BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Turkey is in violation of Human Rights

Concerning this original argument we must set objective foundations, along with clear semantics so we know what we are arguing. Firstly, by 'Human Rights' I assume you mean the declaration made by the United Nations, of which Turkey is a member. If so, the specific articles need to be raised. Are we talking about freedom of expression? Freedom of religion? Freedom from persecution? Secondly,, hatred and ignorance concerning a minority group HAS NOTHING to do with human rights. A religious or ethnic group can be hated but still be perfectly treated within their human rights. Thirdly, you refer your argument specifically to the Greek living in Turkey that are Orthodox Christians. Note that this DOES NOT mean all Greeks living in Turkey. Only those who are Orthodox Christian AND Greek. You then mention the Greek Cypriots, but this is not the same as your previous statement UNLESS you declare the 'Greek Cypriots who are also Orthodox Christians.' This was not made clear. Made clear. Taking your present argument truly, your are asserting the Turkish government is clearly in violation of the Human Rights of Orthodox Christian Greeks and Orthodox Christian Cypriots who live in Cyprus (Cyprus is unclear, I address this later). I hope you accept this interpretation as it is the precise informal form of your argument. Religion and ethnicity and/or nationality cannot be hastily conflated because they are very different things. I will also make the assumption that you are referring to Greek Cypriots in 'Eastern Cyprus' which is a part of Turkey and not the Republic of Cyprus. In order to succeed in your claim that Turkey is clearly in violation of human rights you must clarify: 1) Who they apply to SPECIFICALLY (Ethnic group, racial group, religious group, or certain combinations of all) 2) What benchmark you are using. 3) Which human right(s) I stress 1) because I do not accept your original statement. The groups you refer too need to be clarified and refined. The burden of proof is on you as you are making a positive claim.
Advertising: Manipulation or Information

The case for advertising To cast dispersion on such a broad swathe of industry is astounding. Advertising is clearly information and not manipulation. Let's look at two categories of advertising that serve the public good: 1. Public Service Announcements (PSA) PSA's can be used to inform, educate and motivate the public about non-commercial issues, such as HIV/AIDS, political ideology, energy conservation and deforestation. David Ogilvy once said, "Advertising justifies its existence when used in the public interest—it is much too powerful a tool to use solely for commercial purposes." Perhaps, the most remembered is the Smokey Bear commercials with Smokey saying, "Only you can prevent forest fires". There's hardly an adult alive in the US today who does not remember that saying when camping. Countless forest fires have probably been saved through the use of PSA advertising. 2. Political Advertisements Everyone knows who the two major candidates for US president are but what about Governor or State treasurer? The sad reality is the lesser known candidates don't have a chance to get their message out for free like major ones do. These unknowns pay for advertising which helps level the playing field somewhat. It would be a sad day when the public only got to hear from the rich parties such as Democrats and Republicans. Political advertisements serve a useful purpose to get information out to the masses. So, clearly advertising need not be even commercial in nature, so pro's premise #2 is false. But even when advertising is commercial in nature it's not manipulation. Think if you're a small business owner, say a bike shop, how would anyone know your location that didn't live in the immediate area? They wouldn't. Businesses need to reach outside their small neighborhood to be successful. Nobody's twisting arms saying you have to buy. They're just saying look here we are, here's what we have. That's the way it's been for thousands of years and businesses will continue to offer us the goods that we want. And we'll know about it through advertising.
Advertising: Manipulation or Information

I am new to debate.org so I apologize for any mistakes. I would like to propose a debate on the idea of Advertising: Manipulation or Information. Currently, media have acquired great importance. But each of us more than once observed that, in discussing the same event, different sources give different facts. Advertising distributes information in order to attract the attention of potential consumers. In my opinion, in a society, where the dominant value is to maximize profits, advertising will turn into manipulation. Manipulation can be either direct violence information. On the one hand, a person has to do what he does not want to. On the other, what he does seem to be voluntary, but that eventually brings him some damage. Advertising, filling our media reflects both of these option. Information violence manifests itself in the way of advertising. If it was carried out in a strictly fixed time and the viewer could freely choose. In fact, it is a most unexpected way intrudes into other programs, preventing their normal and full perception. The same thing on the Internet: you just think of the text, when different advertise appear that can't immediately remove it. It's not all the information I want to say, but I hope, that I have made my idea clear. Thank you for your time, I hope you accept this challenge.
Food is good (troll debate)

Food is bad. Food makes us fat. They have many carbs. People don't exercise. They just eat. Many people are obese. Just see this[1]. I don't like food. I've told you why. Do YOU like food? Food is unhealthy. People eat junk nowadays. Now we see fatties. People are SO fat. It makes me cry. Don't YOU cry? Boo-hoo-hoo! Food is sad.Junk makes you fat. Healthy stuff is nasty. What's good AND healthy? Nothing! We're all gonna die! Aaaaaaahhhhhhhh! Kick out the fooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooood!P.S.: Please see the comments.
Food is good (troll debate)

Rule No 1. Your sentences cannot be more than 4 words long Eg. "I like food. Food is good. Food makes us whatever.Rule No 2. Round 1 is for acceptance ONLY, Round 4 is for conclusions.Rule No 3.The rules do not applt to the sentences that frame the rules.Rule No 4.If anyone breaks a rule, the other guy gets a 1 point bonus.Rule No 5.Have fun :)
Debates here are too formal

I do not agree that debates on debate.org are too formal. These are, after all, formal debates. They're designed to be formal debates. That's why they have a set number of rounds, word limits, and criteria for judging. These debates are supposed to be formal.I do not think it's true that people pay more attention to grammar and "big words" than to the actual reasons they have in the debate. The voting section accounts for both of those criteria, and the points are weighted in such a way as to give more importance to arguments. While spelling and grammar are factors in the voting process, they are not bigger factors than the arguments.It may be true that a lot of the "thank yous" and "your welcomes" are fake, but many of them are sincere. As for myself, I appreciate a good well-thought out argument as opposed to an angry diatribe. I appreciate a challenge. And I appreciate good manners. I do not appreciate condescension, snarkiness, and rudeness. So I let people know when they are appreciated. But even in the case of fake "thank yous" and "your welcomes," if you think about it, good manners often does require hiding your true feelings. As Greg Koukl once said, "The difference between doing what comes naturally and principled self-restraint is called civilization."[1] Saying "thank you" and "your welcome" to people with whom you have deep disagreement is just good manners.[1] Koukl, Greg, Tactics in Defending the Faith, p. 150
are people born gay

As my concluding statement, I would also like to address the statements my opponent made in their concluding statement. In the above argument, my opponent stated that a real life example of homosexuality being typical was Ancient Greece, which is a true statement. However, Ancient Greek society is so far in the past it could be seen as irrelevant to modern day society. The fact that women were treated as slaves supports this claim, because in the present day, women are generally viewed as people in their own right, aside from the awful sex-trafficking that is a darker part of our world. With that being said, "women citizens had to marry as a virgin and marriage was usually organised [sic] by the father, who chose the husband and accepted from him a dowry" [1] which was a role that women played aside from those involved with prostitution. Theoretically, if homosexuality were to be accepted as the most common type of sexual orientation there would be logistical problems. The primary reason that homosexuality is not the most prevalent form of sexuality is because couples involved in monogamous relationships would have to become pregnant or impregnate another person because two people of the same gender cannot reproduce. This most likely why homosexuality was never well developed in biblical times and carried out through the later centuries. I also agree with you that sexuality should be kept to oneself, generally speaking, in that it in unnecessary to broadcast that means of personal information to the world. On the other hand, I do think that it wouldn't be reasonable for it to be a complete mystery in terms of a persons sexual orientation, because people would have a harder time getting involved with a romantic partner. Also, I do agree that is can be very stressful for a person to "come out of the closet", but keeping it to themselves could also lead a large amount of internal frustration and hatred because they would feel like they are supposed to hide their true identity from society. Again, that you so much for debating this topic with me and this has a very fair debate. I also ask voters to please vote purely on how well we each debated and not on personal opinion. Thanks. [1] . http://www.ancient.eu.com...
are people born gay

Since this is my closing statement I would like to begin by saying that this has been a very informative debate and I think that my opponent was very successful as debating this topic while managing to keep bias out of the argument. I think that it will ultimately be up to the voters to decide I ask that voters keep bias out of the argument and read both are arguments. To conclude this debate I would like to begin by responding to what my opponent said above. My opponent says above quoting an article that most people experience little to no sense of choice about there sexual orientation studies show. However I believe the reason for this is not that people are born heterosexual or homosexual but when a child is in his/hers early years and can be easily manipulated they believe what they are taught to believe is truth. In our society from a young age children are exposed to heterosexual relationships on television in music and they can see how males and females interact in the world around them. This is the reason why the majority of people are heterosexual, however if from young age you where taught that homosexual relationships where normal or acceptable they would accept that as a norm. My evidence of this occurring in real life is in Ancient Greece men had sex with each other and it was regarded as normal because back then woman where viewed as slaves in there society. To have sex with a man was considered holy and special. Therefore if our society excepts the idea of homosexuality there will be a significant increase in the amount of homosexuals over time. Because of this you will see a steep decline in the amount of children born in America per year and a negative population increase. after arguing I agree with you that for most there is no real choice in sexual orientation however I do not think that this is because people are born gay. Which is the topic we should have been more focused on. As a compromise a think that possibly it would be better if we simply just kept are sexual orientation to ourselves as it is no one else's business that people wont have to feel the urge of having to "come out of the closet" which is something that people have been encouraging, I think it would be better if people just kept it to themselves because sexual orientation is very personal. Think about the anxiety that there is for gay people who feel they must come out of the closet wouldn't it be nice if they did not have to worry about that and they just kept it to themselves? Thank you for debating this topic you seem to have a very balanced opinion and open mind on this subject
are people born gay

Thanks for clearing that up, I was a little confused. In response to your points, I would like to address a major concern in that you brought up in your second argument. According the the American Psychological Association, "many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation. [1]" The key here is that it is widely accepted that the vast majority of the population do not choose their sexual orientation, whether that be heterosexual or homosexual. Instead of accepting that it is a choice, which it is not, a better focus of accepting homosexuality would be to educate both sexualities on prejudice and discrimination. The psychological effects of accusing someone of choosing their identity could lead to depression, social anxiety, and suicidal ideation. Instead, great efforts could be made to celebrate the homosexual community and combat prejudice. A great example of this would be the ruling that the students at Baylor University decided that the inclusion of homosexual acts in the misconduct policy should be removed. [2] Society has not created the way everyone views homosexuality, because not everyone views it the same way. In the past few years, homosexuality has become increasingly accepted and supported by people of all different faiths, religions, and ethnicities. If more people are accepting homosexuals, it would not have any direct correlation to the number of homosexuals, except for any individuals that may feel less threatened by coming out. Initially, it may appear that there would be a higher number of homosexual individuals, however, that number would only increase do to the fact that if society is accepting of homosexuality, they wouldn't feel the need to hide their true identity. Sources: [1] http://www.apa.org... [2] http://www.usatoday.com...
are people born gay

thank you for responding to my points and I apologize for not making my statements more concise, what I was trying to say by my first statement was that before puberty if boys and girls both dressed in similar clothing and had shorter hair it would be difficult to tell the difference my point being that. The Idea between feminine and masculine where created by society; in other words what if boys had long hair and wore skirts and girls had short hair and wore more in are modern sense masculine clothing. This would not mean that every individual would have to be the same but that to wear a skirt was regarded as more masculine and not to do so was regarded as feminine people would still have individual traits but these traits would not be characterized as masculine or feminine. To be gay often is characterized as having more feminine traits over masculine which is based on societies definition of the two. What I am getting at is that sexuality is created by society. Therefore you are not born gay but rather grow up in an environment in which you then decide your sexual preference. you would not receive the same result because if people view being gay as something you are born with and have no choice in the matter. then they will accept it because they have to accept it not because they think it is the right thing for an individual to decide there sexual preference. Because of this people will still view being gay as almost a deform. If this happens people would never accept people who are gay. If being gay is considered by society to be a choice then people would be more accepting of it in the long run because it will be seen as a personal decision and not a preference you are born with. Also I did not say that people should all be forced to accept this standard I said that if being gay is viewed as a choice people would be in the long run more accepting of it. While if its viewed as a defect people will only accept it because the person who is gay has no choice. Also I am not calling homosexuals freaks, I am saying that society came up with the way we all view having sex with the same gender for example in ancient Greece it was normal for men to have sex because woman where regarded as slaves in there society to have sex with a man was a great and holy event. Also I never said I believe society is forcing people to be gay however if in society the idea of being gay become a socially accepted norm more people will do it. Similarly to how if everyone around you thinks that baseball is a awesome sport it is likely that you will grow up to like baseball just as the majority of others do. I hope that cleared things up a bit
are people born gay

In response to your first point, I do not believe that society dictates how the majority of people interact with one another in any way. That is an over generalization since society does not force people into any sort of role. In all fairness, society may influence that way an individual handle a certain situation, though in a relatively minor way compared to what you seem to be suggesting. Leading into your argument that before a child reaches puberty there is no definitive exterior difference in appearance between male and females, I do believe that there is a noticeable difference between the two. Of course some males may choose to cut their hair shorter than the typical female and vice versa, but does that have any direct correlation to one choosing to be homosexual? This presumption could be applied to a situation as saying that if you made everyone the same, then you couldn't tell the difference. My assuming this, you are creating a theoretical situation which is implausible and unrealistic, because that would mean that every individual would have to be the same, which they are not. In terms of image, society does not dictate how a person looks or dresses as much as one might think. Traditions of females dressing in skirts and dresses can be traced back past biblical times, as can males dressing in pants and shirts. It would be unreasonable to assume that society back them was concerned more with appearance than with functionality. You also bring up the point that if everyone accepts homosexuality as a choice, the world would be a better place. If you apply the same reasoning to accepting that homosexuality isn't a choice, you draw the same conclusion which means that by accepting a false statement, you would achieve the same results as if everyone accepted the truth. Removing any bias from this statement, your sentence is actually a loaded question. You suggest that accepting something would make the world a better place than it is now, which leads me to believe that you think that our world is not as good as it would be if people accepted something that they may or may not believe in. You state that society unjustly dictates foment and masculinity, yet you also come back to and say that in is just for society to force everyone to conform to one standard. In all honesty, I really do not know what you are getting at with your last point, though I will try to address it anyway. Homosexuality is not a freak idea created by society because it is just a label that is used to describe people who like individuals of the same gender. This logic could also be used to justify that bullying is a freak idea generated by society, because you claim that any concept that is commonly associated with someone makes in unjust. If homosexuality is a freak idea, then you must believe that society is forcing people to be gay, and that they are not choosing to be gay, as you stated in your original argument.
are people born gay

(can you respond to my points I laid out A-E before we argue your point?) in response to your points stated above, the idea of masculine to feminine is something society created in your own words describe to me what you think it means to be either. Because the idea of what is it to be feminine and what it means to be masculine where created by society therefore you cannot support this as true scientific evidence and you cannot use this as an argument. There are many gay couples in which they are both by societies idea of masculine and feminine very masculine.
are people born gay

In my personal opinion, I am neither pro-homosexuality or anti-sexuality, I do however believe in the fact that individuals are not able to change their identity in order to conform to the traditional agenda. Scientifically, we have not yet identified a certain link between brain structure or genetic make-up in relation to a person being homosexual. Although in a quarterly biology review, a group of scientists from NIMBioS discovered a link in epigenetics and homosexuality which supported the theory that sex-specific epimarks in the early developmental portion of fetal development that spur atypical amount of testosterone or estrogen to develop. These abnormal levels of either of these hormones cause a man to be more feminine or a women to be more masculine, which is what society typically labels as "gay" or "lesbian." In short, there is a very strong biological reason for one being homosexual, that reputes the claim that they make the choice to be heterosexual or homosexual. Needless to say, a fetus that is only a few weeks along cannot make a decision whether or not it will be homosexual. Source: http://www.eurekalert.org...
are people born gay

In recent years we have witnessed a lot of arguments over the issue of gay marriage and homosexuality in general. However I feel like people are not paying enough attention to the real debate at hand are people born gay? main debate points to discuss A)Society dictates how the majority of people interact with one another sexually and non sexually. B)at birth a child does not understand the difference between male and female nor the complexity of a modern day relationship. C)before a children reaches puberty there are no distinctive exterior differences between males and females, except the way they dress and the image they portray. the "image" is also dictated by society for example if a group of 6 year olds all cut there hair short and dressed in the same clothes could you tell the difference. D)the world would be a better place if we accepted the fact that being gay is a choice E)homosexuality is a freak idea created by society because the whole basis of it is on the principles of gender stereotypes if a boy likes the color pink for example it does not mean that he is gay. Note I am not anti-gay in my opinion it is your choice however, I am against the way our society currently views homosexuals, they are not accepting them but they are making an excuse for there homosexuality by saying that people are born gay. This is a bad thing for are society because it makes being gay seem like an abnormal condition that mutates a gene. In my opinion I think it would be better if we just agree that it is an individuals choice to be gay. This would be better for society because people would over time become more accepting of homosexuals, just as people have become more tolerant for the most part of other religious groups. Forcing people to accept homosexuals by using the excuse that they are born that way and that you must accept them is not a solution.