BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Debunking the Old Testament is not Debunking Jesus as Messiah

I again had trouble following your line of argument. Moreover, I am struggling to find the relevance to the actual debate topic. As interesting as your post is, I can't seem to find any applicable ideas to the nullification of the Old Testament transferring to Jesus as the Messiah. If your argument in this round was that Jesus didn't follow the Old Testament, surely this must be granted as obvious. If your point is that because Jesus didn't follow the Old Testament that if it were proven wrong he wouldn't be, this is simply not the case. If the Old Testament were found to be wholly false, Jesus as the Messiah is by definition left in the same place. What I mean is, the term "Messiah" literally means "the promised deliverer of the Jewish nation prophesied in the Hebrew Bible." He cannot be the Messiah of the Old Testament (which is what he is depicted as) if that "person" was completely made up in the first place. Even if he did embody that "person" it would literally serve no purpose in the event of the Old Testament being falsified. Furthermore, Judaism and Christianity do not necessarily believe in a "different" God, they are essentially the same; the difference is Jews do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God. Anyway you spin it, the Old Testament is absolutely essential for Jesus to be who he is depicted as in the Bible.
I'm an alligator, and I'm proud.

--- BOP Pro has the burden of proof (BOP) in this debate, because Pro is asserting something, while Con doesn't have to assert anything at all. Thus, unless Pro proves the resolution true, Con wins. Because Pro has provided no arguments to prove that Pro is an alligator, Con wins. --- Counter-Argument Alligator means: "a large semiaquatic reptile" (1). It's unlikely that Pro is an alligator, because alligators cannot type. --- References: (1) google. com/search? q=definition+alligator
By accepting pre-existing social norms, "cybersex" and "sexting" should be considered "adultery".

Here are some useful definitions for sex acts. Considering 'cybersex' and 'sexting' as 'adultery' is unnecessary. And your proposal will cause confusion. 'Oral sex' is fellatio. see http://dictionary.reference.com... 'Anal sex' is sodomy. see http://dictionary.reference.com... 'fornication' - see http://encarta.msn.com... 'bestiality' - see http://dictionary.reference.com... 'crime against nature' see http://dictionary.reference.com... against nature 'cybersex' - see http://en.wikipedia.org... : "Cybersex, computer sex, internet sex or net sex is a virtual sex encounter in which two or more persons connected remotely via a computer network send one another sexually explicit messages describing a sexual experience. It is a form of role-playing in which the participants pretend they are having actual sexual relations" "Cybersex sometimes includes real life masturbation. The quality of a cybersex encounter typically depends upon the participants' abilities to evoke a vivid, visceral mental picture in the minds of their partners. Imagination and suspension of disbelief are also critically important. Cybersex can occur either within the context of existing or intimate relationships, e.g. among lovers who are geographically separated, or among individuals who have no prior knowledge of one another and meet in virtual spaces or cyberspaces and may even remain anonymous to one another. In some contexts cybersex is enhanced by the use of webcams to transmit real-time video of the partners" You state: "My intent was to put forth the notion that given the social norms which currently apply, and the reasons for which they seem to apply, cybersex should not be seen any differently. (Setting aside the legalities for a legitimate, but separate debate amongst other parties at some other time.)" I again repeat and respond: "Your Conclusion: "Cybersex and sexting, are, therefore, cheating." My Conclusion: Cybersex and sexting are obviously not 'adultery' in REASON and should not be considered as adultery in FACT. Whether cybersex and sexting constitutes 'cheating' within a relationship would depend upon the attitudes, understandings, and candor of the partners in the relationship. Factually, they are not currently considered as 'cheating'" FACTUALLY, I CONTEND THAT MOST PEOPLE IN RELATIONSHIPS NOW, WHERE ONE PARTY ENGAGES IN CYBERSEX, DO NOT CONSIDER SUCH CYBERSEX AS "CHEATING". YOUR PROPOSAL, TO GENERALLY CONSIDER CYBERSEX AS 'CHEATING", REGARDLESS OF THE DESIRES OF THE PARTIES TO A RELATIONSHIP, IS UNFAIR IN THAT IT REMOVES FREEDOM OF CHOICE AND WILL FACILITATE DISCORD BETWEEN PARTIES.
By accepting pre-existing social norms, "cybersex" and "sexting" should be considered "adultery".

The counter arguments are not without logic in their own course. And they have indeed pointed out manners in which my initial presentation lacked some degree of clarity on certain aspects of the topic at hand. To this I concede, but not on my initial opinion on the subject. My intent was to put forth the notion that given the social norms which currently apply, and the reasons for which they seem to apply, cybersex should not be seen any differently. (Setting aside the legalities for a legitimate, but separate debate amongst other parties at some other time.) The notion of cybersex not being "clear and precise" terms, because no specific human acts are identified with it would, I gather, depend on where and how one chose to define the terms. Miriam-Webster, the same dictionary from which I produced the definition of "adultery" in my opening remarks, has no entry for either "cybersex" nor "sexting". I am sure some dictionaries do have one, but I contend that such grammatical specificity is not required to consider the acts to be against the socially accepted notion of sexual fidelity. Indeed, the very reason I included the dictionary definition of adultery, was to contrast it with the commonly accepted notion of what adultery is in our society. The dictionary I quote mentions nothing of, as I said, anal, or oral sex. Yet both are very specific acts that would, I contend, be considered adultery if committed with someone other than one's partner. In other words, the very nature of our social norms seems to transcend what the dictionary says about adultery. And if it can do so for that term, I believe our norms can, and do in fact, transcend a lack of specific actions when it comes to the ideas of cybersex and sexting, and in so doing, ought to view them as adultery as well. Indeed, perhaps the term "cheating" also provided by Mirriam-Webster serves the argument better... "To be sexually unfaithful". While sexuality has myriad meanings, by definition cybersex would be a sexual act, and would, therefore, again be considered "cheating", even if not "adultery." Not to mention the emotional issues involved in same. As for the point about President Clinton, whatever side of this issue one may fall on, I contend that contrary to destroying and weakening the terms of adultery or cheating, my view point actually strengthens both. By attaching a new set of behaviors to the definition of "adultery" or "cheating", it becomes more specific, and not less so, and is therefore more powerful, not less.
By accepting pre-existing social norms, "cybersex" and "sexting" should be considered "adultery".

Your Definition: The definition of 'adultery' in Minnesota law is identical in content to the definition that you cite. 1 You know the specific act that is prohibited, namely, 'sexual intercourse'. Both definitions are clear and precise. Clarity and precision are good qualities in our communications whether in law, politics, or in ethical discourse. "Cybersex" and "sexting" are not clear and precise terms in the sense that they specify the human acts that are included in the terms. Including them in the definition of 'adultery' deprives the current definition of its clarity and precision. Regarding politics, you will recall that former President Clinton tried to obscure the specific sexual acts that he engaged in with Monica Lewinsky. Like Clinton, your proposal would create confusion and destroy 'adultery' as a useful definition. Regarding your second paragraph 2, you are assuming what you are supposed to establish through argument, namely, that cybersex and sexting should be considered adultery. Regarding your third paragraph, I agree that, culturally, fidelity and sexual exclusivity are at least implicit understandings in romantic relationships, marital and non marital. However, generally, the understandings prohibit only actual physical interactions between people, not solo actions such as viewing pornography alone on your computer. Regarding your fourth paragraph, I agree that generally sexual fidelity and exclusivity is the "social norm." However, I contend that only actual physical (sexual) acts with non-partners are prohibited by the norm. The porn industry is huge. Factually, I contend that in many relationships, marital and otherwise, a partner condones or tolerates the other partner's use of porn. AND SUCH PARTNER DOES NOT CONSIDER THE OTHER'S USE OF PORN TO BE "CHEATING." We have a factual disagreement. Your Conclusion: "Cybersex and sexting, are, therefore, cheating." My Conclusion: Cybersex and sexting are obviously not 'adultery' in REASON and should not be considered as adultery in FACT. Whether cybersex and sexting constitutes 'cheating' within a relationship would depend upon the attitudes, understandings, and candor of the partners in the relationship. Factually, they are not currently considered a 'cheating'. _______________________ 1. Minn. Stat. 609.36 ADULTERY. Subdivision 1.Acts constituting. When a married woman has sexual intercourse with a man other than her husband, whether married or not, both are guilty of adultery...
By accepting pre-existing social norms, "cybersex" and "sexting" should be considered "adultery".

Miriam-Webster defines adultery thusly, : "voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband". Assuming the absence of an "open relationship", one must assume that in practical terms, (if not in legal or technical terms), simulating sexual activities through "cybersex" or "sexting" with someone other than one's romantic partner would also constitute "adultery" or cheating on one's lover, all things being equal. Part of the commitment that individuals make to one another when forming a romantic partnership, and particularly marriage in American societies, is exclusivity. "Forsaking all others", as is said in the marriage vows of some ceremonies. Ideally then it is a conscious decision to offer ALL of a one's intimacies to a partner. Despite the dictionary's definition, the overwhelming social norm dictates that giving or receiving any form of physical gratification, even that which is not technically "sexual intercourse", (such as oral sex) is considered to be "cheating" amongst partners. Therefore, the distance and the medium by which that stimulation is given or received is immaterial, if it is outside of one's partnership. Cybersex and sexting, are, therefore, cheating.
Should the US have joined WW1 (economic focus)(1919 POV)

Eeeh yes and no....I think because it was a European we it childhood stayed that way(they started it so they finish it) but the only reason the u.s did join ww1 was because Germany attacked Mexico to get to America so that's when it became our problem. And by the way you're oblivious to fact that war is not in any way beneficial to anyone ok sorry maybe the so called "winner" might have benefited a tiny bit because of the fact they one but don't you remember the U.S bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki in ww2?....did Japan benefit from that? No al they got were dead innocent citizens yeah and I thought war was between armies not citizens?...
Should the US have joined WW1 (economic focus)(1919 POV)

"War is beneficial " -Everyone benefits, the workers have better working hours and pay, businesses have more money as a whole, therefore the us economy benefits as a result. -The U.S. had huge economic investments with the British and French. If they were to lose, then they would not be able to pay the U.S. debt back,France and England were financing their war with US loans. Examples of this include buying massive amounts of arms from the US on credit. The US wanted to make sure that it got paid back. Therefore, America protecting their allies was not only a moral obligation but also an economic obligation. -If the Allies (French and British) were not able to pay back all the loans made to them by the American bankers, the US's economy could collapse. Thus causing economic chaos in America. -If the US did not join the war, the Germans would have won. This would have caused economic ruin and the spread of communism! -There are endless examples of wars from Rome to early America in which the countries benefit after the initial post-war depression. -Even different social groups benefited from the war. The African, immigrant, and woman workers all gained rights as the men went to serve in the war. -Britain is an ally and trading partner (whom thus far have lent 2.25 billion to for war resources and arms)
Vaccines should not be mandatory.

I would like to preface my argument by pointing out that the currently mandated vaccines have opt out clauses for those with religious objections or other conscientious reasons. Beyond that it's imperative for herd immunity among other variables that the majority of people be vaccinated and thus should be mandated First, What is herd immunity? the resistance to the spread of a contagious disease within a population that results if a sufficiently high proportion of individuals are immune to the disease, especially through vaccination. Why is this important? according to vaccines. gov Germs can travel quickly through a community and make a lot of people sick. If enough people get sick, it can lead to an outbreak. But when enough people are vaccinated against a certain disease, the germs can"t travel as easily from person to person " and the entire community is less likely to get the disease. That means even people who can"t get vaccinated will have some protection from getting sick. And if a person does get sick, there"s less chance of an outbreak because it"s harder for the disease to spread. Eventually, the disease becomes rare " and sometimes, it"s wiped out altogether. Who does community immunity protect? Community immunity protects everyone. But it"s especially important because some people can"t get vaccinated for certain diseases " such as people with some serious allergies and those with weakened or failing immune systems (like people who have cancer, HIV/AIDS, type 1 diabetes, or other health conditions). Community immunity is also important for the very small group of people who don"t have a strong immune response from vaccines. Essentially, when the vast majority of people are immune to a disease, it protects those of us who can't get vaccinated. Now to address my opponent's points. He claimed that it's a waste of time and money, However, both of these are not priority issues. saving the few minutes it takes to get vaccinated cannot hold up to saving lives with herd immunity. the same can be said for saving a paltry sum of money. This is a not a priority issue at best and selfish at worst. Protect our communities, save lives.
Did a man named Jesus of Nazareth once Exist - Team Debate

Okay, to start out with acceptance, let me set something straight. The only reason why I would use the fact that he was or wasn't God is to disprove the New Testament as a valid record of his existence. I am not starting out with this argument. Just making a statement. "All new evidence must be backed up by sources or a loss of conduct. " I don't plan on using a lot of info other than the Bible(s) it(them)selves. "Any developments outside of the debate are void. " What if I was using someone else's well sourced information, and I cited it? Doesn't that contradict your second rule? For the future, please elaborate on your rules seeing as there are indeed specific circumstances that arise. And last but not least, ". .. so, I encourage open-minded voters who will not vote for their belief. " One could almost take that as an insult. . Especially seeing from your comments on what your views on "open-mindedness" are. This isn't an attack on the debater. I mean no disrespect. My point is that open-mindedness is a judgement. An opinion. So, let us begin.
Did a man named Jesus of Nazareth once Exist - Team Debate

This is apart of the team debate over the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. I will be arguing that he did indeed exist. This debate is not about whether he was god, so I encourage open minded voters who will not vote for their belief. Rules----------- Makeing a argument that Jesus was or was not god is a loss of conduct.- All new evidence must be backed up by sources or a loss of conduct.- Any developments outside the debate are void.
born a way

Straight people and gay people are allowed to talk to each other, tell each other their feelings, that's how they understand, a little thing called empathy. Research my dear, just as bisexual,trans and every other person can become an expert if they study hard enough. I can't imagine being seduced into it:"Come to this side, we have tequila and tickets to Wicked!". Stereotypical/offensive, maybe. But the absurdity of it is self evident. I'm going to close as the last person saying this, i respect and appreciate all gay people and what they stand for but I simply can't see how we can be born straight or gay. How does it explain bisexuals? We all have tendencies, what makes them born different? I might not change others minds but thanks.
born a way

The only people who ever argue that you aren't born gay, but get 'seduced' into the lifestyle are people who say they are straight. Since they aren't gay, how do they have the first clue what is going on inside the head of a gay person? How did straight people become the experts on gayness? People can be born gay. I think a lot of new research has suggested that sexual orientation can be influenced by hormones the fetus is exposed to during pregnancy. Sexual attraction is something innate and something you cannot change, even if you wanted to. It's determined early in our development.
born a way

Let's get stuck in: -Not Born with a personality- The personality at that stage of life is unlikely to make the conscious or even unconscious decision. When was the first time you have been aroused? When you were a baby? I highly doubt that. Therefore, at the start personality can't determine sexuality immediately. - More open and loving to sexual desires- I completely agree. I have the right to indulge my fetish. -Straight people think gay people are seduced into the lifestyle- A quite large generalization. Who's to say they aren't dragged kicking and screaming, finally accepting themselves. Something we aren't all born with is the self esteem to accept immediately. Study: https://americanvision.org...
born a way

are you also saying that your not born with a personality??? none of my family members or friends are trans or gay and I have always been gay. Yes it's in the genes Most homosexual people are in fact born that way, others may pick to be gay or have things that occur during their life that takes them that direction sexually. There is so much proof that people are born gay these days that people that do not believe it really just have their heads stuck in the sand, we need to be more open and loving to everyone's sexual desires as long as they are legal. Only straight people don't think so. The only people who ever argue that you aren't born gay, but get 'seduced' into the lifestyle are people who say they are straight. Since they aren't gay.
born a way

Thank you for my first debate. Secondly, I'm assuming my opponent is giving arguments for sexuality as opposed to the general alternative. Sexuality is a choice because we start out with a clean slate. Are we born murders/lawyers? No. As we grow, there will always be influences around us ranging from parents to friends to associates. These are effects on our personality, that cannot be predetermined at the womb or birth. By ignoring influences such as these, we suggest our fate is predetermined but then, nothing would really change, we couldn't be saved, hope would be minute. Human nature would most likely win etc. "Choices can be made in the present, nature is background or recessive" the philosopher said to the biologist. I'd argue so.
born a way

I feel that yes people are born a certain way and shouldn't be judged by that, it is not a choice they made, it's how they are. acceding to pink news, "Yes, we have a choice in life, to be ourselves or to conform to someone else"s idea of normality, but being straight, bisexual or gay, or none of these, is a central part of who we are, thanks in part to the DNA we were born with." and for me, I was born this way, God chose this path for me to take. according to CARM "HomoSEXuality is a behavior, an action. It is not the same thing as a genetic condition, such as skin color, height, or gender. Homosexual intercourse (is there homosexuality without it?) is a behavior and is, therefore, something people choose to do. Actions are what people c
The weight restriction in lifts are unnecessary

Thanks for replying so early for this debate. I'd just like to start by saying that weight restrictions in elevators (or lifts) are needed as without them you would have a serious safety concern. I agree with your definition of a lift (or elevator) and thank you for that but as far as your points go they fall down the more you look at them. Firstly you said that the safety warning about weight is posted on the inside of an elevator. Yes, they are but this could easily be changed. If the problem with the signs is that they are posted on the inside of the lifts, then this could easily be changed. As a concerned citizen anyone could write to companies advising them on how to make their products better. Next I'd like to point out that one of the main reasons that "people ignore these signs" is not because that the signs are not needed it is that for someone to enter an elevator they have to have somewhere to go. This in turn makes them concentrate more on things beside their immediate safety concerns. I have not said that the weight limit signs are perfect and they are far from this. If they could be larger and more noticeable it would benefit many people. Now with the more technical side of this topic it's interesting to note that the first opposing argument only touched on the human side of this topic. Google defines and elevator as 'platform or compartment housed in a shaft for raising and lowering people or things to different floors or levels.' Elevators are not just for people; they are for objects too. To give and example is a rushed chef sends 20 lobsters up or down a floor via a built in elevator, weight restrictions are extremely important. If too much food is sent at once the system may slow or collapse resulting in disaster. This isn't all about people it's about general welfare and making things as smooth as possible. Lastly I'd like ask you, what do you think would happen if all elevators had no safety warnings? Just read this article and you will see what I mean. http://tinyurl.com... So vote for Con and chose safety over what others think is best. sources: (1) http://tinyurl.com... (2) http://tinyurl.com... (3) http://tinyurl.com...