BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Biblical Reason Against Homosexuality

Good morning and thank you for a response. This is true what you have said about Genesis but it can only be applied to the heterosexuals. This is further supported by the fact that Celibacy is a gift and not a mandate. Matthew 19:9-12 1 Corinthians 7 because a homosexual cannot be in a relationship with the opposite sex the Christian is left with two pathways. The first is that the Bible contradicts itself and the second is that homosexuality is not a sin even if it is simply by concession as seen with the divorce laws of the OT. I repeat point number 6 in my first post: Paul condemns same-sex lust, Not love. Like other ancient writers, Paul described the same-sex behaviour as the result of an excessive sexual desire on the part of people who could be content with opposite-sex relationships (Romans 1:26-27). He doesn't have long-term, Loving same-sex relationships in view. And while he describes the same-sex behaviour as "unnatural, " he also says men having long hair goes against nature (1 Corinthians 11:14), And most Christians read that as a reference to cultural conventions. Paul makes no mention of a relationship that had love, Commitment and faithfulness as God intended. Paul's condemnation us solely based on a burst of excess and lust. In the Ancient world, Same-sex behaviour occurred mainly between men and adolescent boys, Between masters and slaves or with prostitutes. Most of the men of who practice this were married to women and thus the cultural norm was that same-sex behaviour stemmed from lust that was out of control and vices like drunkenness. Okay, So I addressed the Paul arguments which means that I will argue that this is part of the Jewish Ceremonial law just like wearing two different fabrics and planting different crops side by side. However just remember when you are using Paul who argues that homosexuality is unnatural just remember that he also said that for men to wear their hair long is unnatural a practice common at the time. However, I will expound on 1Timothy 1:9-10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10 While Paul did refer to homosexuality. The world in which he lived in did not define homosexuality as we do in today/s world as I have mentioned above. His Homosexuality was based on lust and excessive vices, Not the God-ordained view of marriage that includes monogamy, Commitment and so forth. Finally, I wouldn't take Paul's babblings as law whether it's on homosexuality or the role of women in the leadership of the Church. I leave with the words of Matthew Vines a Christian and a homosexual who I have learned a lot from including almost all of the arguments I used for this debate. He says: "The Bible never addresses the isseus of sexual orientation or same-sex marriage. So there is no reason why faithful Christians their gay brothers and sisters. It's time! " Blessings.
A God Exist

The fact of the matter is that starts just look like little dots in the sky, so finding that they have significance isn't exactly obvious.Now, you see, you now aren't even defending your resolution. You are now arguing that stars, because people worship them, mean a god "is the only logical explination". There are definitly reasons out there why these cultures studied the stars; their ignorance of the world, to rise up in power (explination = authority), or maybe just to get people to continue obeying. In this entire debate you did not make it clear that the existance of a god is the "only logical explination."I assume the moon landing was a hoax as well?I can ask my Dad if the moon landing happened, and he would say "probably". There is dispute with the moon landing, yes, but it really doesn't matter in the context of this debate.If they spent the time and energy to bury their dead, what did it mean, if it didn't mean they had some sort of faith?Maybe they didn't want the stench around? Or maybe they needed a place to hide bodies. There are other explinations than "god".It's always a possibility.why you dismiss the possibility of...I'm not dismissing any possiblity. I'm just telling you it is not what we are debating. We are debating whether or not a god does exist. Not if he might.Like recovering from an incurable dieses with no explanation other than "faith".Actually, I wanted cited works. But this claim is alright, I suppose. People who have faith have a large desire outside of their faith to get better, and attitude is half of medicine, I hear!If a god doesn't exist, then why have people been practicing religious belief for the entire existence of mankind?"Their ignorance of the world, to rise up in power (explination = authority), or maybe just to get people to continue obeying." As stated earlier.Who where people such as Jesus, Muhammad, Prince Siddhartha, and every other "religious" figure? Their is dispute whether or not any of those people existed. And even if they did exist, they represented all different beliefs. But for the most part, they were just people trying to invoke change on society. They could have had no ties to any god(s) at all. Again, has little to nothing to do with our debate.CONCLUSION Seeing as my opponent has not defended the resolution "A god exists.", but rather "A god might exist.", and has also been unable to undermine even one of my poor logician conclusions about any god(s), I must urge a vote to CON.Also, I'm a christian, lolz.
A God Exist

Rebuttal Con tries to disprove the point about individual civilizations discovering astronomical significance by saying, its bad logic, and they are looking at the same thing. The fact of the matter is that starts just look like little dots in the sky, so finding that they have significance isn't exactly obvious. Most civilizations did recognize that the sun and moon where significant, but those where in your face and obvious. "This demonstrates a lot of different things. You are rushing to one of the possible conclusions. This also shouldn't be counted for real evidence, because there is large dispute if Neanderthals even existed. Everything posted until my next attack doesn't have anything to do with this argument, and is in fact are strawmen." I assume the moon landing was a hoax as well? If they spent the time and energy to bury their dead, what did it mean, if it didn't mean they had some sort of faith? "Some historians believe ... were visited my extraterrestrials" It's always a possibility. If some big unworldly thing approached you what would you think it was? "Just because Galileo said gravity exist" Yes, Galileo said gravity exists, Newton "discovered" it, but Galileo used it to prove things such as the Earth orbiting the sun. "The rest of Con's arguments are that God must be everything or nothing, which he fails to prove." I still do not understand why you dismiss the possibility of multiple gods. Strict monotheism is a very "western" idea. "Even today, people have been noticed for doing inhuman, incredible things." "Natural events happen all the time and we have not explanation for them because they have not logical explanation, and break every law of physics and science." Like recovering from an incurable dieses with no explanation other than "faith". If a god doesn't exist, then why have people been practicing religious belief for the entire existence of mankind? Who where people such as Jesus, Muhammad, Prince Siddhartha, and every other "religious" figure? I have no extended arguments other than these last few questions.
A God Exist

As I said before, I'm not taking this seriously because your resolution and rules are rediculous. You have to "prove" a god exists, and I have to "prove" no god exists. This is obviously going to end up with us spinning around in circles. "It is not significant that the Maya or Egyptians studied the stars; it is significant that every civilization did and, for the most part, came up with the same solution in isolation. "I fail to see my opponents point here. If I were to organize a dodecagon shaped room, separate the twelve sides so they couldn't see eachother but could view the center room, placed a series of numbers in the center, and told each of them to come up with as many conclusions as possible, almost all of their standard conclusions would agree, with the exception of specific answers based on speculation. My oponent has deemed specific answers like this as "not signifigant". But those conclusions are signifigant, for if they don't match you cannot build up those speculations and call for their origins as evidence. Therefore, that whole video (which I did sit through, and trust me, its rubbish. ) really hasn't made it any more likely that there is a god, it just simply stated information about the stars and how ancient civilizations knew about it. "how it is possible that each of the civilizations came up with the same cycle and the same conclusions? "This is like saying "How can people looking at the same thing come up with the same conclusions? Obviously a god must exist. " This is just bad logic. Moving on. .. "even the Neanderthal buried their dead, which demonstrates the belief in a life after death. "This demonstrates a lot of different things. You are rushing to one of the possible conclusions. This also shouldn't be counted for real evidence, because there is large dispute if Neanderthals even existed. Everything posted until my next attack doesn't have anything to do with this argument, and is in fact are strawmen. "Some historians believe . .. were visited my extraterrestrials"I don't believe in Unicorns or the Flying spaghetti monster, but some people do. This does nothing to help us arrive at either of our resolutions. "Even today, people have been noticed for doing inhuman, incredible things. " "Natural events happen all the time and we have not explanation for them because they have not logical explanation, and break every law of physics and science. "Like. .. ? "Just because Galileo said gravity exist"Just thought my lovely voters should read this. "The rest of Con's arguments are that God must be everything or nothing, which he fails to prove. "First off, you didn't even directly adress my arguments; you just wrote this. And I did prove it, through spitty logic work that can easily be ripped apart by most of the voters that read this. You have failed to defend (or even barely adress) the resolution you are trying to defend.
A God Exist

This is not semantics and it is Con's responsibility to make a valid and good argument in order to receive points. If I do not address one of Con's points in a rebuttal, I (or Con) do not lose by "default". Whoever has the better argument will be given the most points; no BS due to literal definitions or technicality, failure to accept this is ignorance on your part. With that clarified, I will make my first point. In order to prove existence of a God, one must understand the "god" is and where/what it came from. Where did the idea of god come from? Why are so many people acknowledging something that is, as far as actual evidence goes, is just an idea? If god was in fact a man-made idea, why was it created? Many historians believe that early civilizations created the idea of "god" to explain the supernatural. With closer inspection, however, they soon realized the idols of their faith, such as rams and bulls, actually refer to constellations, and not pagan symbols. Any ancient civilizations placed great importance on astronomy and observation of the stars; they even dedicated temples and buildings, such as the Great Pyramid of Giza, to astronomical significance. The Maya predicted major events that would happen on earth based on astronomical observation. The question is; why is this significant? What encouraged these ancient civilizations to carefully study the movement of the stars? Not until recently, have people related places outside our Earth, to the home on the gods. Ancient civilizations "worshiped the stars", and actually benefited from it. They believed the stars where the home on the gods, and by carful analysis and study, they could interpret what the gods wanted, and my pleasing them, they were successful (in most cases agriculturally). Most religions believed that worshiping the "god", what or whoever it may be, will lead to personal benefit. In the case of the Maya worshiping the stars, they actually benefited, and I the sense of their religion, they had been successful because they had pleased the gods. How do you explain worship and result? The only logical explanation is that an outside force, such as a "god", has been pleased and was able to help you. I will make the rest of my points, along with my rebuttal, next round. http://www.youtube.com...
A God Exist

I will accept this. I'm not going to take it all that seriously, seeing as my opponent's resolution is rediculous.Prove - Demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) http://www.google.com...Since my opponent has stated he needs to 'prove' there is a god, he must make it impossible for me to arrive at a logical standpoint to where a godless existance is possible. If he fails to do this, he will not have succeeded, and no points should be awarded.I, however, need to simply dismantle and abolish all claims that my opponent makes. I am not neccessarily required to assert that no god exists, seeing as we do not by default understand that a god exists, or at least no studies have recognized such ability.Good luck to you, Pro!
A God Exist

Pro will have to prove that there is a god an existence Con will have to prove there is no a god in existence Terms: God: (not of any specific religion) A supreme force over human beings Exist: to have actual being; be (can include dead, currently alive, or yet to come) Because there is no "actual" prof for either sides, this debate will be mainly theological less than scientific and evident Try to stay away from specific gods described by religious organizations (ie: the God of Christianity) Personal opinions welcome, but will not be recognized as actual "evidence" First round is to clarify any questions and acceptance only
Democracy and peace

Let me clarify that I do believe that FARC members should be punished for their war crimes, but I just don't think its realistic. This war has been going on for awhile now, many people have died, attacks increased in intensity, and life under FARC was, to put it bluntly, "Hell on Earth". But I just don't think that a peace deal where the rebels would be punished fairly is realistic as they most likely wouldn't accept it. President Juan Manuel Santos saw an opportunity to end a war that has been going on since the 60's and he acted upon it. While the sentences are light I can't think of any other option that wouldn't result in the government, or rebels walking away from the table. In conclusion, while it isn't that sweet poetic justice that we all crave, but rarely happens in the real world, the deal ended a conflict that has been going on for nearly 60 years, and if the terms of this deal were any harsher a peace wouldn't have been made. https://www.nytimes.com... https://www.npr.org...
isam is the only way to heaven

http://www.sciencedaily.com... iron came from stars God said in Quran:"we sent it down" http://quran.com... --------------------------- http://quran.com... quran said that montains move . --------------------------- bible found in turkey and video http://english.alarabiya.net... video of that bible http://www.youtube.com... --------------------------- i have more http://anti-brainwash.overblog.com...
isam is the only way to heaven

The affirmative gives a quote, which seems to be from the Quran:And whoever desires other than Islam as religion - never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.Translated:Quran says there is a heaven and Islam is the only way to it. Thereby Islam is the only way to heaven.This assumes that the Quran is right. No evidence has been provided for that. Therefore so far there is no evidence in support of the motion.
Men are the leader of home

I will be arguing for the proposition, "Men are better suited to be the leader of the home." My opponent states that men have traditionally "been expected to be the leader of a household due to the fact that they are often the primary breadwinner," but I dispute the accuracy of this claim. It is my claim that men have been expected to lead the household, and that in fact men typically should lead the household, not solely or even primarily because of innate economic potential but because they are naturally better suited for that role than are women. What reasons are there for supposing that men are naturally better suited for a position of home leadership than women? First, because men are biologically incapable of becoming pregnant, they are naturally less physically vulnerable than women. Furthermore, the average man is larger and stronger than the average woman. Fatherless homes, therefore, are much more physically vulnerable than homes with fathers, and in homes with both a mother and father, the father will tend to naturally assume the role of defender of the household, because he will, on average, be better suited for it. And naturally assuming that role is assuming a leadership role regarding the household. Second, because men are better suited for role of protector (as argued above), men are naturally in a position of having to objectively evaluate the significance of a threat. Because of this, men are naturally in a leadership role when determining whether some person or situation is potentially dangerous and are more likely to be objective and reasonable in their evaluation of the matter since they are expected to handle any possible problems. Third, because men are biologically incapable of becoming pregnant, they are better able to work sufficient hours and commit to careers that will allow them to rise economically. Men are thus naturally better situated for leading a family economically, even if their skill at earning money is exactly equal to the skill of women at earning money. Fourth, because women bear and birth children, they have a unique relationship with their children. This unique relationship makes them especially concerned with the welfare of their child and especially in love with their child. Consequently, the mother is naturally better suited for daily care of the children than is the father. For this additional reason, men are better suited for careers than are women. Fifth, since men are better suited for careers, they will tend to be the sole or primary source of income. This being the case, it is natural for men to lead in financial decisions since they are actively involved in acquiring the money. So men are naturally better suited for physical and economic leadership in the home as well as decision making leadership regarding security and finances.
Books are essential for life.

Sure, books are filled with imagination, but how you worded it makes it sound like you're trying to encourage a child to read. I'm extremely offended that you would try and pull that on me. I would agree with the nuclear war example, but it's a what if question, basically. What if's do nothing to enhance the argument, or to have a better understanding of the argument, they just prolong the argument. However, if that does happen, you have a point, assuming the radiation doesn't get to you yet. Also, that last sentence with the nuclear war example, you make it sound like the world would fall into something along the lines of the Fallout games. Finally, just because there are some that work better without technology, that doesn't mean much outside of that. That some, is just the some.
Books are essential for life.

Books are needed. They open a world of possibilities, they can transport you anywhere. A book is practically a time machine. Okay, I know this never might happen, but say we go into nuclear war, which is a very big possibility. There isn't going to be any WiFi to look up what to do. No phones will help us then, they will all be out of commission. Books could help us know where to go and what to do. For some people, the hard copy of the book helps them to understand much better than a screen. This shows that it can be much better to read from paper than from a screen of some kind. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Books are essential for life.

Okay, so I don't mean essential in a life or death kind of way. I mean it as in it is important for your future. Books, whether fiction or nonfiction, fantasy, dystopian, or any other, all help you gain knowledge. "The more I read, the more I know, the more I know the smarter I grow, the smarter I grow the stronger my voice in expressing a view or making a choice." What are your views on this topic?
The Minimum Wage Should Not be Raised

There should be no minimum wage. In a free market economy it is up to the citizens to decide whether or not a business should stay in power. The higher the minimum wage the more deflation occurs. If we see an abolished minimum wag pretty soon one penny will be worth the equivalent of one dollar. It is this in fact that allowed America to dominate the economic landscape for many years. But with more government control of the economy does not help it, in fact it hurts it. The United States of America should enact this plan. The United States of America will abolish minimum wage laws to protect the interest of small business owners and the average American.
The Minimum Wage Should Not be Raised

Raising the minimum wage results in job loss. A 2006 review of more than 100 minimum wage studies by David Neumark and William Wascher found that about 2/3 found negative employment effects. It hurts low-skilled workers - reduces employment among low-skilled workers (reduces the employment of younger, less-educated individuals). It has little effect on reducing poverty. It may result in higher prices for consumers; a 2007 study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago found that restaurant prices increase in response to minimum wage increases. I think an argument can be made to lower it or eliminate it, but I think society has developed a mental block that a control is necessary to ensure people will work these positions. Unfortunately, people don't understand that minimum wage jobs are not career choices or entry level jobs but rather services to meet a need. Why should a maid get 15 dollars an hour ($30,000 a year) and a new teacher at a public school start at roughly the same wage (if not lower). People need to get into the mindset that demand for jobs will always be there. You are always going to have people who want/need to wait tables, clean hotels, etc. These should not be long term jobs, but rather temporary jobs for students, supplement jobs for low income working professionals, etc. Professional jobs allow the market to dictate salary; non-professional jobs should work that way too.
There is no such thing as a free lunch

Okay, but lets say a friend takes wild berry's and gives them to you for lunch. Sometimes he/she may not ask for something in return.Sometimes he/she may ask for something in return.So it can or cannot be a free lunch also, yes if you take wild berry's from the plants does mean you will take nuturients from the ground, but the earth wont ask for anything in return. All that will happen is that when you die, it will take parts of you into soil,plants,and bugs, but everything eventually goes back to the earth, because it is a cycle. Does it really matter wether or not you take nurturients from the earth because it will eventually come back.
Serious Debate: Justin Bieber is a space alien.

Counterpoint 1: "He lifted his under eyelids," actually, this is highly improbable. I tried to do that repeatedly before I posted this argument. I am in high school and have never done that. If I am unable to do that intentionally, then Bieber should also have a low probability of pulling it off. Counterpoint 2: "Not proof of anything," yes it is. There is no other explanation for why he sings like a girl. If you imagine him singing "I Am... All of Me," there is no even half-functional singing voice he can sing it with. To reiterate my argument, he is 20 and could never functionally sing "I Am... All of Me," which is a manly song. If a twenty year old male cannot sing a manly song, then it is reasonable to believe that he is a space alien.