BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pre marital sex is not a sin

Fornication is always premarital sex. Fornicate: (Of two people not married to each other) have sexual intercourse. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...)Premarital: Occurring or existing before marriage (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...)The definition of premarital makes no assumption or assertion about whether or not the people involved are going to get married; just that what they are doing exists before any marriage bond. "You can have pre-marital sex, but once you have it with that person, you have to commit to them for the rest of your life unless the relationship is completely dissolved"Premarital sex is considered a sexual immorality, making it a sin in regards to the Bible. Technically, fornication would be illicit sexual intercourse in regards to the Bible because it breaks Old Testament law. What Paul is really saying is that they should marry rather than "burn with passion." He is not permitting the actions, just saying that people should get married before they have sex.Considering that the original sin in the Garden of Eden was disobeying God, and having sex with someone before getting married violates one of God's laws, marriage appears to be legally necessary if two people want to have sex without sinning. That being said, it appears the god and Mary had a very good (sexual) relationship according to the Bible, and they were not married. Is a marriage necessary for a healthy relationship in the Bible: not necessarily. Is marriage necessary to have a lawful sex life: absolutely.
Pre marital sex is not a sin

"But under the laws of scripture, if they are followed fully, is not the only way to have sex with multiple partners to do so outside of a marriage?" Not really, fornication is the act of having sex with multiple partners other than your spouse. A whore would be a great example of a fornicator. You can have pre-marital sex, but once you have it with that person, you have to commit to them for the rest of your life unless the relationship is completely dissolved. Porneia according to a Bible dictionary is defined as fornication being illicit sexual intercourse (1). Fornication is defined as "..an unconditional repudiation of all extra-marital and unnatural intercourse" (2). Pre-marital sex obviously doesn't fit in these categories. Lets examine the full context of 1 Cor. 7:1-9 "It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment. 7 For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that. 8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion." Paul is saying that it's good not to have sex with a woman, but if you are going to commit fornication, you should commit to the other person. Alright, if you can answer this one question consistent with biblical theology, you win the debate and plus, i will change my views: There was essentially no legalized marriage in the garden of Eden between Adam and Eve, so biblically, is legal marriage always necessary for a committed relationship? Sources: 1. [W. E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words] 2. [Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 6, pg. 590]
Pre marital sex is not a sin

But under the laws of scripture, if they are followed fully, is not the only way to have sex with multiple partners to do so outside of a marriage?Furthermore, sexual immorality is sinful in the Bible. 1 Corinthians 7:2---"But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband" (ESV). Clearly, pre-marital sex is considered a sexual immorality. (http://www.gotquestions.org...)Finally, "pornos" can also be translated as "a fornicator." A fornicator is someone who has sex outside of marriage. (http://biblehub.com...).
Pre marital sex is not a sin

Hebrews 13:4 "4 Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators [pornos] and adulterers God will judge." Pornos is a Greek word for prostitute (1). It doesn't imply that pre-marital sex isn't sinful. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral [pornos], nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." Once again, this doesn't show pre-marital sex is a sin, just that prostitution and having sex with multiple partners at once is a sin. Sources: 1. https://www.blueletterbible.org...
Pre marital sex is not a sin

Thank you for defining sin.Many passages in the Bible indictate that premarital sex, also known as fornication, is a sin.Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. (NIV Hebrews 13:4) Clearly, this is a judgement of all those who have sexually intercourse outside of marriage.Furthermore: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Clearly, this passage shows that fornication, among other things, is sinful.Jesus and the 10 Commandments are silent on many issues, this does not mean they are sinful/not sinful.
Pre marital sex is not a sin

Sin is a violation of God's commands whether in the old testament or new First, there are no Scriptures saying that premarital sex is a sin. Exodus 22:16 - 17, "If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay the bride-price for her, and she will be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins." In ancient cultures, the issue centered around the dowry price, not pre-marital sex. Deuteronomy 22:28 "If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl"s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days." Once again, it's obvious that if they must pay a dowry that premarital sex cannot be a sin. The 10 commandments are silent on the issue. Jesus also never cites one verse which outright says it's a sin. These verses are more than enough to show that pre-marital sex is not a sin.
RESOLVED, The United States should abandon the current tax system and adopt a flat tax rate of 10%

I would say that this is at 10%, not some lower number, as it would cause a slower collapse. It would give people time to start adjusting to a life in anarchy. The alternative my opponent presents, that, "The US government should start deficit spending and giving the money to the poor and abolishing all taxes until the collapse.", is not an optimal way to achieve country wide anarchy. In the resolution I don't specify the federal government as an actor, I say only that the united states should adopt this system and so include the state governments as the ones collapsing and all government subsets. My opponents alternative leaves state governments around and many other institutions to govern our lives as he specifies the United States government AKA the federal government. Remember, this is the last speech I can give so it's unfair if he tries to make a new alternative in his next speech. On this point that I would simply give them enough tax dollars to fund a military and give them time to figure out a way to oppress the masses again. 1) My opponent earlier in the round, "Finally I think it's most important to note the problem I alluded to earlier... the US would go bankrupt. A 10% tax rate is so low that it would cause the government to seize, we'd have to close all the schools, fire all the teachers, close down a lot of the police stations, give up on all the wars and stop all the projects (this would happen automatically with the complete lack of money) and the sudden surge in unemployment due to the largest US employer going under would cause the rest of the economy to seize back up." Oh and also my points where I responded to this are no longer applicable to quote as I kicked them earlier and admitted it was wrong and so they are not valid points while my opponent never said his earlier points were wrong. Therefore since he cannot take new action in his next speech don't let him try and get rid of his case. So according to your own logic we can't survive or have wars or a military on this budget. 2) Setting a flat tax rate lulls the government into think that they'll survive somehow. Instead of outright no taxes they are still getting enough that they don't panic and say OMG why are there no taxes? whats up with the anarchy? My plan leads to a slow decline over a few years or so, which prevents them from panicking and trying to enforce their law on the world. Finally the way I achieve anarchy is a peaceful way. Violence does not solve for the greater violence of the state. I am causing the government to collapse through cutting away the funding rather that outright enforced transition to anarchy. So as the agreed upon standard for the round has become maximizing anarchy, remember this when you vote: My opponent gave me the warrant to say that the government would collapse and they could not retain the power to be abusive and would collapse, and I gave you warrants myself before why anarchy is optimal. The way to vote is clear. Thanks for the man, good round.
RESOLVED, The United States should abandon the current tax system and adopt a flat tax rate of 10%

"This resolution will cause the collapse of the US government I agree completely. Don't let him go back on that. The US government collapsing would result in anarchy which is preferable to having a government." However, with a 2.3 trillion dollar deficit it might be possible for the US government to continue to oppress the workers for a months up to several years. In that case, this resolution should be negated on the grounds that 10% flat tax doesn't cause the government to die quickly enough. If anarchy is a good thing, which is now the thrust of your argument, a 10% tax is a very non-optimal path to this goal. The US government should start deficit spending and giving the money to the poor and abolishing all taxes until the collapse. Conceding for the sake of arguments than anarchy is good, this is still a terrible suggestion because it simply wounds the government and perhaps would render enough tax dollars to fund the military and keep a dictatorship with that amount of money. Rather than a resolution to a quick conversion to an anarchy government, this resolution gives the government enough time to figure out a way to oppress the masses again.
RESOLVED, The United States should abandon the current tax system and adopt a flat tax rate of 10%

http://www.youtube.com... A flat rate of 10% would cause the United States to go bankrupt within a year. If you're going to go with simple rules why not get rid of them all. The US would still go bankrupt and no taxes for anybody! Yippee! I don't know if you've ever filed your taxes but it's pretty straight forward. You enter the numbers in the computer and it spits out what you owe or are due. The rich aren't concerned with such things. They want more money and getting a little dodgy with their taxes gets them more money. Swiss bank accounts and hidden funds will still save you thousands of dollars. And it's probably a good investment to store money in other places because, as I've mentioned before, the US is going belly up. Further, as all the government employees can't get paid and unemployment skyrockets the economy is going to grind to a halt. I'm not sure what kind of bizarre logic leads one to such conclusions, if you give somebody a million dollars they are going to stop wanting more money. Further, I'm quite annoyed by the constant claims by flat tax proponents that lowering the tax rate increases revenues when the only thing that increased the revenues in was the economic booms that were unrelated. For example, Clinton raised taxes on the rich, and the following economic boom raised revenues dramatically. It was the only time in the last 30 years or so that the federal budget was in surplus. Lastly, as is many companies don't pay taxes. They play loose with the accounting and avoid paying any taxes. Now, you want it both ways though. You want to say that Estonia has attracted businesses by attracting shell companies of US businesses, and that the US will do the same by lower taxes. No the US already has the businesses and we just need to actually tax them properly and fix the loopholes and such. -- Finally I think it's most important to note the problem I alluded to earlier... the US would go bankrupt. A 10% tax rate is so low that it would cause the government to seize, we'd have to close all the schools, fire all the teachers, close down a lot of the police stations, give up on all the wars and stop all the projects (this would happen automatically with the complete lack of money) and the sudden surge in unemployment due to the largest US employer going under would cause the rest of the economy to seize back up. Many corporations at present are funneling all their money around and avoiding paying any taxes, they are still going belly up. You can't reduce a 0% tax rate for the cheats. And because their due isn't the standard "flat rate" 35% they are going to suddenly pay the ten percent and do what, pay more taxes and still go bankrupt or keep cheating and still go bankrupt. 10% just isn't enough to keep the US government alive, even if we cut all the vital services.
The Offspring is a more influential band to punk rock than Blink 182

This box is a blurb of irrelevance intended for my opponent [[Thank you very much for the music suggestions, however I already listen to those bands. :) - I look forward to discussing music with you after this debate, if you're interested]] As I stated, Blink 182 took more of the concepts of the Descendants and Bad Religion - not really the general idea. They took the Descendants and Bad Religion and toned it down - matching it to a maturity level they thought people would easier relate to. Though not everyone might be able to sympathize with a authoritarian government, pretty much everyone, at some point in their life has considered their parent a dictator which is why they are relate able. They take these big concepts and make them easier to digest for younger people, so that at a later point they will (hopefully) be able to grasp the full scope of the concept. Though my opponent may believe that Blink - 182's influence to the pop - punk scene is irrelevant, I must disagree, after all it is a part of punk. Though it has gained in popularity, punk is not as "listener" friendly as some other genres and some listeners and parents of younger listeners need to take a different approach to the genre. That's where the pop - punk scene comes in. For those who are not ready for Blink - 182 or want to start off with bands with simpler instrumentation, the pop - punk scene is a better fit. With Blink - 182's influence they have helped to mold the punk genre and its sub genres. Though the resolution states Punk, pop - punk is a part of punk and therefore I believe it is relevant to this debate. As I illustrated in my constructive, "Enema of The State" went on to sell 15 million copies making it one of the biggest punk acts of all time. Not to mention, the Offspring did veer from their Punk Rock ways with "Pretty Fly For A White Guy" which in the opening line they steal from Def Leppard with the quasi - german, "gunter glieben etc."
The Offspring is a more influential band to punk rock than Blink 182

<"They took the ideas of the Descendants and Bad Religion and boiled them down to suit a pop - punk culture. As a result they have helped form the genre and thus paved the way for bands like Fall Out Boy (which I do not condone) as well as Paramore and the various bands signed with Fueled By Ramen Records. "> I very much disagree with the above point written by my opponent. Firstly, regarding the inclusion of Bad Religion: they're political and serious (for the most part), with their lyrics; they involve a heavier and more extensive vocabulary than your typical punk rock band, and use much more figurative language. Blink-182 seem to be the opposite: their lyrics typically deal with frivolities, teen angst, etc. .. things which are cliched in the pop-punk genre. Their ideas seem to be opposites, if anything. Secondly, I think there's a distinction to be made between pop-punk and punk rock; they're not the same thing. While Blink-182 could be more influential to the pop-punk scene, that's irrelevant, because the debate is about who was more influential to the genre of punk rock -- not pop-punk. So essentially, I believe the above quote written by my opponent to be irrelevant to this debate. Pop-punk is simply a derivative of the punk-rock genre, which means they're related -- but they aren't the same thing, which is important to remember. As far as raw punk rock music goes, the Offspring, as stated, with their album "Smash" helped to revive punk rock in the early 90's. Blink-182 have made no such contributions to the genre of punk rock. My initial argument still stands. I look forward to my opponents rebuttal. P. S: if you're interested in punk rock music, try out these bands: the Dead Kennedys, the Damned, Guttermouth, and Agent Orange. That's completely irrelevant to the debate -- but I figure if you like punk rock music, then you'll like those bands.
The Offspring is a more influential band to punk rock than Blink 182

I believe that Blink 182 is a more influential band to punk rock than the offspring for multiple reasons. First and foremost, Blink 182 never really matured. They got older, they changed their hair styles but they still refused to take themselves seriously which definitely shone through in their music. They took the ideas of the Descendants and Bad Religion and boiled them down to suit a pop - punk culture. As a result they have helped form the genre and thus paved the way for bands like Fall Out Boy (which I do not condone) as well as Paramore and the various bands signed with Fueled By Ramen Records. They also used their fame to promote bands such as Jimmy Eat World, Motion City Soundtrack, Taking Back Sunday, The Academy Is. .. , and New Found Glory - amongst others. www. absolutepunk. net When Blink released "Dude Ranch" in '97, the success of "Dammit' and "Josie" helped to sell about a million copies of the album. In addition, when they released "Enema of The State" it went on to sell 15 million copies making them one of the biggest punk acts of all time. www. blink182. com/discography
The Offspring is a more influential band to punk rock than Blink 182

I suppose the reason why I think the Offspring have had more influence than Blink-182 can be traced back to 1994 -- the Offspring released the album "Smash" via the independent punk rock record label "Epitaph. " Not only has this album gone six times platinum according to Rolling Stone magazine* -- but, along with the Green Day album "Dookie," and the Rancid album . .. "And Out Come the Wolves," Smash helped to revive the punk rock scene. Smash is also the highest selling album ever to be released from an independent label. * To put it simply, punk rock music owes a significant "thanks" to the Offspring and "Smash" for taking it off life support, and kick-starting its heart. Blink-182 have made no such contributions to the punk rock genre. * = . http://www.rollingstone.com...
Knowledge has inherent value

Inherent: existing in something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute [1] Value: relative worth, merit, or importance [2] Knowledge: acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation [3] (Namely, possessing data which a person cannot reasonably doubt, pertaining to some ``reality`` whatever the nature of that might be. ) I look forward to an interesting debate. Works Cited [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] . http://dictionary.reference.com...
Knowledge has inherent value

I will assume that my opponent concedes my arguments as there have been no rebuttals offered. The point that some knowledge is useless will be addressed in a few ways. Using my opponent's example of Viagra, assuming it is a genuine ad (because otherwise it would not be knowledge) than perhaps it has no utility at this time, but there is nothing to say it will not at a later date. On the other hand, suppose you are not male, well I imagine the people sending you the e-mails are making money off of it. In other words, they have just presented you with a job opportunity. This seems farfetched but I return to my second point that if you know how to utilize something than it has utility. Even the fact that there are a superfluous number of e-mails helps one realize their e-mail defences are too weak against spam, or that the Viagra industry is highly active and would offer a good job. This is also taking into consideration that utility isn't even part of the accepted definition of value, this is only a comment on the internal inconsistencies of the analogy and argument. As for the example of the minute details of a Russian's life, this might be the difference between a good passage in a Nobel Prize winning book and an offensive piece of Cold War propaganda. One might say that if a person is not writing a novel about Russia than what difference does it make? The point is that a person could write a novel about Russia now and do a better job of it. If every bit of knowledge offers nothing else (and I have shown without rebuttal that it offers much else) it offers opportunity. My opponent's argument seems to rely on the idea that "everyday utility" is the same thing as value, but nowhere in the definition that both debaters have accepted are the words "everyday" or "utility" present. Let conclude let us break down what I have said as a simple response: "1. Only relevant knowledge has value (common knowledge)" R1. Any knowledge can be made to be relevant R2. Nothing in the agreed upon definition of value requires "relevance" per se "2. There is more irrelevant knowledge than relevant knowledge (common knowledge) 3. Knowledge on the whole is irrelevant (deduction) 4. Knowledge on the whole has no value (transitive)" R1. Fallacy of composition the characteristics of the parts are not necessarily the characteristics of the whole. Even if it were true that: irrelevant knowledge exists, there is more of it than relevant knowledge, and the irrelevant knowledge does not have value, none of this this would deductively guarantee that knowledge on the whole is irrelevant and by extension without inherent value.