BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christianity does not support determinism

It is clear that the modern conception of Christianity sees freewill as more compatible with the religion. This is largely because determinism is attractive to virtually no one and a religion where determinism is true does not propagate itself easily because individuals have no motivation to convert to the religion. That being said, Christianity is more compatible with determinism. There are two arguments: first, the problem of omniscience and second that determinism is in the bible. The problem of omniscience is that of reconciling freedom and foreknowledge, specifically the existence of divine foreknowledge with the existence of human freedom. If God knows all of our future actions, then the future is fixed, but if the future is fixed, it seems that there is nothing that we can do to change it. The ability to determine our future actions, though, is what constitutes human freedom. Divine foreknowledge, then, seems to preclude the possibility of our being free agents. Also, it's in the Bible: a few quotes for you: "God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation." -- 2 Thessalonians 2:13 "And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." -- Acts 13:48 "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth. .... For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction." -- Romans 9:11-22 There are others, but that should suffice for now.
Christianity does not support determinism

Free will and determinism have been debated back and forth for centuries. But I wonder which one is better suited for Christianity. To me, it seems as though free will is a better match for Christianity. The Bible says that we have the choice to turn away from or accept God and Jesus and there are numerous other examples where it seems as though we have free will. I don't want to get too much into the free will vs. determinism debate directly, just which viewpoint is more compatible with Christianity. In other words, would the Christian faith support the viewpoint of free will or determinism? You may also argue for fatalism in place of determinism if you wish to do so.
Gay Marriage

Pro has never made a coherent argument. I'll simply reset my argument and add some sources: http://www.frc.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...(zoology) http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.livescience.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.washingtontimes.com... Voters, please take Pro's lack of argument and effort when deciding the outcome. Nevertheless, thank you Pro for allowing me to debate this with you. I rest my case.
Gay Marriage

Voters, please take this into account when the debate ends. As said by SNP1 in the comment section, Pro decided to plagarize someone else's opening argument . This could mean that either he doesn't care enough about this debate to put any effort into it, or that he doesn't really have a solidified position on this issue. Pro starts out by saying (or copying someone else saying) "Another point to make is that the USA is a secular nation,it is not to make laws based off of religious reasons." I accordingly focused on the non-religious points that I could make on this issue. However, Pro decides in round 2 to bring his religion into it. His statement is grammatically incoherent as well, something that voters should take into account. Now, assuming that I've read your statement correctly, I'll respond with this: men and women are not the same. Men and women were designed to complement each other. It's like a round peg in a round hole. Gay marriage is a square peg in a round hole.
Gay Marriage

While many of my reasons for not believing gay marriage are due to my Christianity, I also have a bevy of reasons that are solely political in nature. 1. Marriage is regulated by the state. Not because of the "separation of church and state" nonsense, but because the state understands that children thrive best when they have one father and one mother. The worst thing you can do to a child (and this is something that you LGBT supporters are very much in favor of) is deprive him or her of a father or mother. 2. Homosexuals are much more promiscuous and are more likely to contract and spread STDs. 3. Homosexuality is unnatural. And before you say it, yes, many animals do it. But way more species practice incest, cannibalism and polygamy. Should we adopt that as well? 4. You'll be changing the definition of an institution that has been the bedrock of society for millennia. All that gay marriage will do is devaluate traditional marriage.
Gay Marriage

Another point to make is that the USA is a secular nation,it is not to make laws based off of religious reasons In the Supreme Court case of Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur,it was stated "freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause" In 2010,US District Judge Vaughn Walker said the banning of gay marriage(in regards to proposition 8 in California)was "unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses" In 1888 the US Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a fundamental right Article 16 of the Universal Declaration for Human Rights states "men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion... the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution"
Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States.

I would like to extend my thanks to my opponent for challenging me to debate this interesting topic and I duly accept his parameters for the arguments. As my opponent pointed out, there are some limited benefits that may accrue from social networking sites and I certainly agree that under the supervision of a teacher, forums can be set up within which students from geographically remote locations can exchange ideas and knowledge. What is more difficult to accept is that employees accessing these sites for personal use during working hours makes them more efficient. Would an employee who spends their time chatting on the phone to their friends instead of getting on with their work be considered more efficient? I doubt it. That is why many companies limit the use of both phones and computers for non-business reasons. http://www.net-security.org... http://mashable.com... I must also disagree with the Businessweek journalist's assertion that these sites help shy people to increase their self-confidence within a safe environment. The best way to increase one's self-confidence is to go out and actually meet real people and talk to them in person. In addition, getting out and about is much healthier than sitting indoors in front of a computer screen! As regards security, social networking sites are much favoured by paedophiles who use them to "groom" their victims. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Shall we consider Debate.org, for example? It can act as a quasi-social networking site through its forums. This site is, I hope, safe from sexual predators as it is very well moderated in that respect. However, there are no age restrictions and many members are younger than 18 years old – although I'm not. As it happens, on my user profile I quote my real name and age and display a recent photograph of myself, but there is nothing to stop a sex pest from setting up an account and lying about his age and name and using a photograph of someone much younger than himself in the hope of luring one of the younger and more impressionable members into a face-to-face meeting. It would be hard to do on this site, but Facebook and MySpace provide ample opportunities for computer-literate kiddy-fiddlers. So, although these sites do have some positives and access to them certainly shouldn't be restricted (except, perhaps, in some workplaces) on balance, social networking sites do not have a positive impact on the United States. Thank you.
People should do a "We are the World" music video for relief efforts in japan

Before I begin, I want to state that my opposition is not for the raising of funds to help Japan, just the method. We are the world was written in 1986 by Michael Jackson and Lionel Ritchie. This was in an effort to provide funds which would be used to provide aid in the form of food to impoverished nations in Africa. In 2010, it was recorded again to raise funds for earthquake relief in Haiti. The 1985 rendition provided 63 million dollars in funds, and was written, produced, and recorded at zero cost. These numbers are admirable for certain. The 2010 rendition has yet to disclose the amount of funds raised to date. In addition, it is my opinion that some of the artists involved, Kanye West for example, is likely participating as much for the spotlight as he is for any noble gesture. Despite my opinion, the fact of the matter is that until numbers can be produced for the efforts toward the same project for Haiti, it would be fiscally irresponsible to produce the same song yet again in such a short period of time. I think a collaboration of music in the form of an album, written and performed specifically for this purpose would be better suited to raise funds from a musical source. Sources: Wikipedia The We Are The World Foundation
prostitution

I would hope that all viewers of this debate would judge on argumentation rather than personal opinion. Even though this usually doesn't come through to all, I feel better stating it. .. Now onto the debate: A) Prostitution is always going to exist. -No matter what we do, no matter how many laws we make or consequences we set forth, you will see that prostitution will always be around. B) By making prositituion legal, more people will be protected. -Look to the government here. Everytime they legalize something that could be considered bad (like alcohol), you will see that the use of it actually is much more prudent. Just like the abolition of alchohol, the abolition of prostitution has simply made people upset. Therefore, there is one more reason to do prostitution, to get 'back' at the government. Finally, you will see that if we can make regulations on prostitution rather than outlawing it, that when someone doesn't pay a prostitution, that they can go to the police rather than not eating for a week. Or when a jerk beats the living snot out of a prostitute, that they can go to the police rather than do nothing at all. But most importantly, there can FINALLY be a system of medically checking people for STD's and deadly diseases to prevent the negligent spread of these unnecessary diseases. C) Prostitution is the choice of the woman and man. -Why are we trying to prevent two people, from something they both obviously want to do (EG: make money and have sex). .. Trying to outlaw this, simply ticks people off to an extensive degree, which actually furthers this act. But moreover, how does it affect you if a prostitute does anything? If you don't want to be a part of it, then don't. I certainly consider it something that I don't want to be a part of but in America, I feel it my obligation to allow other people to make the choice for themself rather than me make the choice for them. ================================================= Off my opponents only argument thus far: Economy--> An economy with prostitutes is actually BETTER than an economy without them. The money people spend, the more the money flows around the system. Essentially, the more people that spend money, the better the economy is. But also, you must recognize that people who are prostitutes are likely on welfare (since they don't have an official job). So do you really want your tax dollars to go to someone who is making more money than you anyway? In the end, prostitution is a choice. Prostitution will always exist, therefore, if we were to continue this abolition of it, more people will actually get harmed. But finally, the economy is increased by making prostitution legal.
The Devil is on balance a better role model than God

After a discussion with my opponent, I have decided to concede the debate to Socialpinko due to a few issues at hand; I won't discuss them but will simply note that the burden I created due to poor research and understanding of the material, as well as a few unrecognized time restraints (that I had underestimated) are some of the reasons why.I apologize greatly for letting this debate fall because of such issues but would like to see my opponent debate this again with a more competent member.:)
The Devil is on balance a better role model than God

I will, with some trepidation, thank Socialpinko for providing this debate with me. I haven't debated too much and my skills are rough-hewed and needed to be improved. I would like to provide some additional definitions. .. and modifications:On balance: considering all aspectsRole model: a person whose behavior, example, or success is or can be emulated by others [1. . http://dictionary.reference.com...]These definitions will prove instrumental, though I provided them for extra reference.
The Devil is on balance a better role model than God

===Resolution===This debate will be dealing with the relevant characters in the forms represented by Christianity and the Christian Bible. Whether one of the characters is a better role model will be with regards to their actions represented in the Bible. Note though that no religion will necessarily be assumed to be correct. ===Definitions===The Devil: a fallen angel who rebelled against God. The Devil is often identified as the serpent in the Garden of Eden, whose persuasions led to the two corresponding Christian doctrines: the Original Sin and its cure, the Redemption of Jesus Christ. He is also identified as the Accuser of Job, the tempter of the Gospels, Leviathan and the dragon in the Book of Revelation[1].God for this debate will not be defined synonymously with Jesus Christ. So God would be best defined as God the Father in Christian doctrine, as the God of the Old Testament mostly. ===Rules===1. Drops will count as concessions.2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.3. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.4. R1 is for acceptance. Argumentation begins in R2.===Sources===[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
death sentence right or wrong

I hope this will be a fun one ;D. It should be evident that my opponent argues in favor for the death penalty (I recommend that he change the resolutions next time). I contend that the death penalty should not be used for several reasons: 1. An "eye for an eye" morality is unnecessary and irrational. 2. LWP is better =====Counterarguments===== "example- in texas there was a murder of a women whom the man got off with 7 years in life in prison and he got proll early just because the jail got full of people. " ----> There are numerous things wrong with this argument. First of all, where is your link for this claim? Specific examples need to be cited, and unless you do so this should be something. Two, this is a problem of prison's having not enough space, not the moral implications of the death penalty. Finally, to be on death row (on the way to death penalty), you will stay in prison for numerous years in preparation for paroles, etc. If the prison let a man off early because the prison got full, then what difference would the death penalty do? "further more most crimnals practicly get away with murder, oh people can change and bla bla bla,that is crap "some" people will never change. " ----> Assuming the claim that "people can never change" even is true, my opponent has not shown why this means the death penalty should be implemented. Putting people in prison does the same thing - it prevents people from committing murders. "Most people who get out of jail go and commit more crimes . " ----> In place of the death penalty, I am advocating Life Without Parole (LWP), which means the prisoner can't get out earlier than his sentence. In practically every case of the death penalty, it includes heinous crimes like multiple murders. With LWP, the years the prisoner would have to serve would far outpace their life expectancy (do you know anyone living a century and a half plus? ). =====Conclusion===== Since my opponent has the burden of proof, he has failed to show why the death penalty is morally acceptable and his argument has been refuted.
death sentence right or wrong

I strongly argee with this because the court system we have now dont change anything. example- in texas there was a murder of a women whom the man got off with 7 years in life in prison and he got proll early just because the jail got full of people. further more most crimnals practicly get away with murder, oh people can change and bla bla bla,that is crap "some" people will never change. Most people who get out of jail go and commit more crimes .
In 12 Angry Men, the boy is guilty

I accept. Thank you for instigating such in interesting debate. 12 Angry Men was one of my favorite films. The acting was brilliant. However, I have a disclaimer:*Disclaimer-Regardless of who instigates the debate, none of the contenders can decide who has BoP in most cases. BoP is on the person who makes a claim, unless that claim is questioning another claim. In this cases, Con has made a pretty clear, strong, and positive claim: the boy is guilty, therefore BoP is on Con. However, while I am not obligated to, I am also willing to share some of the BoP. Guilty (adj): having committed an offense, crime, violation, or wrong, especially against moral or penal law; justly subject to a certain accusation or penalty; culpable. [1]Main Arguments:-The jury took place in the United States.-In the United States, there is a tennant that they follow derived from the English Common Law and entered the US law through a Supreme Court: Persons charged with crime are innocent until they are proven by competent evidence to be guilty. [2]-This is supported by the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments which the United States also follows. [3][4][5]-The boy was not proven guilty with competent evidence.-In fact, the jury deemed him innocent, with the incompetent evidence in consideration, and the boy was let go.-Therefore, the boy is not guilty.Sources:[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://faculty.cua.edu...[3] http://www.law.cornell.edu...[4] http://www.law.cornell.edu...[5] http://www.law.cornell.edu...
All Parents Should Attend Parenting Classes

Indeed, I accept with all gladness that my parents are not perfect just like you said..but what am saying is this, should our parents go for classess when they can train their children well? You didn't even answer my question in the first place..i have given reliable source which i gave personal reasons..in some country, 95percent of our parents do not go for training and yet their children do not die, or even fail in any spheres of life..in terms of discipline, they are disciplined and even marry..now why won't they have good knowledge of raising their children when that same parent are been raised by another parent? Indeed the class or parenting class will not even change them if they want to treat them bad..so the class adds little or no value in the lives of our parents......so it should never be encouraged
All Parents Should Attend Parenting Classes

You are saying that your parents are perfect? No one is... Maybe to you they are perfect but to the world they're not you think they are perfect because THEY raised you using THEIR methods which you think is right. I'm not saying they're bad parents... I respect them but my point is that if we have a way to get better at something why don't we use it? A little more education never hurtsomebody. Everything in this world can improve if we can improve it why don't we do it? It may cost us a little money or some time but in the end it's for our own good. I hope I mafe myself clear and thank you for sharing your thoughts with me :)
All Parents Should Attend Parenting Classes

Indeed i agree with you that they would be thought..but then let me ask you this question, what about parents who have been treating, training their children all this while in a good and moral way did they attend any parenting class? Now let me use personal anecdote, my parents are loving and caring ones, they teach me the right ways starting from our first even though they have not attended any class..don't you know it is absolute waste of time, and money to be attending that instead of doing things more important..now for parents who go to work in the morning and return in the evening do you expect them to come to classess instead of resting? Indeed it is waste of time and energy and contribute little or less in the nation building
All Parents Should Attend Parenting Classes

First I will answer your question "Why should parents go for classes" : Most parenting classes help parents to understand their roles better. A new parenting class might talk about infants and their needs and safety, while a teen parenting class may focus on discipline and trust. Regardless of the age of the children, a parenting class can help become a more confident parent by learn strategies to stay close to children as you raise them to be functioning members of society. You're saying that it is not necessary, today we are facing a lot of problems in our society and most of them are because of the lack of discipline towards their children.
All Parents Should Attend Parenting Classes

It is a great honour to be debating on this motion. First of all, let me start by exposing the weaknesses of the side proposition. The team proposition has failed to define the basic term which include: parent, parenting,and classes..now parent can be defined as a persons father or mother, while parenting is the process of caring for your children..now lets alp ourselves why should parents go for classes? It is not important at all because before one goes into marriage, the person might have known what is there and since the person has been trained from childhood the person should have known what is there..we all have feelings.. Information has shown that 9opercent of our parents do not attend classes and yet they still train,discipline their children well..so why waste time in attending classes when we know its of no important?