BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Masterbation is not seen as a sin in the bible

I take it this masturbation isn't with ones wife, so lets begin. I. Premartial or Adultress sex is a sin Here is a list of quotes that affirm the contentionhttp://www.openbible.info...II. Idolotry, thoughs on sexual immortality, and Evil from within is sinfulThese quotes will affirm what I just saidhttp://www.openbible.info...III. Thinking sinful thoughts is equivalent to commiting them "Jesus condemns looking at women or girls in order to lust after them" (Matt 5:28) "Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body." (Corinthians 6:18)"Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry." (Collosians 3:5)"But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28)IV. Conclusion I have just affirmed that idolotry, sexual immortality, thoughtful adultery, and lust are all considered sins in the bible, therefore, the act of masturbation is seen as a sin. Resolution negated.
Masterbation is not seen as a sin in the bible

Saying one is the same as the other is very untrueI don't understand what you're trying to say here just because masturbation is done with sexual thoughts that are sinful does not make masturbation itself sinful as well.Yes, it actually does. I'm pretty sure you just commited a fallacy. For example, if eating bacon would indirectly kill someone, and I knew this before hand, eating the bacon would be sinning. When people masturbate they masturbate because they have sexual thoughtsNo, they actually masturbate while having sexual thoughts. The two are synonomous in producing an orgasm. And don't even get me started about "Masturbation without imagery".they don't masturbate then get sexual thoughtsUh, as I said, the two are synomous. Observe Genesis 38:9"But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also"https://www.biblegateway.com...IE, Onan didn't finish himself off in the Vagina! It is usually the sexual thoughts that get them there so saying that masturbation is the sin is going off of nothing in the bibleYou do plan on refuting my bible quotes at one point, correct? Onan alone is sufficient for many to determine masturbation as a sin.Last I checked you have not proved that it is directly in the bible which is the very basis of the debate That's because the resolution isn't "No where in the bible does it directly say masturbation is a sin". I have affirmed the actual resolution, "Masturbation is seen as a sin in the bible". You dropped all my points and quotes. You have not proven that it is what so ever Sorry, but my french is a little rusty. Can you make this sentence coherent? You have proven that every other sexual sin is but not masturbation all by itselfI have no idea what you're trying to say You have negated nothingThere was nothing to negate. I affirmed many things, which you dropped. In real debate, everything is affirmed until countered. You failed to counter anything.
Ukraine is a distraction behind something bigger

I accept :). Thanks for this debate, it should be a good one :). I say that the west does care about what happens in Ukraine. Russia is bent on seizing it yes, but the USA, Germany and France at least care about what is happening. The sanctions aren't doing much, but they are at least trying to end this war. The EU is also trying to stop the conflict, so yes, some of the west does care about the sad situation in Ukraine.
who was not on first when what was supposed to be pitching for today's big game with tomorrow

I will now present sound logic that can bring the affirmative response into doubt and consequently give the debate to the negative side. I shall say that WHO was on first when WHAT was supposed to be pitching for TODAY'S big game with TOMORROW. According to the video, WHO was the first baseman. Thus, it would make sense for him to be on first when WHAT was supposed to be pitching for TODAY's big game with TOMORROW. It is logically possible that WHAT can be a relief pitcher, and not just a second baseman. TODAY cannot necessarily pitch all nine innings, and it is logically plausible that WHAT is the relief pitcher and plays second base while TODAY pitches the first several innings. Thus, it would make sense that WHAT is supposed to be pitching for TODAY'S big game with TOMORROW. Even with the changes, it is logical to claim that TODAY has a big game with TOMORROW, since TODAY is the starting pitcher and TOMORROW is the catcher. I have negated the resolution. I urge a Con vote. Thank you.
who was not on first when what was supposed to be pitching for today's big game with tomorrow

-My opponent has negated simple facts well but as the title reads: WHO was NOT on first when WHAT was supposed to be PITCHING for TODAYS's big game with TOMMOROW. Based on this title along side the video we can truely say that what i stated in the title is true. Since i am pro i am for this statement- -The keyword there would be NOT- -Now to make it as clear as possible... Who is supposed to be on first as you stated.. the video also states that tommorow is a pitcher and tommorow is a catcher and that what is on 2nd..: Who = first what = 2nd tommorow = catcher yesterday = pitcher, If these are true and constant then there truely is no way that WHO could be on first while WHAT is pitching because as the video states WHAT is a 2nd baseman and the true pitcher is YESTERDAY who will be throwing to TOMMOROW. Since i am pro i am for the fact that WHO was NOT on first when what was pitching for todays game with tommorow because this is impossible based on what the video was stateing.- -It would be impossile based on the video for WHO to be on first with this set up because this set up for the team does not exist-
who was not on first when what was supposed to be pitching for today's big game with tomorrow

I shall negate the resolution. Since my opponent affirms the resolution, all I must do is negate one part of the resolution to negate my opponent's entire argument. According to the video, who is/was on first base, since he is the first baseman. Negated. According to the video, what is/was on second base, since he is probably the second baseman. Thus, the video gave no proof to support the chance that what can pitch. Essentially, what was not supposed to be pitching. Negated. Since today and tomorrow are catcher and pitcher, respectively, I guess you can say that they have a game with each other whenever they're active during the baseball game itself. However, the video gave no reason to suggest that there was going to be a "big" game. Negated. I have negated the resolution. Thank you.
Evolution is true and it cannot be denied

Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats, 80% with cows , 75% with mice , and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations. When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.PS- Since the BoP is shared, and there are 5 rounds, I wait till opponent rebuttals these two points and puts forward evidence for disproving Evolution. I will be taking sides of evolution strictly on a genetic point of view. Fossils and carbon dating is cliche.
Evolution is true and it cannot be denied

I hereby challenge Mr. cheyennebodie to debate me on evolution in all terms,both scientifically and religiously. Evolution has happened and is still happening as we speak. I donot 'believe' that evolution happened, I know that evolution happened (is happening),because we have undeniable evidence for it. I challenged him because I came across one of his comment saying people are 'infected' with Darwinism.
The new testament is antisemitic

The Gospel of John in particular is cited as being anti-Jewish for its numerous references to "the Jews" persecuting Jesus, which allegedly are meant to paint every Jew in a negative light. However, "the Jews" usually refers to a particular group of Jews, in particular the Pharisees and religious leaders. In 6:41 and 10:31, "the Jews" refers to the particular group of people Jesus was speaking to at the time: those attending the synagogue in Capernaum (6:59) and gathered in a particular spot in the temple in Jerusalem (10:23-24). The people referenced in 7:11-13 are the crowds of Jews gathered to celebrate a Jewish holiday. It is worth noting that some of the Jews are recorded as having a favorable opinion of Jesus; John is not trying to say that all the Jews slandered him. The people who are afraid to speak "for fear of the Jews" are themselves Jewish; therefore it is most likely that "the Jews" here refers to the religious leaders who were against Jesus and not all Jews. Those who planned to kill Jesus in 11:53 were the religious leaders, not the Jews in general. (11:47-48) However, the plot of the Jewish leaders would make it difficult for Jesus to be among the general Jewish population, as those who agreed with or feared the leaders could report his whereabouts. Again, this does not imply that every single Jew was out to kill Jesus. In fact, not even all of the chief priests were united against Jesus, for the high priest believed in him. (11:49-52) Finally, in John 19 it seems that the primary agitators for Jesus' death (if not in fact the only ones) are the chief priests, not the Jews as a whole. The chief priests are the ones speaking in verses 6 and 15, and are the ones Pilate dealt with concerning Jesus. www.rationalchristianity.net/anti-semitism.html http://www.jewsforjesus.org... http://www.theologian.org.uk...
The new testament is antisemitic

Jesus' parents were both Jews. It does not nullified the fact that other passages are quite anti-semetic. Muslim will argue the the quran is not violent by quoting verses that condemns atrocity, but other verses approve it. You are doing the same with the christian bible. "God loves us all" The christian god chooses those who accept Jesus (Ephesian 1:4-5). In the other side of the coin, those who are not saved, including the Jews were not chosen by jesus, and those deserve his wrath. Look at John 12:40 ""He has blinded their (JEWS) eyes and hardened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them."" the Christian god purposely blinded the Jewish people to reveal his wrath! The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes (but they can't because they were blinded by god) in him shall not perish but have eternal life." NOTE: I am not saying that christians are all anti-semitic. Most Christian love the Jews, but their Bible is anti-semitic. http://media.thedenverchannel.com... http://api.ning.com...*dF7n05kFdpNL9WOk-R35LFxbsx-VdaGLx8Iefc9923GfTTS9RVDuU*mDyCx6R37RTu*zBS1e80La/luke1927.jpg
The new testament is antisemitic

Jesus' parents were both Jews. God declared Mary was favored. So a Jew was favored. The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you." (Luke 1:28) - "God loves us all" http://youtu.be... - "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16) "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." (John 3:17) *Jews are a part of the world. And who could hate this guy? Yes, Jesus loves him too. http://youtu.be... And these guys too... http://youtu.be... Hate these people? Hmmm...I don't. (Ahem...) http://youtu.be...
The new testament is antisemitic

"Jesus was a Jew." Yes and he called gentiles dogs (Mark 7) But it does not change the fact that the NT has clear passages that are anti-semitic. I do not believe that the New Testament is inspires, thus one passage may not look anti-semitic and the other be quite extremely anti-semitic. Jesus (or the NT writers) created a new religion. Those who did not accept Jesus are marked as follower of Satan. It does not matter if the person that start the sect was actually part of the group, he distinguished himself and ask everybody to follow him. Those who did not follow Jesus are hated as per the Bible verse I previously stated. KING OF the JEWS. And the Jews rejected their king, and his blood is on them. Christians could see that as a good excuse to persecute them... Romans 1:16 It does not change the fact that other passages are clearly anti-semetic. "If God/Christ cannot deny Himself, then He cannot deny Himself as a Jew." Logically speaking, that Jesus is a Jew who believe in himself, thus he is a believer (christian). Those Jews we are talking about are those who do not accept Jesus. Jew can Convert to christianity. And that is the option they received too often. Kiss the cross or the sword! Thans' to the NON testament.
The new testament is antisemitic

Jesus was a Jew. https://carm.org... (Matthew 1:1-17)Geneology of Jesus- Above his head they placed the written charge against him: this is jesus, the KING OF the JEWS. (Matthew 27:37) "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the JEW, then to the Gentile." (Romans 1:16) 2 Timothy 2:13 "He cannot deny himself." If God/Christ cannot deny Himself, then He cannot deny Himself as a Jew. "Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God." (John 1:12) Jews can recieve Him. He cannot deny Himself.
The new testament is antisemitic

*One way of thinking states Jesus isn"t calling all Jews the devil"s spawn, he"s talking only about inhabitants of the area, but not condemning nearly all "Jews". *Another line of thinking says not all "Jews" were present at Jesus' condemning, nor were all "Jews" against Jesus. Ok, let see what those Jew say "we have Abraham as our father". This is a good definition of a Jew. Someone who is a descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Mordecai was a Jew from the tribe of Benjamin and the word Jews has been know since that time (first exile) to refer to any descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. There is more to say, only the JEWS who don't believe in Jesus are called like that. "Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!" So all Jews who don't believe in Jesus (AKA Rabinical Judaism who deny Jesus) are from there father the devil. So yes that passage is anti-semetic. Jewish Christians, also Hebrew Christians or Judeo-Christians, were the original members of the Jewish movement that later became Christianity. Yes and as per the new testament they are the "real" Israel, the "real" Jews and the other are not! Most scholars think that the anonymous author of John wrote it in the first century. Although the Gospel is ostensibly written by John, "the beloved disciple" of Jesus, there has been considerable discussion of the actual identity of the author. many scholars suggest that it was written at Ephesus, in Asia Minor, in about ad 100 for the purpose of communicating the truths about Christ to Christians of Hellenistic background. http://www.britannica.com... "1st century "Jewish Christians" were totally faithful religious Jews" Thus even if the firs christians were Jews, the new testament and especially John's letters were the last written. And because the thought the were the real Jews, the others were false Jews and deserved to be scolded at (that's what the thought)! "(Pastor John Hagee)" Yes many christian will rationalize those bible verses. And John Hagge and many messianic are like that. But Jesus said it. But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'" Luke 19:27 (Zechariah 12:10) See even if all Israel will be save, as per Paul, that Israel will believe in Jesus, thus they will be Christians and not, Jesus-denial Jews (the real ones). So all those Bible verse that talks good about the Jews are only talking good because those Jews believe in Jesus. But a Jew who believe in Jesus is no longer a Jew. They are apostate Jews! Thus, the authors of the New Testament misquote Zechariah 12 saying that they will look on Jesus, and thus believe Jesus. Again, they will really be Christians! My argument stand. The new Testament is anti-semitic against real Jews.
The new testament is antisemitic

Here is a website called "Jews for Jesus" http://jewsforjesus.org... Only these persons may be defined as Judeans: 1) Members of Judah’s tribe, when the Hebrew people were split into tribes. 2. An inhabitant of Judea country when it existed as a state entity. www.hebrewidentity.org/en/?page_id=127 What is a Jew in contrast to a Judean? A Judean was one who was born in the ancient independent and separate kingdom of Judea. The Biblical definition for the word “Jew” in the KJV of the Bible is “Judean”. A Judean was one who was born in the ancient independent and separate kingdom of Judea, a person loyal to the king of Judea, an inhabitant of the kingdom of Judea, and/or one having citizenship rights in the kingdom of Judea. In the Christian Bible, a Jew, or Judean, is not defined as someone “in the tribe of Judah”. Herod the Great was a Jew, yet his mother was a Nabatean. Paul was a Jew (Acts 22:3), yet he was of the tribe of Benjamin (Philippians 3:5). A Jew, or Judean, could have been from any tribe. A person could convert to Judaism and be a "Jew". Hebrews are "Jews". Hebrew is the biblical term for the Israelites. Like The Japanese speak Japanese, Hebrews speak Hebrew. But, by the time the Romans came around and gave the Jewish people that name, only the tribe of Judah remained identifiable. Because of this, Hebrews are known as Jews. Hebrew might be a better way to describe the overall ethnicity of this group. Judaism would be the actual religion of which one doesn't have to be Hebrew. In ancient times one could be Judean (a "Jew") and not be Hebrew. What's the point? "Jew" can mean multiple things. -- *One way of thinking states Jesus isn’t calling all Jews the devil’s spawn, he’s talking only about inhabitants of the area, but not condemning nearly all "Jews". *Another line of thinking says not all "Jews" were present at Jesus' condemning, nor were all "Jews" against Jesus. www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/05/sorry-america-you-re-wrong-the-jews-did-not-kill-jesus.html -- Jewish Christians, also Hebrew Christians or Judeo-Christians, were the original members of the Jewish movement that later became Christianity. In the earliest stage the community was made up of all those Jews who accepted Jesus as a venerable person or even the Messiah (Christ). 1st century "Jewish Christians" were totally faithful religious Jews. They differed from other contemporary Jews only in their acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... -- (Pastor John Hagee) "The day America turns its back on Israel, is the day God turns His back on America." (Referencing the Prophet Joel in the book of Joel) http://youtu.be... I now present Zechariah as an example of God/Christ's grace upon "Jews". "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son." (Zechariah 12:10)
Diversity isn't the magic glue

First of all, please make a clear separation of your each of your points as well as individual quotes and text. It is very difficult to read.Diversity and different are not the same. Different means 'not alike'. Diverse means 'with many variations'. This is important. The United States of America may have many variations, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have some common things. Everyone has the want to live a good life for them and/or others. Even terrorists and criminals. That alone is enough to unify the people.Sure, those people have different opinions on how the country should be run. Because not everyone is the same. So America will operate somewhere in the middle of how it is wanted.Diversity can bring massive separation. Different races. Different genders. Different sexual orientations. Different species. But that diversity also creates smaller unified groups. These groups work together with their commonness. Sometimes groups will drop their diversity and unify together. Of course, their opinions will conflict. The Republicans might disagree with the Democrats on abortion, and they will fight each other, but they both want to live well.The world could stand unified together. It doesn't. That allows the smaller groups with their own opinions to get what they want instead of their opinions to conflict. Or at least the groups will have agreeing opinions.Diversity doesn't always separate to the point of opposition. When it does, it brings unity to the separated groups. Realize also to saying we should no allow immigrants is saying you, an immigrant, should not be allowed in. It doesn't matter that you are here already, you weren't the first. No one was. All matter in the universe has immigrated. It is one thing if immigration is damaging the United States, but it isn't. There is a shrinking population already. And they don't bring damaging diversity. They are in their unified communities. They aren't 'killers and rapists' like Donald Trump says.And when diversity doesn't harm us, it helps us. The most important thing to humanity so far is separation of jobs. Without it, we would still be hunter gatherers. It has enabled nearly every invention in human history. It has improved everything humans experience. And it is because of diversity.Without diversity, everyone would be doing the same thing. They would act the same way. That sounds really boring.