BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay marriage

"Those are good points, except that God condones each of those activities, either directly or through Jesus, in orders to his followers, and commits millions of murders himself. "But wait!" you say. "The Midianites, Ammorites, Ammonites and Marmites all committed sins! So God was justified in doing it!" If the Bible is written by God, this is rather like a jury mobbing and killing a man and then acquitting themselves. The Bible is racked with hypocrisy and is untrustworthy." What activities? What orders? "Assuming, however, that the Bible is correct, your argument about hygiene vs. morality makes no sense. Hygiene laws and morality laws are two kinds of Biblical law; yet there are many more kinds. What do we follow, and what do we not follow? That's what different Christian sects form to decide. You've just founded the Church of Harrytruman, but other Christians may not follow or agree with all of your rules. Are Christians (or non-Christians) who disagree with one part of your theology (not allowing gay marriage) not valid Christians, yet Christians who disagree with another part (allowing the consumption of bacon) valid? This makes no sense. You are entitled to your opinion about the interpretation of the Bible, but you are NOT entitled to interpret it for others." Again, what are you talking about, this stuff is not up for interpretation, different laws bear different levels of immorality, and hygiene laws are the least of it.
Gay marriage

Those are good points, except that God condones each of those activities, either directly or through Jesus, in orders to his followers, and commits millions of murders himself. "But wait!" you say. "The Midianites, Ammorites, Ammonites and Marmites all committed sins! So God was justified in doing it!" If the Bible is written by God, this is rather like a jury mobbing and killing a man and then acquitting themselves. The Bible is racked with hypocrisy and is untrustworthy. Assuming, however, that the Bible is correct, your argument about hygiene vs. morality makes no sense. Hygiene laws and morality laws are two kinds of Biblical law; yet there are many more kinds. What do we follow, and what do we not follow? That's what different Christian sects form to decide. You've just founded the Church of Harrytruman, but other Christians may not follow or agree with all of your rules. Are Christians (or non-Christians) who disagree with one part of your theology (not allowing gay marriage) not valid Christians, yet Christians who disagree with another part (allowing the consumption of bacon) valid? This makes no sense. You are entitled to your opinion about the interpretation of the Bible, but you are NOT entitled to interpret it for others.
Gay marriage

"Well, the Bible also bans eating pork: "You shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their carcasses, for they are unclean." (Leviticus 11:8) as well as polyester/mixed-material clothes: "...Nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material woven together." (Leviticus 19:19) as well as eating shellfish: "But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you." (Leviticus 11:10). I assume that you have eaten bacon and shellfish, and own polyester clothing; why do you condemn people who break certain Bible verses, while you break others? My point is that no one lives life perfectly by the Bible, so you need to practice what you (literally) preach." Those are hygiene laws, and good ones I should think, consider this; you consider child pornography to be immoral (sexual immorality), but not not washing your hands before preparing food (hygiene law), though they are both illegal (the pure food and drug act), and under the same set of laws, hence, under your logic, nothing illegal is immoral because "United States law also prohibits not washing your hands before preparing food or selling food without a good handlers license", this would justify: Murder Stealing Fraud Prostitution (depending on which state you live in) Etc. http://www.11points.com...... Report this Argument Debate Round No. 1
Gay marriage

Well, the Bible also bans eating pork: "You shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their carcasses, for they are unclean." (Leviticus 11:8) as well as polyester/mixed-material clothes: "...Nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material woven together." (Leviticus 19:19) as well as eating shellfish: "But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you." (Leviticus 11:10). I assume that you have eaten bacon and shellfish, and own polyester clothing; why do you condemn people who break certain Bible verses, while you break others? My point is that no one lives life perfectly by the Bible, so you need to practice what you (literally) preach. http://www.11points.com...
Gay marriage

start using your brains and don't just listen to the liberal television OK? A little common sense goes a long way. So, here is the various bible verses about homosexuality; Leviticus 18:22 Leviticus 20:13 Romans 1:26-27 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 1 Timothy 1:8-10 Jude 1:7 So there you go, also, I never did get the whole "born that way thing", before I figured it out my thoughts about it were "You guys been watching too much 'invasion of the body snatchers'", but now I get it, after having a long talk with a gay guy, he said, "I don't doubt that gays have a choice in committing sexual acts, only that they do not choose who they are attracted to" well first of all the bible says that committing the sexual act is a sin, not being attracted to people of the same gender, there are people who are born with a predisposition to be attracted to animals, but you don't defend bestiality, and say I am attracted to women, it does not justify pornography just because I am attracted to said pictures, Oh yeah, and no, people who do not support homosexuality are not like the people who had an issue with black people getting rights, quite the opposite actually, the southerners said that the north was infringing their rights to own slaves, even though there is no right to own slaves, the supreme court even decided to defend said "pseudo- right" in the Dred Scott trial, geese, that sounds familiar to a recent supreme court ruling, you can't make harmonious immoral act moral by calling it a right, for example: Me saying that I am entitled to the right to own that particular stuff does not entitle me to steal other people's stuff, but, I am entitled to the same rights as them, why don't I have the right to own his life savings too, so I am justified in stealing, well, if said person earns money, he is entitled to that money, but not money that he did not earn. Same thing, gay people say that they have the right to marriage, so they should be able to be perverts, gay marriage is not marriage, so, if you want the right to marriage, you got it, go get married to someone of the opposite gender, that's marriage, no one is depriving you of it, no one else gets to marry people of the same gender, so we are not denying you the same rights as straight people.
There should be no laws in regards to gay marrige.

"How did I make people seem like "sex machines", besides aren't Catholics, the ones with large families? I don't recall saying they would stay faithful, but wouldn't there be more faith to somebody your married to? I never said marriage would create safer practices, but there would be less partners. I never said marriage is protection." My Response: Well, according to you, with or without marriage, they will still do they same things. I.e. have sex and w/e else gay couples do. Correction, Muslims are the ones with large families. Also, I tried to make the point that marriage won't be protection from STD's. "Allowing them to marry, would just allow them written commitment to each other allowing safer practices, meaning less STD's to spread using the logic, that gay/lesbians spread STD's quicker than strait people due to unsafe practices." Indeed, you said it would create safer practices. So, you are contradicting your above response. The first amendment to the US constitution says: "The state shall make no laws in regards to religion." My Response: Lol, your being ignorant of the constitution. It means no state religion would be made. However, you miss my point. I said that it has it's basis in religion. Like, no killing. Also, you have not addressed my cultural point as well. "It's not the same. Cheating is NOT the same as being married. How is it wrong at ALL for homos to be married? I understand religious views, however, their religion may not say anything about homosexual relationships. I also do not understand how I am being narrow minded when I am open and fighting for ways that are not my own." My Response: Again, you miss my point totally. You said in your first round that it was ok because it doesn't affect you. My idea of cheating refutes that idea that it doesn't effect. Your argument is really ignorant if you base it off of if it affects people or not. "We are discussion for laws of marriages, not the families. I am very sorry if I worded it so you couldn't understand it." My Response: This was my opponents only attack on my contentions. You worded it fine. But apparently you didn't get my point. Marriage effects family, i.e. my first contentions. My 2nd contention deals with the slippery slope effect of gay marriage. Both points have gone un-refuted. Extend them for the remaining round. *Important, read thoroughly my points and contentions, because they definitely turn the round in my favor. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
There should be no laws in regards to gay marrige.

There is no reason why gay/lesbian people should not be legally allowed to marry. If they didn't get married they would still be doing things together. Allowing them to marry, would just allow them written commitment to each other allowing safer practices, meaning less STD's to spread using the logic, that gay/lesbians spread STD's quicker than strait people due to unsafe practices. There should also be no laws based on religeon. Just because gay people choose to be married does not mean you must be gay therefor it will not affect you at all. How do you stand against me, ignoring my bad grammer.
Media to the rescue of Common MAN...

Sorry for the delay in posting my argument. I surmise that you have taken the OJ Simpson case as a benchmark for refuting the importance of media in today's societies. You made a point that the media is not eligible to handle cases outside its domain of authority and it should leave this work to the police officers, judges, juries, or any elected official. But what if in a democratic society like the one we live in, some of us do not agree with the decisions of the ELIGIBLE PERSONS mentioned above. In such cases at least the media tries to involve the general public and asks them as to what they feel about the particular issue. I do not think that the media is getting biased. It presents you with both the sides of the coin and then leaves the interpretations upon us. If it favours the pro side then it will explain why it has takes that stand and at the same instance provides the con side also. As far as asking evidence for the number of cases where media's responsible behaviour outscored the times it behaved irresponsibly is in my opinion humanely impossible. I do not think it will be possible for you also. The numbers which we can remember might not be any more than what we can count on our fingers but its effect is for everybody to see. One can actually feel the media creeping upon the law and the judiciary by dragging them out of their comfort zones. With all due respect to the law and judiciary, my statement is in no manner undermining their role, its just that media acts as a check upon them. For individuals like us who in majority of the cases seldomly get to know the intricacies of the case, the media acts as a medium between us and the law. Its role is by no means confined to legal aspects. The media also acts as a guide for political affairs. It HELPS us framing an opinion regarding the various political parties. Just imagine how difficult it would be to elect a government without the aid of media. You might say that I am deviating from the original point of contention where we had talked only about the legal aspects. But I just mentioned this point to emphasize the diverse importance of media be it print or electronic. Thank You.
Media to the rescue of Common MAN...

1. Media can effect the outcome of judicial decisions 2. The media can err 3. Media can effect the outcome of judicial decisions incorrectly based on their own error "media has proved as an extended arm for the judicial system by providing their insight into the cases" Exactly the problem I have with the media. Reporters are not police officers, judges, juries, or any elected official. They have no business providing their insight and interpretation of a yet unresolved criminal case. It bears against the principles of fair trial and unbiased juries, just like I demonstrated with the OJ case. If the media strictly reported the facts, they would be able to objectively report/comment on criminal and judicial ongoings, but that is in no way the case. Media gets more and more biased by the day. I would like some/any evidence to your claim that the number of instances where the media has behaved irresponsibly doesn't measure up to instances where it has helped. I think general sentiment, as well as my own viewpoint goes against you here. "Media Coercion" The media doesn't NEED to persuade people anymore. People rely on media for the entirity of their knowledge of the outside world. It is our choice whether or not to agree with them, but we base our agreement on what we think is true. What the media reports is what people think is true. Thats the problem. The media reports opinions as if they were facts, leading people to believe that the info they are getting is objective. "Media expresses what the majority of us think" This is flat-out untrue. Foxnews openly reports the Republican side of almost every issue, yet only 25% of Americans identify themselves as Republican. What the media reports is a reflection of that network and those producers. Its not as if all of us phone in things we have seen/heard/believe and that is what comprises the news. Its a handful of reporters determining what stories they agree with and what can get ratings/sell papers. This all gets back to the central point. The media should not attempt to act as a branch of the judicial system, bringing criminals to justice etc. They are not qualified and often make mistakes. While it is helpful when they present the FACTS of a case, or make people aware that there maybe dangerous criminals in the area etc., leave the adjudication to our societally appointed judges and juries and stop instances of popularized villification (OJ). So, to more formally refute your resolution, media should leave their insight on the sidelines and let judges do their jobs because they have no qualified opinion on judicial matters and do not reflect public opinion, only further a dangerous, and often incorrect group mentality.
Media to the rescue of Common MAN...

1st of all thank you for participating in this debate. I gather that you have a problem in interpreting what my resolution actually is. What I am trying to say is that the media has proved as an extended arm for the judicial system by providing their insight into the cases. They not only provide the law with their insight but also voice the opinion of the general public. It acts as a medium between the public and the judiciary system. I for one do not find anything wrong if the media uses its powers and and try and take the matters in their own hands. The instance of OJ Simpson that you have mentioned above is really unfortunate. Even i condemn this sort of irresponsible behaviour by the media, but as the media is also comprised by certain individuals, it is bound to be erring on certain times. The number of instances where it has behaved irresponsibly or indulged in negative publicity is no way near the number of cases and instances where it has proved to be a boon for the public. " Also, media is inherently bad. Reporters and media sources, especially the ones most frequently viewed, rarely have any credential other than their ability to report things. We have these people trumpeting their INTERPRETATION of the facts at the otherwise unknowing public." Here again I differ from your viewpoint. From your argument it feels as if you are trying to say that the media imposes its opinions on the public. Agreed that the media has the lion's share of say in a number of instances but I do not feel that it has become that powerful that it can impose its opinions upon us. Also I do not think that the public is unknowing or ignorant anymore. If you still think that the public is unknowing then that is not the problem of the media. They do not force you to agree with them. Its our choice whether we agree with them or not. We must not forget that somewhere down the line media expresses what the majority of us think. So its almost like we cursing if our son goes astray. The media is our creation only. So before cursing the media we should be clear in our opinions. That would go a long way in solving a large chunk of our problems. Waiting for your argument.
Media to the rescue of Common MAN...

I'm not sure at all what your resolution is. From what I can gather, something to the effect of; media is good, it should do something, and that something should continue to be good. If I'm mistaken please let me know. I too would like a healthy debate. Anyway, your contention that the media is good, or in some way, stands for and produces justice etc. doesn't have a real-world corollary. I'm not claiming that the media hasn't had any positive effects. There are great stories, like the one you provided, of media coverage offering help to those in need etc. But, the flip side of that coin is the immediacy of media coverage leading to the unjust vilification of countless alleged, yet innocent criminals. For instance, OJ Simpson, whether you believe he was innocent or not, has had his life virtually ruined by the media. Despite being proved innocent in criminal court, the extensive and rather biased media coverage of OJ's trial and investigation has utterly convinced the overwhelming majority of the world that this man is a murderer, despite being PROVED otherwise under our justice system. Also, media is inherently bad. Reporters and media sources, especially the ones most frequently viewed, rarely have any credential other than their ability to report things. We have these people trumpeting their INTERPRETATION of the facts at the otherwise unknowing public. This is the worst example of 'group think', further empowering the dangers of unfounded popular opinion, as we witnessed with OJ. Modern day media has discouraged people from discovering and investigating facts and stories themselves, instead relying on someone else to summarize critical events (election coverage) into four word bullet points that rarely encapsulate the entirety or truth of the matter. I guess the key problem I have with your resolution/argument, is that very 'trust' you mention. Relying on media introduces a trust between the people and reporters. However, that trust is fragile and rarely fortified. The 'like it has done till now' aspect of your resolution is hardly accurate, as I have shown above, which is why this trust has not/does not work. Rather than relying on a cable news network to bring you their opinion on the stimulus package, read the bill. Again, if you could clarify your position I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks for the debate.
Media to the rescue of Common MAN...

I, for one, vehemently believe that media be it print or electronic is paving its way to be a pivotal force in today's society. The media is vested with powers on the trust that it will bring into light startling facts about todays society and making people aware of things taking place in the vicinity. It will be difficult for me to explain my point to someone who is not from India. Around 10 years ago there was a case regarding the brutal murder of a young girl called Jessica lall. The case was wrapped up with the murderers being released with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. The case remained etched in the memories of the family and the dust ridden files of the case being put away in a secluded corner. After almost a decade the media both print and electric dug those old files and brought the case to light again. Media alongwith public support made sure that justice was given and did not breath easy till it made sure that the guilty was given the punishment. This is just one of the many instances where the media has played the anchor in taking up almost forgotten cases and following them till they are solved. In this context I can remember a line from one of my favourite movies: Spiderman. WITH GREAT POWERS COMES GREATER RESPONSIBILITIES. So the media like it has done till now must tread carefully and use its powers in the most positive manner and channelize its forces in the right direction. Looking forward to a healthy argument.