BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
LGBTQA Rights

Thank you for promptly responding. I am in agreement with the concept that the LGBTQA community should not be denied any services, because that is a clear attack on their human rights. However, the lifestyle that the LGBTQA community chooses to persue is blatantly sinful, and wrong in the eyes of God. It is stated clearly in the Bible that homosexuality, and other deviations of sexuality, are sinful (Leviticus 18:22). The Bible is also very clear that no homosexual will enter into the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Bible is God's holy and perfect word, and that everything in the Bible is undoubtedly TRUE. God never intended for a man to lie with a man, or a woman with a woman; this behavior is detestable. The LGBTQA community exhibits behavior that has changed the way God intended this world to function. As I have expressed my personal views on this subject , I am extremely interested in knowing your personal views on the matter. What are your religious views on God, the Bible, and homosexuality?
LGBTQA Rights

All peoples are protected under the constitution regardless of religion, beliefs, and/or cultural and religious backgrounds. If a someone wishes to express their beliefs in a non-harmful and non-violent way they are allowed to do so, whether it be advocating a certain behaviour or expressing their distaste against a behaviour . However, emergency services, State and Federal Government, as well as all those holding government jobs, must treat all with fairness and equality. Proposition 1062 was very unconstitutional due to the fact that it not only allowed Government officials to discriminate against the LGBTQA community, but that it also allowed Police Officers, Firefighters, and Emergency Doctors to decline their services to members of the LGBTQA community. This could have been highly dangerous to members of this community as they will be unhelped in times of need. This law is a form of unequal segregation and would have brought much harm to the LGBTQA community.
LGBTQA Rights

Nicisflee: upon hearing about the bill vetoed in Arizona regarding the prejudice against members of the LGBTQA community, I decided to voice my opinion. As a black Jew, I am not unfamiliar with prejudice. I have been targeted in both the black and Jewish communities, never feeling like I belonged in either group. However, race and religion are two things you are born into - unlike those of the LGBTQA community. That, on the other hand, is a choice. Coming from a conservative background, I strongly believe that that lifestyle does not abide by God"s laws. What is your opinion on this matter?
LGBTQA Rights

I apologize for my confusing standpoint on religion, I will try to clarify it in the next few paragraphs. My specific Deistic belief is that God caused the initial event that creates the universe (Big bang or whatever happened). However, God begins the event in such a perfect way as to allow for man"s eventual existence. After the creation of the universe Natural Law takes the reigns and the universe becomes how we see it as today. After billions of years pass we see the emergence of basic life on earth. Evolution takes place and after another couple billion years the first humanoids walk the earth. God, proud of man, breaks man"s tie with Natural Law, giving him free will. Time passes and God sees that man misuses his free will. God, unhappy with the way man had lived, gives man guides on how to live his life so that all of mankind may live peacefully. God then let man make his own decisions so that man would be the one to seal his fate. It sounds a bit silly now that it"s typed out, but I guess that"s what I believe. Not really sure if that is deism. If it"s not ,then can someone point me to what belief this is most close to in the comments. As for picking and choosing parts of the Bible, I do so because I cannot believe that God would allow me to stone my wife to death or sell my daughter to slavery. I think that, although there is evidence showing the Bible has not been altered for a long time, things still were put in that was not according to God's will. There are also the scientific and historical errors that I mentioned before. I do believe in the immortality of a soul and the existence of heaven and hell. I was raised Christian, but I did not/ do not want to blindly believe things that don"t have any real proof besides one book. So I don't read the bible literally and take actual evidence as my account of the past. I don"t want to be an Atheist or Agnostic though, I like believing there is a God that cares for me instead of just nothing. I like believing that if I behave I will go to heaven and see my family happy. I guess I"m confused as to my religious standpoint because I don't really pay as much attention to it. I normally just study economics or politics and not religion. Anyway, thanks for showing an Interest in my beliefs. It"s been nice talking to you, you were really nice. I guess we did get off topic, but this was more fun than a full out debate. Good luck on any future debates you might have!
LGBTQA Rights

Hey man, thank you for clarifying your views on homosexuality. I now have a clear perception of where you stand. As for your discussion of the Bible, you make a good argument. Some of the examples given are a matter of interpretation. However, the Bible is filled with accounts and stories that are undoubtedly accurate. There are copies of manuscripts that show the Bible has been translated accurately. I will not get deeper into this because this is our last round and this topic alone needs a few more rounds. Instead, I would rather you clarify something else for me. Your opinions were not clear when I asked if you considered the Bible, which was written by men, but inspired by God, to be God's Holy Word? Or do you see it as a historical book with many contradictions? Here is where I am confused: You claim to be a Deist, from your profile, but throughout our debate you seem to contradict this. An example would be the fact that you quote the Bible; as a Christian would do to prove its validity. All your quotes about homosexuality and believing it is a sin come from the mind of God, which appears to be part of your belief system. As I go back to an earlier round and see all your Bible quotes, including the death of Jesus on the cross, it all seems extremely contrary to Deism. You either believe the Bible and the Judeo-Christian God, or believe Deism. It is because of the Bible that we know of God. Which means if you believe He is the one true God, as you claimed earlier, you learned this from the Bible. We cannot pick and choose what we like from this Holy Book. If we claim to believe the Bible then we must embrace all of it. Deist believe God created us, but then sort of left us alone. They believe there is no interaction with Him through prayer, for example. They do not believe in miracles, The Trinity, prophecies, and so much more! Deists deny the immortality of the soul and they live their lives depending on their reasoning. What would be the point then to even read His word as a guide? Why did you state that you, a proclaimed Deist, use the Bible, God's Holy Word, as a guideline for your life? Were you raised as a Deist or a Christian? I would greatly appreciate that being clarified as we finish out our debate. Bro, it has been a blast debating with you! Even though we have different views, you were never defensive or rude. You have expressed yourself intelligently and politely. Please be very clear in answering my questions in order for me to understand your personal views about Deism (not other Deists) since there are many belief systems when it comes to this religion. Thank you for your time and maybe we can do this again in the future!
LGBTQA Rights

Please allow me to share my reasoning to doubt the Bible's accuracy is the historical and scientific inconsistencies. Here are a few examples: (1) The Flood did not destroy civilizations that were around during the time it is estimated to have occurred (2500 BC). The Egyptians and the Chinese were still around. (2) The Bible says the earth is flat. Isaiah 11:12, Revelation 7:1, Job 38:13, Jeremiah 16:19, Daniel 4:11, Matthew 4:8 (3) Nazareth was not around during the first century AD. In the Book of Joshua (19:10-16) when it talks about the settling of the tribe of Zebulon if does not say anything about Nazareth, the Talmud does not speak of Nazareth even though it mentions 63 other Galilean towns, and no historian and/or geographer mentions Nazareth until the 4th century. (4) The Bible claims bats are birds (Leviticus 11:13-19) As for the Old Testament as a whole, I read it as a collection of proverbs that each teach a lesson (Genesis 37:1-36, Genesis 4:1-16, Judges 13-16) and it is good to follow most of these lessons and use them to help you in life, but because of reasons previously stated I do not take it as a literal account of history. I would also like to apologize for appearing to contradict myself. I would like to further explain how I can not approve of Homosexuality, yet still advocate for their right to marriage. My opinion on the homosexual marriage issue is that, although I do not 100% agree with a homosexuals actions, I will not deprive them of their right to do what they wish (as long as it does not cause harm to anyone). It is not the right of government to take away rights of one group in order to meet the wants of another. As Thomas Jefferson says in the Declaration of Independence "All men are created equal." As Frederic Bastiat expresses, it is not the place of Government to pick and choose who is allowed to have liberty, their job is to ensure liberty for all (http://bastiat.org...). I consider the right to marriage a right that we should all possess and that right should be expressed by all (as long as they want to get married). However, I also believe in the right to deny services (as long as it is not in a life threatening situation) and think people that find Homosexuality, among other things, detestable can express their opinion in a non-harmful way. "Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)." -Ayn Rand
LGBTQA Rights

Hey bro, thought you had given up on our debate! Thanks for continuing it, as I enjoy your arguments. You speak about homosexuality in the Old Testament (under Moses' law) and how the law was changed after Jesus' sacrifice. It is true that now we live by grace but homosexuality is still a sin condemned by God. I'm in agreement that the punishment given back then has been erased after the death of Jesus, but it' still an abomination before God(as we see in the New Testament too).We have no right to persecute homosexuals because Jesus forgave everyone "no matter what sin was committed. Like you quoted from the Bible "He will not cast anyone away." However, He did NOT forgive us so that we can continue sinning and going against God's principles. His grace is not a license to sin. Besides, we are only forgiven if we repent of our sins. Homosexuals don't believe they are sinning against God. As a matter of fact, they believe God made them that way and therefore don't see it as a sinful choice. You state that you believe in the Christian God and that you follow the Bible as a guide. Does this mean you believe the Bible is God's Holy Word? Do you believe God has given us this book to instruct us on how to live a life that honors Him?What is unclear to me, is that you state you use the Bible as a guideline for life and not a literal account of the past. What are your beliefs about the past (which I take it, you're referring to the Old Testament)? Does this mean that even though you read the Bible and use it as a guideline, you disregard the Old Testament? I would appreciate a clarification in order to understand your argument better. Also, can you please clarify how you state in your profile that you support gay marriage and yet wrote in your argument that people should not partake" in homosexuality? I'm confused with the contradiction since you can't support what you don't believe in. Thanks man! Looking forward to our next round!
The Big Bang had to have been started by a designer.

Never have I seen a fifteen year old (I assume you are) respond so efficiently. I would like to point out that my opponent is trying to think about the concept of "nothing" and "Ex Nihilo" too seriously. Both of these terms are self-explanatory. I find it a little silly that he is trying to explain a lot about "nothing. " If there ever was a time when nothing at all existed, then there would be absolutely nothing today. It is an axiomatic truth that if nothing exists, then “nothing” will be the case -always, for nothing simply remains nothing - forever! That is a very, very obvious thing to know. Nothing plus nothing equals nothing. "Nothing" and "something" are mutually exclusive terms. Since it is the case that something now exists, one must conclude from that basis, that something has always existed in the first place. This IS the proof. Visual proof cannot be given, nor proof via hearing, touching, smell, nor taste. Proof via logic and reasoning is what the pudding actually is. If you were to trace the origins of something over, and over, and over, there would be no end to it if there were NO intelligent designer. This would be an argument of giving something to be eternal yet again, which could also be used in an argument for a designer. However, The most reputable scientists in the world concede that “matter” is not eternal. In his book, Until the Sun Dies, Dr. Robert Jastrow, founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and himself a professed agnostic, describes his perception of the initial creation of the universe. He speaks of that moment when “the first particles of matter appear” (page 21 if you want to know) and prior to that moment, matter did not exist. Even IF you traced it up to the very "first Big Bang". (. http://en.wikipedia.org...)The belief that there have been multiple big bangs and universes is irrelevant. This would be just extending the process and origin tracing further. No matter how long our universe has been around, or other universes, there is a beginning. There is not one trace of evidence that the universe has existed forever. And the fact that it has a beginning with no existent of any form of matter beforehand, is proof of a general creator that started this process that eventually formed in into the universe and existent matter that we are familar with today. In logic, the “law of the excluded middle” states that a thing either is, or it is not. A line either is straight, or it is not straight. Same applies with matter. It is either here, or it isn't. There is no inbetween. If it isn't, then nothing will be of it, nothing will come from it, and it will forever remain that way (if you can even classify something nonexistent as "it. " This topic hurts me to think about! )This is my reasoning for a designer. My opponent cannot disprove a creator to me, as science is incapable of disproving the existence of anything. Science describes to us what is there and how the beauty of it works, not how it arrived here.
The Big Bang had to have been started by a designer.

I would like to start off by saying that the burden of proof is on both of us. This topic is something a schoolboy can ask and observe and is very commonly asked like the "What made God? " question. Let us look at the Big Bang theory and analyze it briefly:About 13.8 billion years ago, the universe was condensed into a hot, dense, small, state. It suddenly began rapidly expanding. After that first expansion, the universe cooled down to allow the formation of particles, atoms, and molecules so that it could begin to form what we know today as our present universe, filled with galaxies, stars, planets, and most possibly life. This theory is most definitely accepted within the scientific field. I myself accept it as origins of the universe as well, but only under strict conditions that it was created out of an intelligent mind. There are reasons that it must have come out of an intelligent mind. The ancient Greek philosopher, Parmenides (. http://en.wikipedia.org...), stated"Something cannot come from nothing, therefore nothing cannot exist. "It must be assumed at one point or another from this theory by all that before this condensed state of matter that there is either:A: Literally nothingB: This condensed state was eternal or has always been there. Both of these explanations lean towards the assumption that there has to be a creator. If there was nothing before the existence of this state of matter, then what could have set off something to have created this condensed jumble in the first place? If there is nothing present, there will always continue to be nothing. The term, "nothing" is a confusing one for us humans because we have never experienced what "nothing" is like. We are so used to being around existent materials, that our mind cannot comprehend nothing well enough to imagine it. However if there is nothing, then something cannot come from it as Parmenides has said. It is illogical to believe that the fundamental building blocks of everything we see, spawned out of no existence. For the second explanation, we must assume that if this condensed state has always been there, then a creator has always been there. When people ask me where God came from, I usually tell them that God is eternal and has always been there. If it is viewed as the first condensed state of matter to be the origion of the universe, and it is explained that it has always existed, then I make the same case for a creator. I cannot explain that creator or discuss the motives, but we must use logical reasoning and philosophy rather than looking for physical evidence in the discussion of the origin of the universe. We as humans appeal to our worldly senses of having to see, touch, hear, smell, or taste for evidence. But I say now, let us look at the plausible chances of there being no creator that has started the miracle of life and the universe. I do not make a case for any creator, I will say again, just the case for general intelligent design.
The Big Bang had to have been started by a designer.

Round one is for acceptance only. I will not be arguing for any specific creator such as the Abrahamic God. I will be taking a deist standpoint and argue that a general creator had to have induced the Big Bang, if it is indeed true as a scientific theory. We do not know what or who the creator is, all the argument is, is that an all powerful designer started everything. Thank you in advance!
gay marriage

I acceot the challenge presented by the con. Since there were no definitions or structure provided, I will provide my own.Gay Marriage: two same-sex couples being wed and married.My burden of proof will be that gay marriage should be allowed.My opposition's burden of proof will be that gay marriage should not be allowed.1st round: Acceptance2nd-4th round- Arguments and rebuttalsI ask that no new arguments be posted in the first round by either side, as it would be an advantage for me having unrefuted arguments on my side.I wish the opposition luck. If I am caught up in schoolwork, I will not post long arguments. If I am not, I will post medium-sized arguments. Let the debate commence!
gay marriage

Rebuttal 1: First, I would like to know where the poll was taken. It could have been taken in California known as the gay state. I could just as easy show you a poll surveyed in Texas that is the exact opposite. Rebuttal 2: Again, this is not surveying the whole population. Savanna may be a 9 year old girl that has non idea about the topic. James may be a hormonal 16 year old, willing to f**k anything in sight. You have no idea of knowing who votes in these polls. Rebuttal 3 : I will grant that. However, then why was it illegal?Name one person on God's green earth that thinks they are equal to everyone. The rich can pay their way out of a crime, yet, a middle class man has to work for it. Is that equal right? Rebuttal 4: This is like saying, we should make rape legal because it is goanna happen anyways. Rebuttal 5: Why not just fight to make civil unions equal to marriage? Rebuttal 6: http://www.nationalreview.com... http://dienekes.blogspot.com... I say we can fight this all day. However, your links seem more written by liberals, while mine actually are neutral on the subject. I say that makes mine a little more accurate. (Especially 10. That was very liberal.) Ladies and Gentleman. Gay marriage is a very serious issue. I ask, why not just make civil unions equal to marriage? That away, both liberals and conservatives are happy. Why does it have to be marriage? Civil unions can be upgraded giving them the same rights! Also, when you see the total cost of gay marriage, you will easily see it is not worth it. Our debt is about $17,500,000,000,000,00 (1) We can not afford to add anymore to the US debt. With gay marriage, we would add 1 trillion every 5 years to that debt. This would mean funding for education, military, and all the departments would have to be cut drastically to make gay marriage possible. Why just upgrade civil unions or let them live together? Even if you don't agree with conservative morals, you must believe in math and money. Thank you. 1. http://www.brillig.com...
gay marriage

Rebuttal 1:Well, they are now equall to all the straight singles and couple that arent married. You must also realize that many straight couples also are engaged in civil union. Why cant they just live together? Why can't they just get a civil union? Don't say it is not a basic human right. The most recent event is that european court has made gay mariage not a human right! (1) Also, you had a scientific error. No human has blue blood!1. http://www.christianvoice.org.uk...Rebuttal 2:Gay adoption is worse for kids. (Lets dive right into this shall we?)Rebuttal 3:Okay, we are gonna play the "that source isn't valid game." Fine. Lets go. CBS has been around since the start of TV. They are reliable. The have our news! Are you calling our world news incorrect? Also, how do we know your links aren't made by a liberal for gay marriage? Rebuttal 4: The catholic church and many other Christian religions use marriage as a rite. This is why they are against it Their faith (not mine, I am just for family values) says no to gays! This is basically defiling their religion, and as the ammendmant states, everyone has freedom of religion. Rebuttal 5:Here we go again. Another " this is just like the equall rights movements to end black discrimination" analogy. Dude, I am really disapointed. The blacks were being assalted, killed, raped, and stolen from, and no one did anything about it! Why the hell are you comparing the two! The blacks were straight. They served this country and earned their rights. However, whay will gays push for next?Rebuttal 6: I have so many sources, some that aren't religious backing me up. You have two. No contest.Case 1:Lets plug in the real numbers. On your basic family of 3 gays., it would cost 20, 684 dollars per year for one family. 3 people. This is yearly. Now, lets involve the numbers dtaylor himself gave to me himeslf=186,156,000,000 dollars. In 6 years, it would cost 1 trillion, yes, one trillion to this nation that is already trillions in debt!http://www.ask.com...Overall. Keep good ol family values. Save this debt ridden country money. Just let the gays live together and have civil unions