BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homosexual Marriage

So you say that you will do nothing to convince people otherwise on Gay marriage then what is the fundamental argument you are trying to make on the topic of Homosexuality, beyond advising against it? Then to further dissect your question, what are the disadvantages that you speak of? And to the relevance of your answer yeah I think it has some relevance, but that's just me what other people think I have no clue. And for your last sentence who is saying that gay parents only want gay kids? When I want to have a child I want that child to be exactly who they are, not who they should be based on who I am. Now I want to make some more points of my own. First off there is no reason to oppose the marrying of homosexuals, especially if you say it erodes traditional marriage. One, gay marriages do not occur in churches, Two traditional marriage isn't going away anytime soon, it never will. The reason it never will is because 98.3% of the U. S. population is straight, so what's to worry about then? [1] Beyond the argument that God doesn't approve of homosexuals, what other agrument is there against it, that it wrong and we are sinners? Well isn't that hypocritical of us for Jesus himself said "And let those without sin cast the first stone. " [2] Jesus says in that statement that we can not judge someone based on their sin, for we ourselves are guilty of sin as well. This leaves you with what argument then? I would like to once again thank my opponent for the debate and conclude by saying Vote Pro! [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://biblehub.com...
Homosexual Marriage

Yes it would have been better for you to change the topic to Homosexuality, but that cant be done now. So I will base my points and arguments according to the topic given. That was an excellent question to my point of view, the one about how would I convince them otherwise but my answer really is that I wouldn't convince them otherwise, because no matter the situation people will still support Gay marriage and people who really support Gay Marriage stick to their opinion and its not like i want them to change their opinion about Homosexual Marriage, i just wouldn't advise it but if i had to convince them i'd simply mention to them the disadvantages of Gay Marriage and the result. Okay the traditional marriage institution being held in a church has been undermined because people have different beliefs and you cant change the beliefs of others(religious speaking). My last sentence was referring to the sentence before that, it won't solve the problem of the adopted child. The child needs a mother and a father. To answer your question 1, it isn't concerning the topic Homosexual Marriage, so i don't know if my answer is relevant. The instance is that the child being straight is normal and if they don't want a straight kid, why adopt?
Homosexual Marriage

No, sorry if I made it seem like I was asking advice, those questions were meant to be rhetorical, mostly anyway. What I am saying with the Bible telling us to love one another is not meant at all in a sexual way but in a way of deviating respect onto a person. But why is it worth the effort? The majority of people now support gay marriage, how would you plan on convincing them of it otherwise? You say gay marriage undermines the concept of marriage, but if traditional marriage is held in a church then how does gay marriage undermine the concept if it's held in a courtroom? The traditional marriage institution has been undermined for years all around the world, as the majority of the world doesn't conduct marriage in the way that we as Christians deem acceptable. To say to your argument that gay marriage won't solve the problem, what problem. There are instances of gay kids being thrown out of there houses for being gay! [1] Where are the instances of gay couples rejecting there kid for being straight? With that I rest my case, and maybe I should've changed the title to simply Homosexuality. [1] http://www.theguardian.com...
Homosexual Marriage

Okay, so I guess I'm going to have to answer your questions. No you are not different from any other human being by being gay, some human beings are gay. I found the other questions useless i mean are you asking me for advice? you totally missed the fact were are talking about Homosexual MARRIAGE. Or am I wrong? I'm glad you did agree to the fact that the bible does discourage gay marriage, well obviously considering the fact you're Christian as well. Okay doesn't mean we love each other means we should allow Gay marriage, i mean if it meant so, why did God discourage it? Its kind of the same thing as saying, a man robbed a woman and just because we love that man, he mustn't go to jail. Yes it is totally worth the effort, everything about this is. And in your final question you did not specify which two people are getting married, because a woman and a man getting married does not in anyway take away from the meaning marriage but for the same sex to get married it does, why? let me tell you why, because Gay marriage undermines the concept of marriage.The institution of marriage has traditionally been defined as between a man and a woman.It is a union of man and woman, involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis. Children who are adopted need a mother and a father, not two parents of the same gender. Gay marriage won't solve that problem, just make it worse.
Homosexual Marriage

Homosexuality- sexually attracted to people of the same sex. [1] Marriage- the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship. [2] Marriage between two people of the same sex is no longer illegal in most states, in fact it is legal in 35 of the 50 states. [3] And let me ask you a simple question is dating enough for straight people? No, they marry. Now let me ask several questions, Am I different from any other human being with the exception that I like guys instead of girls? How am I less human if I tell you I am straight, but then I tell you I am not? How does it make me anything less than I was? Yes there are bible verses condemning homosexuality, there are 8 to be exact. [4] However there are almost 700 telling us to love one another. [5] Does that mean we should ignore god's command to love one another in order to uphold a clearly less enforced idea that homosexuals are sinners? Is it really worth the effort? As a Catholic Christian myself I know what I am told and what God tells us to love everyone as you love yourself. In terms of how is marriage being used with gay people, elaborate on your claim that marriage is being used. And from your final sentence how does letting two people marry take away from the meaning of the word marriage? [1] www. merriam-webster. com/dictionary/homosexual [2] www. thefreedictionary. com/marriage [3] gaymarriage. procon. org/view. resource. php? resourceID [4] . https://answers.yahoo.com... [5] . http://www.answers.com...
Homosexual Marriage

Homosexual marriage is just wrong. You can't simply call it marriage between the same sex, I mean we all know marriage is between a man and a woman, homosexual marriage should not be advised, it is completely violating the law. Cant just dating be enough? I'm a Christian and according to Christianity, it is completely unacceptable to allow gay marriage, it is a sin according to God and His word. For even Jesus spoke about this: "From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife." (Mark 10:6-7). This is straightforward. After marriage the spouses are known to be husband and wife not husband and husband or wife and wife. really? that is what marriage is. We need to get this straight that marriage cannot be simply used just like that. It has its meaning and there is no way we need to change that.
Teens shouln't have curfew.

Oh sorry double negatives. Children shouldn't have a curfew because it shows that the parent doesn't trust the child. The child could be just hanging out with friends and when they say it is time for them to go the friend may feel left out. Kids that are more troublesome nay need a curfew but regular teenagers should not need one if keeps them from spending time with friends or studying a last chapter at the library. Curfews only hold kids back from adventures. Kids are not automatically going to do drugs. They can be watching a movie or waiting at midnight for the release of a movie, video game or book. The teenage years are those to explore. Curfews are only keeping kids from having fun or spending time with friends or socializing.
Teens shouln't have curfew.

Though their brains are filled with hormones they are more likely to have sex if you tell them not to. Children are rebellious so they will do the opposite of what you want them to do that is why reverse psychology works so well. Kids will end up becoming more rebellious and likely to sneak out if you were to give them a curfew. It is better for kids to be able to explore their surroundings and become independent. Kids need air to breathe and curfews prevent them from reaching their full potential.
Teens shouln't have curfew.

Abou that thing about the opposite sex just be thankful you kid isn't gay lol. When kids have curfews it keeps them from thinking for themselves. If you keep your child on a leash but let them away then they learn better then if they were your purse dog. "Kids need to get to sleep" Most of the time they won't be out for long or won't be far on school nights. As I said before kids need to learn so once they come home late once and are super tired in the morning they will never do it again. This is how to teach them by letting them learn by themselves. Like if a child is coming down in a slide. The kid that gets spoiled and is depedent on the parents is the one that gets caught at the bottom of the slide. The one that turns out independent and thinks for themselves not others (will prevent them from doing drugs) is the one that has to fall and scrape their knee to learn not to cone down the slide to fast. "Children need discipline so they don't become spoilt" When kids get the freedom to be curfewless then they learn not to take it for granted. They are more likely to be nicer or get better grades just so you don't take the privelege away. Kids are more likely to be troublesome if you keep them to closely. They just want to get away. If you let your kids know that you think they are mature enough to be without a curfew then they will most likely respect you more. Keeping them as a purse dog makes them feel like a child and will end causing more trouble. Whether you think they are a child or not they need to know that you think they are mature. Hope this isn't to "serious debate" for you. Lol. ;)
Teens shouln't have curfew.

Wow. I thought we were just gonna forfeit but since you debated I will too. Curfew is there to keep them safe! They need sleep for school, they wouldn't get in and have enough sleep if they could do what they want. A curfew installs discipline, which a child needs in order to understand right from wrong and not turn out spoilt etc. At night, you get a lot of weird people out. Druggies, Drunks from the pubs, and overall troublemakers. And this is that. Stage they start wondering about the opposite sex.
Should South Africa begin to invade the rest of Africa

Ever since the European imperialists left Africa to its own demise, Africa has been riddled with civil unrest, multiple human rights violations and war between nations. But only one nation avoids all of this; South Africa. They have the highest GDP by far of any African nation. They are also the only nation to detonate a nuclear weapon. They have never had any form of civil unrest or human rights violations. It is only there duty to provide the rest of Africa with this.
Should South Africa begin to invade the rest of Africa

South Africa should invade the rest of Africa because it is the only country in Africa with the military and economic resources to develop the rest of Africa there by spreading peace within these African nations.1) The South African military isn't the strongest in Africa. Egypt, Ethiopia, and Libya all have larger power indexes than South Africa. I doubt that South Africa could invade and hold even one country, much less 45 + of them.http://www.globalfirepower.com...2) South Africa doesn't even have enough money for its people. The average citizen gets 100 claories less than the International Food Standard. Africa doesn't have enough food for its own people, much less a prolonged war. The military and economy would be exhausted in a week. South Africa's military isn't built to sustain offensive operations.3) South Africa doesn't even have the highest GDP, once again outweighed by Nigeria. The nation still suffers from poverty, rampant crime, and tribal revolts. It is the best of 45 + terrible nationshttp://en.wikipedia.org...(nominal)http://africacheck.org...But only one nation avoids all of this; South Africa1) False, for reasons I stated above. South Africa also has terrible corruption problemshttp://www.nytimes.com...They are also the only nation to detonate a nuclear weapon1) False. Russia, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, United Kingdom, United States, Russia, France, Iran, and China all host and have detonated nuclear weapons.2) South Africa is the only nation stupid enough to violate the Nuclear Proliferation TreatyThey have never had any form of civil unrest or human rights violations1) Completely false. Homosexuals and Zulu splinter tribes are often beaten, murdered, and raped by civilians. The problem is our of control and uncontained. http://www.hrw.org...
The bible is true

The account of Masada was one that Josephus could not have witnessed, for obvious reasons. This means that he relied on the word of those who had been there or heard from the survivors. The survivors of this could easily have created the story to make their people look brave. The miracles of Christ though, including the resurrection, he could have witnessed first hand in Jeruselam. Evolution cannot be trusted because it is not even a scientific law. It is a hypothesis that rests at the bottom I'm the entire scientific method. To become a scientific law it should be tested and proven through years of experiments that prove it. Sadly, there are few experiments for things that happened thousands of years ago, much less the millions that evolution claims. Evolution is a larger idea of natural selection, though the two are not the same. In natural selection, a certain trait is picked from a set of genes that are already within the creature. Evolution calls for the creation of new genes. As far as experiments on evolution, such as Miller's experiment, they could never have worked outside of a laboratory. Miller had to keep oxygen away from the amino acids or it would kill them instantly. Yet without oxygen the sun's harsh rays would destroy them. The idea of something from nothing is a contradiction. There is no naturally occurring evolution happening now. If the theory of evolution were true we could expect chemicals in nature to form organic life. Evolution is a hypothesis that is based as much on faith as facts. I cannot find the book, but I have a book in which an evolutionist that is well respected says that the chances of true evolution being true are 1 in 10 to the sixty-fifth power. I have read the Epic of Gilgamesh three times before. I don't know much about the dating, but I do no that there are few similarities between it and the Bible. In it there are more than one God. These gods send a flood because the clamor of mankind is loud. Basically they are annoyed with the noise. Utnaptishm builds a square boat that would be much less likely to float. In the Epic Utnaptishm was allowed to escape with more than his family. He had a few friends with him. He was allowed to survive because he had been good, though he did not have a personal relationship with the gods as Noah did with God. That is the key difference between the Bile and pagan stories. In these stories the men that do these things and serve the gods do not have a personal relationship with these gods. They are simply slaves to satisfy the gods until they decide they don't want them anymore. The Bible stands out from these in that, God wants a personal relationship with all mankind. He promises those who will have that relationship eternal bliss. All the ancient myths avoid going anywhere near this. Out of all these pagan stories, the Bible alone has a ring of truth to it. Jesus said in John 8:32 "Then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free." Thanks for a great first debate.
The bible is true

My opponent accepted the challenge and took the move that I expected him to take. He has claimed that Josephus is a credible source to support the bible. Let us take a look at this claim. Josephus has been ruled as a non acceptable source by a vast majority of historians.I will go into one incident that he wrote about to give credibility to this statement. Josephus wrote of the tragedy of Masada. Masada is best known as the place where 960 Jewish fighters took refuge after the fall of Jerusalem, only to commit mass suicide in A.D. 74. When they realized the Roman Tenth Legion would finally break through their defenses, they chose to die by their own hands as “free people” rather than be enslaved. However archaeological evidence shows us the different. It showed us vast evidence that the people within those fought to stay alive, ruling Josephus as a non credible source. If the bible is true also it would have to hold up to the claims of Christ, miracles, and genocides. None of which have been recorded except by people within the bible itself. It also contradicts science. It states that humans were made as is, and not from evolution. Through vast studies and experiments, evolution has been accepted as the leading theory as to how we came to be , even the catholic church accepts this. The most solid argument you could present for this is admitting that the stories within it are false and should be construed as metaphors. The bible itself is at odds with history and is backed my minimal to no archaeological or historical evidenceEven the story of the flood does not make sense. The flood almost word for word was portrayed in the epic of Gilgamesh. This novel was written in Mesopotamia, which predated the Hebrews. How ironic is it that a story that predates the bible shows up within the bible with new elements added to it. It is a far more viable assumption to believe that some of the people who wrote the bible, attained that story from the ancient novel. Include that fact that the story of osiris shares so many similarities with the story of Christ that it is mind blowing I think we can see a trend. The story of Osiris again predates the bible and had the chance to influence it. I urge anyone who is reading this to assume the most rational conclusion. Acknowledge that the bible does not line up with history, is not supported by any evidence, and claims miracles that were never recorded. We can assume the most logical explanation, and that is the Bible is falsehttp://www.pbs.org... http://www.pbs.org...;http://www.egyptartsite.com...http://www.icr.org...; ------ Anyone reading this argument look at the comparsion to the bible it will shock you.
The bible is true

"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." These are the words of Flavius Josephus. It should be pointed out that when he wrote this, he was writing for the Romans. Unless he was absolutely sure of the fact that this had happened he would not have recorded it. We can therefore assume that he whole-heatedly believed what he said. "Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome." This was written by Tacitus. Now, even though this does not refer to his miracles. We know that these stories were widespread by what he said about the superstition spreading to Rome. I do not believe a third reference would be helpful because I am afraid that it is a little too obscure. The way these historian write about Jesus we can assume that the stories of his miracles and resurrection were widespread at the time as they do not feel the need to go into any details about the superstitions according to Tacitus.
The bible is true

Actually my opening response will be very short and simple and i will offer a rebuttal in my closing statement to any argument my opponent offers in his next turn. The first and centralized point in which I will use is there is no evidence to support the claims within the bible. I will primarily focus on miracles. How do we know about the past? We know about the past because people wrote about it. We know the Romans existed, the Mayans were a culture, and that the Napoleon was a master tactician because people would write about it. Also I may add it was not just one person writing about all of these things, it was in fact multiple sources and many authors. So logically we can conclude that they are historically accurate. So let us take the miracles of Christ. If in fact the bible is true and is historically accurate do you not think someone would have recorded the miracles of Christ? I mean this in regards to an outside source, not the sources within the bible because then we are operating under the assumption that the bible in the bible were real. I will ask my opponent to prove me wrong and provide sources or some evidence that the Miracles that Christ claimed to do is true. If you can provide at least 3 outside philosophers or historians in that time period who wrote about the miracles he claimed to do, you will surely press me into a corner and make this debate immensely hard. Because surely if historians in that time period took the time to write about wars, if someone were raising the dead and healing the blind there would be multiple sources to confirm it. I now hand the floor back to my opponent and eagerly await his response.