BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homosexuality Is Immoral!

First of all, please do not repeat your argument in your second post, I read your entire thesis. Second, in what case would you consider reprodutction to be the ONLY point of sex? Even the church in the past has admitted that pleasure sex is not immoral. If your argument is that all homosexual sex is done out of lust and desire, so what? If it's not considered immoral in one case, why should it be in the other? A standard remains that most homosexual people do not have a choice, hence Xq28, but if you deny its existance and hide behind religious propaganda, the fact still remains, why is lust the only reason you see to cause homosexuality? Have you ever considered that some men love each other? that they want to be with each other? that they WISH they could have children, but sadly due to their gender they cannot? That's what adoption is for... Some homosexual couples don't even practice any sexual intercourse, so if you're really going to the extent to call homosexual sex immoral, just title it that: make it: Homosexual sex is immoral, not homosexuality is immoral. If your reason behind your argument is that gay sex is done out of desire, what about homosexual relationships that DON'T practice it? why are THEY immoral? Stop repeating yourself and throwing pretentious statements around, please.
Homosexuality Is Immoral!

You start with fault, I do not say all heterosexual sex is done for reproduction, I said all heterosexual sex "ought" to be done for reproduction, for which I gave a lengthy argument which you have now finally tried to refute. As for calling me a pervert I think it speaks to your civility is a debate. Also I did not state the neo-cortical is used for lust, I said it is the most evolved part of the brain and as it evolves man becomes less barbaric. The argument was from evolution of which you have not tackled. You did not contend the rational grounding of lust, I can only believe you accepted it. I all ready showed to you how there is no proof behind Xq28 and how even scientists say it is only 30%, it does not make a person gay so much as feminine. The majority is due to nurture and gay people often can choose. I do believe that homosexuals think they are moral, I certainly know that many of them are very nice, healthy, men and women. However the fact of the matter is the rational grounding if lust is in reproduction (if you wish to disprove this you have to give a logically valid answer not simply tell me you despise me). They cannot naturally reproduce, therefore homosexuality is immoral. I do not mean to say to kill them, nor do I advocate not tolerating them. Treat them as everyone else, however under no circumstance can we endorse such a thing. This though is besides as my argument still stands very much valid. Ajab
Homosexuality Is Immoral!

Very well then. You claim that homosexuality is consequential to lust and that lust is an instinct rather than an emotion, you also claim that the only reason for starting a family is reproduction and that ALL heterosexual sex is done for that reason, rather than lust...I urge you now, to think of every single pervert out there (it might be you). Do you think that all the mass rapists in the past were simply: trying to reproduce? Your connection with the neo-cortical part of the brain when it has nothing to do with lust or sex, it is meant for sensory perception, motor commands, conscious thought, language... And what is your argument that homosexuals are only doing it for ,,lust' Why don't they simply grab women? why do they go for other men? A matter of choice? and if so, what seperates lust for men from lust for women. Please respond with a logical and not zealous argument. -benko
Homosexuality Is Immoral!

Nor the telegraph, nor the independent are proper scientific journals, their authenticity is doubtful. The supposed gay gene Xq28 (I do not think you knew that) makes a person feminine not gay. Being gay is to the dismay of scientists due to nurture. This all aside your wasting my time because you did not refute my argument. You gave a terrific rant, which shows your capriciousness as much as it does your idiocy. You have no evidence to make the analogy to African or dark colored people. You did not once more I say refute my argument, I hardly think you read it, much less understood it. Please withdraw and only continue if you can give an adequate reasoning, show a logical fallacy and give an argument. As soon as you make the claim that the gay gene exists, the onus shifts to you. Stick to showing my faults. If you want to conitnue in your next post: 1. Refute my argument, 2. Give proper evidence (from a scientific journal, or university research which has been accepted) for your claim. Ajab
Homosexuality Is Immoral!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://www.independent.co.uk... Your entire argument proves to be false... I have no words to express how much I despise you for uttering idiotic phrases like that. Saying: Homosexuality is immoral! Is like saying: Being born black is immoral! Please stop posting idiotic debate topics and read something that was written by people who KNOW what they're talking about.
Homosexuality Is Immoral!

I shall begin with this post; it is the opponent's duty to first refute the argument properly, and then to give a counter-argument. The opponent must do so in a condensed way so as not to exceed 3000 characters: this will allow better clarity. I lay the argument as such that we must first of all realize what is the difference between a sexual relation and a platonic relation: the answer is sex. Sex here means any activity which has a sexual motive: from hugging to engaging in coitus. For such feelings such as love, acceptance, trust, support are in a relationship of a mother and her offspring. So now that we have realized that the only proper, rational difference betwixt a platonic and a sexual relationship is the sex we may continue. Our second point asks us to consider that there is such a thing as lust. Lust here being the active desire to engage in sexual contact, be it betwixt homosexuals or heterosexuals. Now we shall try to find the rational grounding of lust: the first for those who believe in God would be that an infinitely just and good God would not endow humanity with lust unless there was a purpose: the only rational purpose of sex is reproduction, for God would only give humanity lust so it may continue its existence. This goes in perfectly with the evolutionary theory (the second way to look at it). From history we know (if you believe in evolution, if you do not then you must believe in Creationism or Intelligent Design which would justify the first part) that the brain has evolved. The latest edition is the neo-cortical part of the brain. Now in the simplest of words evolution ensures that we come from no system to a better one. Such is it that the qualities which are important we keep, those which arent we dispose. Also as the cortex seems to evolve, emotions seem to decrease. As we become more rational individuals we give less precedence to emotions. So why would we continue to have lust? If the rational grounding of lust is not in reproduction and in pleasure then why would evolution not make it redundant? It seems to have stayed coherent within us. The opponent would be wise not to mistake lust completely as an emotion: it is an instinct. And the instinct has its grounding in reproduction. Let us now begin to conclude. Simply that since the grounding is in reproduction then sex is only moral when done for reproduction and not for pleasure, making homosexuality immoral. The only justification for marriage is to make a family. If you look at it in a different less logical way even then you realize that sex makes a person barbaric, far from evolving a person it takes man and woman to their lowest points. The opponent is free to refute this claim and give a counter argument. If they do not refute this then it will stand and I should win. I beg those who will vote to free themselves from dogma and try to realize the rationale behind this. Ajab
Should Rohingyas be deported to Mayanmar

"Rohingyas are the Muslim community of Myanmar"- While about 1 to 1.3 million Rohingyas are projected to live in Myanmar. They are not exclusive to there as they are a culture. The Main problem with deporting with deporting Rohingyas to Myanmar is why they are fleeing from it in the first place. If you not aware the government of burma(myanmar) is currently cracking down on this culture which include extrajudicial killings and rapes. Not only the government but also Hindu Mobs are now combatting the Rohingyas. According to BBC, UN officials stated that the ultimate goal of this crackdown could be racial cleansing. The burmese government does not even grant them citizenship rights. Multiple Governments back the Rohingya in this Situation including the US and UN. These people are not illegal immigrants they are refugees fleeing persecution so you should not send them back to Myanmar so they will persecuted again. If you are from the US, this is practically a example of what brought the first colonists of the Plymouth Colony to America, persecution. It would be like telling the Plymouth Colonists that they had to go back to England and face arrest. However this is more then just arrests, the Rohingya Crisis has even been called "A Crime against Humanity".
Abortion should be legal

Abortion is not comparable to in-vitro fertilization as the point of in-vitro is to sustain life while the point of abortion is to eliminate life. When eggs are thrown out in in-vitro fertilization they most likely would not have become a child anyway, as an extremely small percentage of eggs actually become babies. Furthermore, in-vitro is usually used when the mother or father is infertile, thus meaning NONE of the eggs would have survived. In contrast, abortion is the killing of a fertilized zygote that most likely will be born as a baby and would have had a right to life. Abortion should be banned because it is murder. Also extend my argument about unethicality and it being against the doctor's hippocratic oath as my opponent has failed to respond to that in this round. For the aforementioned reasons I strongly urge a CON ballot. Thank you.
Abortion should be legal

During the first trimester the fetus cannot live outside the womb of the mother. It is attached by both the umbilical cord and the placenta. A majority of abortions occur during this three month time frame. Because the fetus cannot live outside the mother's womb it is not considered a seperate entitiy--it is dependent upon the mother and her health. If the mother is not in good health, then the baby is not being benefited. Some may believe that human life begins at conceptions, but what about the fertilized eggs that are used for in vitro fertilization? These eggs are not always used and are often just thrown away. These eggs are also human lives, but not many people consider this murder. If this is not considered murder, then how do people consider abortion to be murder?
Abortion should be legal

Women have the right to decide what they want to do with their bodies, no doctor has the ability to make that decision for a woman. A woman has the right to decide what is the best choice for her. Say a girl becomes pregnant at the age of 14, her body has not developed fully enough to the extent that she is ready for child birth. If she were to have a baby at this age, she--and the baby--may not survive the birthing process. In situations like this it is imperative to see that abortion may be the best solution, because it is in the best interest of the mother's health.
Abortion should be legal

Abortion should be banned because of a multitude of reasons: namely because it demeans the value of human life and is inherently against the medical code 1.) Abortion is against the hippocratic oath. The hippocratic oath is the traditional, ethical code of those of the medical profession. It states "I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion." Abortion inherently violates the oath of ethicality. 2.) Abortion demeans the value of human life Abortion is essentially murder. A death sentence is pronounced upon the unborn baby before it has a chance at life. It provides a method for someone to decide whether or not another human being has an opportunity to live. The taking of another's life clearly ought to be banned.
Abortion should be legal

Given my knowledge on abortion, if it is legal then it will benefit the mother. If abortion is legal then it will create a safe way for a mother to abort her baby and it will give the mother the ability to decide what she wants to do with her body. Abortion has been legal since the United States Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, on January 22, 1973, where women were given their personal rights to decide on what they would like to do to their bodies, which has led to safe ways to abort a mother's baby; therefore abortion should be legal, presumably, unless abortion brings harm to the mother.
Sola Scriptura is not Biblical

You are the one dumb enough to argue against my argument against sola scriptura with an argument against God's existence. How dumb is that on a scale of 1 to 10? Hmmm....20? You can't disprove God by attacking Biblical theology moron! What on earth does a man picking up sticks on the sabbath have to do with God's existence I don't know, especially since people knew about God before the Bible was written. Duh... I guess you don't believe you have a soul, even though science has proven consciousness can exist outside the body. Must be a sad, pessimistic life, is that why you lash out against religious folk so? You've got lots of lashing out to do cause religion isn't going anywhere. She's here to stay. Poor you... You put your trust in a science that can't give meaning to your life. Do you love anyone at all? Even yourself? I bet you can't prove love in a lab, but you know it exist. So does hate. Anyway, good luck....you'll need it.
Sola Scriptura is not Biblical

Play your little games with fellow weak minded kids. The burden of proof is NOT on me. I am not making the ridiculous claims. When it comes to leprechauns at the end of rainbows, if I said they existed, I would be the one who needed to prove it. No human can prove or disprove god anymore than they can prove or disprove leprechauns at the end of rainbows, we can only call these things statistical improbabilities, like a teapot orbiting andromeda galaxy, a statistical improbability. Denying evolution will not make your god anymore real. Listen to what you are saying. Slow down and listen. The world is so complex, there has to be a designer, there just has to be a creator of all the stars and galaxies, therefore jesus christ is my savior. We couldnt have just come from nothing, therefore the reason for everything believs in human sacrifice. There has to be an intelligent physicist who set gravity and the laws of physics in motion, therefore, the reason for everything ordered moses to have a man stoned for picking up sticks Numbers 15:32-36 I would say that your level of delusion is severe. I would recommend not breeding until you are cured. The ignorance and poison that is affecting you will only infect an innocent child, so just pull out or start kissing guys until you are smart enough to be a big kid :)
Sola Scriptura is not Biblical

Courage is NOT simply having convictions. True courage is withstanding an attack on those convictions. By limiting who can debate you, you are showing signs of instability when it comes to withstanding. However, the only thing I love more than my beautiful family, is being proven wrong :) What makes one type of scripture, or holy writings more valid than the others? Is it really logical and likely in your mind 100%, that with the thousands of different sects, thousands of different interpretations of each, you have the absolute certainty, that your sect, and interpretation of that sect and the holy book or writings it subscribes too, describes with pin point accuracy the right answers. Doesnt everyone with a religious view think they have the correct answer? This staggering fact, makes it painfully obvious that the probability of them ALL being incorrect, far outweighs the possibility, that among all the hair splitting interpretations for these writings, that there is a lottery winner with the correct answers :) It makes more sense to say, "I dont know the reason for everything and thats ok" I'm not young enough to know everything. However, I dont need to know everything to know the reason for everything isnt the smurfs. No need to know everything to know the reason for everything isnt the muppets or zeus, or osiris, or horus, romulos, or a god that promises virgins after death, or throws a temper tantrum flood and has an old man build an ark and cram the world in there instead of making two of each creature again to prove a point. The earth is a sphere, saying "thats just not how I see the earth, its flat", wont make the earth any more flat. The earth revolves around the sun. Saying, "thats not how I see the earths position, we are the center, the sun revolves around us" wont make the earth the center of the universe. Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen, saying "thats just not how I see water" wont change that fact. Evolution by natural selection explains the complexity of life in pure simplicity, by an extremely gradual process over 4 billion years, saying "thats just not how I see life" denying evolution wont make your god any more real. Even if you agree with evolution like all serious scientists, it is still illogical to claim that since everything is so complex, there must be a designer, there has to be a creator who started the process of evolution, and set the laws of physics in motion, and this creative physicist created the perfect gravity and circumstances for life, therefore jesus is my savior, or therefore allah is my savior, or whoever. Why is the definition of life that you possess any more valid than the thousands of other religious claims? Science may never have all the answers, however science will always win, not because it can answer all our questions, but because the good guys always win :) What do you think about the view that humanism represents? Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism, affirms our responsibility to lead ethical lives of value to self and humanity because we want to, that doesnt sound too difficult right? :)
Diabetes is preventable and curable.

The research paper doesn't involve dietary considerations in the analysis. Therefore, the analysis is faulty and biased. Note - Diabetes research facilities have to create false assumptions in order to get funding for their research to justify their huge budgets and expenditure on equipment and wages. Diabetes research foundations are a huge waste of time and money and cost the community billions of dollars. The cause and cure of diabetes is already known. The research facilities have to pretend that they don't know what the cause and cure for diabetes is. They proceed with arrogance and authority to quote complicated solutions which involve the use of drugs as a means of combating the chemical imbalances. They look for genetic mutations to justify their research. It is true that genetic mutations occur in all individuals but this is not the cause of any type of diabetes. Once you remove the sugar, grain and dairy from a person's diet, then, the diabetic symptoms will disappear. The question needs to asked - does the research facility take into account a person's diet in their analysis? Answer - Never. Research paper reference --- https://www.nature.com...
Diabetes is preventable and curable.

I have spent some time reading papers on what you have said, and it appears to be true. However, it does not appear to be the whole story, because there are other types of diabetes that happen without a leaky gut and are hereditary. For example, this year, a new type of diabetes has been identified, and it is caused by a mutation in the RFX6 gene - which in turn causes a reduction of the hormone GIP, and that hormone stimulates insuline production.If you want more information on that, it's on Medical Xpress, "New type of diabetes caused by a genetic mutation" Oct 12, 2017. It's a great website to stay up to date on medicine research.
Diabetes is preventable and curable.

Dr Mc Dougall's video explains clearly that leaky gut syndrome allows milk protein to enter the blood stream which is attacked by the body's immune system. The immune system then attacks any body part (panceas) that resembles a milk protein. Note - Cows milk proteins are very similar to human proteins. Thus, the immune system attacks the vital insulin producing organs which cause type 1 diabetes. Thus, I have clearly proven that type 1 diabetes is caused by a bad diet and is not a genetic problem. But, it should be noted, that some individuals will succumb to this condition very easily. This does not mean that it is a genetically based problem because, if that person didn't eat inappropriate foods in the first place, then, the condition would not have occurred. http://www.vegsource.com...
HINDI should not be used in India for its development.

Rebuttals I'll keep this short as my opponent clearly has no interest in this debate anymore. "We use the UK English text in most of the daily life and moreover English is regarded as the global language but still Hindi is our national language. Why?First off, lets define what a national language is before the rebuttals. National Language: A language that has a connection with a people and perhaps by extension the territory they occupy [1]. Given this definition, it is clear that Hindi has more right to be the national language than English does. This is because of the following reasons:41% of Indians speak Hindi while only 18% of Indians speak English [2,3] Due to this it would make more sense for Hindi to be the national language, because due to the fact that more people speak it it obviously has a larger connection with the people of India than English does. Hindi has a longer history within India. The history of Hindi in India dates back to the 1600's when the Mughals made it the national language [4]. English only dates back to when the English West India Company conquered/colonized the subcontinent. Due to the greater history that the language has with the Indian people, it clearly has a better connection to India than English does. Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...-[4] http://jmcentarfer.tripod.com...
HINDI should not be used in India for its development.

Hindi might be the official language or national language of India but my question is why Hindi when we use 90 % only English in almost all the various industries , companies, etc . W use the UK English text in most of the daily life and moreover English is regarded as the global language but still Hindi is our national language. Why? if you say that's because most states of India speak Hindi then I believe there are 10 times more people in India who speak English. now the world calls for universal advancement and development and not for revival of ancient history. So i strongly believe that Hindi should be replaced with English in India for the modernization if India.
Hell Debate: Demonstrating or Debunking the Biblical Concept of Eternal Torment

The debate is set up as follows: 4 rounds Round 1: Accept Challenge Round 2: Argument Round 3:Argument/Rebuttal Round 4: Rebuttal The Burdon of Proof is equal--the person with the most convincing evidence in their favor wins the debate. Biblical conception of Hell--(a.) Pro: an eternal place of fire and brimstone, physical torment and mental suffering; (b.) Con: an eternal place of where the dead go minus torment & suffering. Traditional conception of God--All-loving End of Time--Day of Judgment (Resurrection of the Flesh)