cons the common man to give up his freedom.
Torture is a disgusting, unfortunate, but necessary interrogation tool

I disagree, instead of torture we should use reverse psychology. If for example, you were a terrorist (for example) and you had a bomb planted in New York city, and I captured you, you would want to keep the bombs location disclosed to yourself. If I say "wheres the bomb?" you say "I dont know", but what If I said "You do not know where the bomb is?" you would go "YES I DO, ITS ON *undisclosed location* STREET!!" See what I mean? Back to you pro!
Eternal Torment in Fiery Hell is Not Biblical

I may be wrong but in Jeremiah 32:35 the context is that the people of Baal are sacrificing their children in Ben-hinnom to their god, Molech. But if they had been praying to Yahweh, like Abraham, the sacrifice of sons and daughters by fire would be revered as submission to the right god. Just something to think about. Anywho, I get what your saying. Fire was used as an efficient form of utterly destroying things. So when Jesus makes reference to sacrifice by fire or a fiery demise, it is to say that the person's soul would be destroyed, not tortured. But then why in Mark 13:42 and Luke 13:28 does it say there will be crying and "gnashing of teeth" in said furnace? Why are there descriptions of pain and turture if punishment for non belief and a sinful life is merely death? Why state that there will be suffering when there will be no feeling or experience at all?
Eternal Torment in Fiery Hell is Not Biblical

On the basis that the valley of Hinnom was used as a site of idolatrous worship that included child sacrifice, some believe that Gehenna was used by Jesus as a symbol of eternal torment. Since Jehovah God expressed repugnance to such practice when He said, "a thing that I had not commanded and that had not come up into my heart" (Jeremiah 7:31; 32:35) it seems unlikely that the Son of God would make that idolatrous practice the basis for the symbolic meaning of Gehenna. In the Bible times, the most thorough means of destruction in use was fire. (Deuteronomy 13:16; Joshua 6:24) This is why Jesus often used the term “fire” to, in an illustrative way, denote the complete destruction of the wicked.
Eternal Torment in Fiery Hell is Not Biblical

I never really thought about the Bible just saying that hell is death. To me, that would be a fair interpretation of scripture. However, it is about interpreting what is written. And to me, over the course of this debate, the definition of hell does seem to change. From it being a lake of burning sulfur (revelation 21:8) to "everlasting destruction(2 Thessalonians 1:9) to a "fiery furnace" (Mathew 13:50) to all the times you have mentioned where it states that heaven is eternal life and hell is death. To me, this seems to indicate that the punishment for different sinful lives is different for each person because why else have so many clear descriptions of what eternal damnation is to be? This point is influenced by my rereading of Mark 9:42-48 which I have stated in the previous round. Jesus states it is better to remove certain detrimental ligaments instead of suffering various torments. Also, if you look in the book of Enoch chapter 9, the apocryphal imagery clearly parallels that of Revelation and other New Testament descriptions. These passages have lead me to a conclusion that the authors of the Bible believed that god punished sinners in a variety of ways due to the lengths they went to describe multiple forms of suffering. And if fire or heat or burning sulfur is not included in this list of punishments then why did they describe it so clearly multiple times and then repeat the description even more? Also, Gehena is from the Hebrew "ge hennom" for The Valley of Hennon. The Valley of Hennon was a place south of Jerusalem where an idolatrous cult sacrificed children. Off to Round Four!
Eternal Torment in Fiery Hell is Not Biblical

The Greek Scriptures of the Bible make reference to ge'en.nan tou py.ros' 12 times, and five of these times it is directly associated with fire. Translators have rendered this Greek expression as: "hell fire," "fires of hell," "fiery pit," and "fires of Gehenna." Now, let's look at some historical background.The valley of Hinnom, or Gehenna, was outside the walls of Jerusalem. In the first century, it was used as an incinerator for the trash of Jerusalem; sulfur, or brimstone, was used to assist the burning. The dead bodies of criminals undeserving of burial were thrown in the valley. Thus, Jesus spoke of the casting of one’s “whole body” into Gehenna at Matthew 5:29, 30. If the body fell in the constantly burning fire, it was consumed. If the body landed on a ledge, the putrefying flesh became infested with maggots (Mark 9:47, 48). Living humans were not thrown in Gehenna. So, it was not a place of conscious torment.At Matthew 10:28 Jesus said, "be in fear of him that can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna." Notice that this verse does not mention torment in the fires of Gehenna. Rather, it says, "fear him that can destroy in Gehenna." Referring to the soul separately, Jesus was emphazising that God can destroy all prospects of a person's life, this person would have no hope of resurrection. So, the references to Gehenna have the same meaning to the lake of fire in Revelation 21:8: Destruction, or second death. ConclusionThe penalty for sin, rather than eternal torment, is death (Romans 6:23). After death, one is not subject to further punishment for his sins (Romans 6:7). Furthermore, eternal torment is not compatible with God's personality (Jeremiah 7:31; 1 John 4:8).Romans 6:23 - “The wages sin pays is death.”Romans 6:7 - “He who has died has been acquitted from his sin.”Jeremiah 7:31: “They [apostate Judeans] have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, in order to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, a thing that I had not commanded and that had not come up into my heart.” (If it had never come up into God's heart, he obviously does not do such a thing in a larger scale.)1 John 5:8 - "Whoever does not love has not come to know God, because God is love."Thank you. Back to you, Con.
Eternal Torment in Fiery Hell is Not Biblical

Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10 - “The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all [...] All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol, the place to which you are going.” These verses teach us that the living know they will die, but the dead do not know or feel anything at all. If the dead are not conscious of anything at all, they obviously feel no pain. Ezekiel 18:4 - “The soul that is sinning—it itself will die." This verse teaches us two things: souls are not immortal, they can die, and the punishment for sin is death, not eternal torment. Job 14:13 - “[Job prayed:] Who will grant me this, that thou mayst protect me in hell, and hide me till thy wrath pass, and appoint me a time when thou wilt remember me? Job had been suffering a lot and he just wanted to go to hell. Why? To suffer more? Of course not! Job just wanted to stop suffering in grave.Acts 2:25-27 - David speaketh concerning him [Jesus Christ] [...] Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell,* neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.” Even Jesus was in hell, although he was perfect and never sinned. Why? Because hell is just grave where the dead are.Revelation 20:13, 14 - “The sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell* delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. Bible hell is not eternal, it delivers up the dead. This means resurrection; the dead will leave grave. Notice how hell and lake of fire are mentioned as two different places. Hell, or grave, is thrown in the lake of fire, which the Bible teaches means the second death, or eternal destruction. That Hell is thrown in the lake of fire means that people won't have to die anymore.
Religion as a form of worship should be banned

Too bad my opponent forfeited his last round, so I’ll just wrap this up with a summary of my arguments. - Religion as a form of worship relates to Religion entirely. - Banning Religion (worship) affects Freedom of Religion (the individual right to conscience, belief) per se. - Banning said right would be up to the state proposing it. - Freedom of Religion is protected and valued under international and various state laws. - Banning it would be unlawful. -Therefore, Religion should not be banned. I will repeat, what is being debated here is if religious worship should be prohibited, not if the laws supporting Religion should be abolished. And even if he would argue that the laws should be abolished, I did not see anything legitimate on his rebuttals against my arguments, so, my arguments still stand, and they are were not refuted by PRO. All his previous arguments I’ve already refuted in R2 (and some in R3), his responses were just to clarify and define the terms a bit accurately which is irrelevant and doesn’t make any difference to my rebuttals. His arguments, as I’ve read it: - Religious worship promotes faith. - Faith tells us something that hasn’t been proved. - Meaning that faith makes people blind on the realities and doesn’t let people think logically, rationally and critically. -Therefore, Religion as worship should be banned I’ve explained this in my rebuttals, faith is important to people, and this isn’t a reasonable excuse to deprive them of their right to religious worship, which affects Freedom of Religion itself. Who are we to force them to let go of their Religion and look things differently, we do not have the moral, ethical and legal right to do such things. - People go to Church. - The Church teaches its followers about their religious teachings and values. - People will take the Church’s word for everything. -The Church could probably have propagandas against the government, like what happened in the Nazi regime. -Therefore, Religious worship should be banned. It’s very unlikely for this to happen, and as I said, we have secular laws that separate the church and state, and with the law enforcement today, having propagandas like what happened in the 40s is very unlikely. I doubt the Church would commit genocide just to coerce people to follow them. - If we do not think rationally, scientifically and logically, aliens might question our sanity. -Therefore, Religion should be banned. Huh? - - - - - In conclusion, I’ll say it again, religious worship shouldn’t be banned, banning it is unlawful, as a world who values the freedom of Religion, we need to protect it and stand up for that right. Vote CON, thank you. Note: In some parts of the debate, my opponent seems to take one of my arguments personally, if you are offended by it, then I apologize, it was not my intention to offend, just pointing out your flaws and mistakes.
Religion as a form of worship should be banned

Well, I'd like to clarify that I made a minor yet ignorant mistake on which side is PRO or CON, please accept my apologies, I am CON and my opponent is PRO."My BOP is to prove that religion as a form of worship should be banned, not that it can be banned."I haven't said anything that it can or can't be banned, but either way, I've proven my point, Religious worship being banned is also Religion in general being banned, and it SHOULD NOT be banned because it violates human and civil rights which is fundamental and banning it is against international law. My opponent failed to refute this argument, and as he said, he's BOP is to prove Religious worship should be banned, he still needs to give legitimate arguments on this. All my opponent has to argue to abolish this right is that Religion 'brainwashes' people into believing in myths and fairytales, instead of critical and rational thinking, which is not fair and not enough to abolish a right. He also argues the probability of a dangerous propaganda (like theb Nazi regime), but that does not mean that RELIGIOUS WORSHIP should be banned.Please extend my arguments, and again to the readers, please accept my apologies for not double-checking the positions.
Religion as a form of worship should be banned

Religion: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. Foundation of religionReligion has existed for some 30000 years[1]. At the start it was most likely a way for people to answer questions such as: who are we? Where did we come from? What is death? What is this planet? Etc. But, importantly, it was creative. We know they produced art[2] for example and this art illustrated the stories that they must have told. We also see this in the bible, the Koran and the Torah. They have beautifully illustrated chapters and imaginative proverbs and moral tales. That is why I specifically stated that it should be banned as a form of worship. I'm all for creativity. DogmaHeb 11:1 (NEB) "Faith. .. makes us certain of realities we do not see"[3]. In other words you are told to believe something that has not been proved. Now what does that remind you of? "As Minister of Enlightenment, Goebbels had two main tasks: to ensure nobody in Germany could read or see anything that was hostile or damaging to the Nazi Party and to ensure that the views of the Nazis were put across in the most persuasive manner possible"[4]. Yes; we all know how well that worked out for Hitler. The way to combat events like that is for people to think logically, and not have 'faith'. So; can the church ( unlike Hitler ) be trusted? Well; the catholic church in Ireland greatly took advantage of their power in Ireland over the last century. Up until just thirty years ago, I. E. 1980, It was illegal to sell or import contraception in Ireland[5], such was the strangle-hold the church had on the state. Even ten years ago there was only one shop in the country that sold condoms. You may say that something like that would not happen again but the fact is, while people take the church's word for everything, it can happen again. I can only come to the same conclusion that I came to under the last heading, which was: people must look at fact, not at ancient texts. An external view pointImagine an alien looking at our planet. What would they think? Why do those people congregate en masse to sing chants and light candles in stone buildings? They would be concerned for our sanity! What I'm saying is; it's OK to hypothesise and try to imagine how our universe came into existence, but we must also use maths and logic to explain to ourselves who we are, where we came from, what death is and what our universe is. References[1] . http://wiki.answers.com...[2] . http://www.artlex.com...[3] . http://www.acts17-11.com...[4] . http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...[5] . http://en.wikipedia.org...I
Vaccine are Safe and Effective

In round two I showed many studies, links, and explanations of why vaccines are not very safe and effective, and you did not rebut any of them. If you are going to say that I am wrong you should at least have a response to some of the studies I showed you that prove vaccines can be harmful. You said "Vaccines don't cause autism." but saying something doesn't make it's true. If you're going to make a statement please back it up with a few more words. Debate: a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward. It would be nice if you could expound on that one sentence. You provided a link to a large meta analysis that was studying the correlation between vaccines and autism, but you did not provide an explanation of how the test was done nor did the link you gave me. What I could find is that the study is heavily biased because the company leading the research is making money off of vaccines. If we are going to debate you're going to have to give me some proof or explanation, not just links.[1] Then you provided a link to a CDC page. One of the links it had to a study didn't work, and the other one wasn't secure so I couldn't check the data. If you have a point please state it so I don't have to read through an entire website just to get your point. The link to Sabin.org offered no proof, it only talked about Andrew Wakefield who I never mentioned in this debate, and it referenced the same meta analysis you had in your first link. Publichealth.org said that vaccines were not linked to autism. And said that Andrew Wakefield's work was the cause of "widespread fear." Again I never mentioned Wakefield. The Google.com link talks about a massive new study, but doesn't say what the study is. Your next part is on Andrew Wakefield again for some reason. This debate is on vaccines and I never brought up Andrew Wakefield so why is he relevant to this debate? Con said that "Only early vaccination can cause asthma." While agree that early vaccination can cause autism, I don't agree that only early vaccination can cause autism. Plus in the second round I said that "Babies should avoid as much immune stimulation as they can," and it seems as though Con agrees with me. Autism isn't all vaccines can cause, I mentioned four other problems with vaccines and Con has failed to mention or refute any of them. [1]https://sharylattkisson.com...
Vaccine are Safe and Effective

Vaccines don't cause autism. https://www.autismspeaks.org... https://www.cdc.gov... http://www.sabin.org... http://www.publichealth.org... https://www.google.com... A doctor named Andrew Wakefield Was paid to lie and say they do: http://healthland.time.com... https://www.google.com... Vaccines are safe. While it's not(and shouldn't be) required to get the flu shot every year, it's highly recommended. Only early vaccination can cause asthma. http://www.ageofautism.com... While it's not recommended to get some vaccines, others are safe and effective.