BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay conversion therapy should be illegal

I will be arguing that so-called "conversion therapy" is a harmful practice with methods reminiscent of other outdated and long-ago illegalized forms of "therapy. " Conversion therapy, rather than focusing on healing, focuses on the patient learning that they are mentally ill; selfish; sinful and evil. Conversion therapy aims to change and destroy that which can not be changed, rather than providing aid for the real struggle that comes with being a homosexual in a culture where one may still be emotionally and/or physically brutalized for being so. While some people may choose on their own to attend conversion therapy, it is quite common for parents to force their children into CT, using it as a weapon and a punishment rather than a form of medicine. Those who DO attend on their own, have, for one reason or another, not found peace with their identity, and feel it necessary to change this aspect of who they are. They are driven by social pressures that make them feel either unsafe to live in a rampantly homophobic environment, or morally wrong for feeling the same-sex attractions they do. These people don't need to be told that they are awful and need reform. They need to be being given asylum from environments where they potentially being abused, and/or given real emotional support for self-deprecation, self-harm, and the mental disorders that may come along with lgbt-based abuse and ego-dystonic sexual orientation/ gender identity. That is how they become safe and get better. This argument is inspired by the following video: While the statements made here in no way constitute proof, the speaker makes salient points about the unethical nature of conversion therapy practices. I ask you to watch and consider it. I will provide a rebuttal to your initial thoughts and to your response to this video.
Is Jeremy Lin overrated

You are doing the Pro side BTW. Overrated- have a higher opinion of (someone or something) than is deserved. Your claims have no evidence so I'm going to disregard them and move on to my own point. Jeremy Lin is a successful Asian basketball player. The NBA is composed of 78% Blacks, 17% White, 4% Latinos, and 1% Asian. That's a really big accomplishment in a field where his race is underrepresented and discriminated against. Arguably, the top students in our nation get into Harvard, which is a 5.9% acceptance. He got into both. So 1%*5.9%*?% discrimination factor* ?? immigration factor equals to at most 0.59%. That's a small percentage, and when you factor in the other things, he is one in a million. Why would the media not want to cover it? Academically and on the playing field, and in circumstances in general, he was discriminated and managed to overcome obstacles to be where he is today. That is a far more inspiring story than say Michael Jordan who had an average middle class life and became a great basketball player. Anyone can take steroids and train mindlessly (not referring to Michael Jordan), but to overcome societal expectations without money is more than worthy enough of the hype. https://www.google.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... https://www.google.com...*5.9%25 https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.theatlantic.com... http://www.theguardian.com... I would suggest to Con that before he puts mindless narrow minded debates to consider that life isn't black and white and beneath the surface there is an incredible depth. Back to you Con!
People should be allowed to commit suicide

People should be allowed to commit suicide if everything else hasn't worked. I'd agree that before anybody does that they should have therapy, counseling, and take medication (if the problem is depression). However in the end it's their own life, and I believe that they should be allowed to do what they want with it. If they are living every day in constant misery, and nothing else has worked they should in the end be allowed to take their own life. Nobody should have to go through that amount of pain and suffering. They should give therapy and medication at least a couple of years and really think about if that is the definite decision that they want to make. However if all of that is done, and none of it has worked then people have to right to commit suicide. My opponent could argue that it would be traumatic for the family and because of that people shouldn't commit suicide. However, if the family really does care about that person, they should be able to realize the amount of suffering and not want the person to go through that. It may be hard for the family, but the amount of pain that the person is going through matters more. The family will eventually recover whereas the person who is going to commit suicide could never recover. Overall the family should not prevent the person from committing suicide as the person should have a right to take their own life and the family needs to understand what that person is going through. Overall if nothing else works people should be allowed to commit suicide as it is their own life. Nobody should go through that amount of suffering each day. Therefore, people have a right to take their own lives if there is no other solution.
Guns should be more heavily restricted in the US

When the country of the united states of america was born, it was a country of revolutionaries. We created a constitution to make life equal and fair. In the constitution is the most controversial amendment which is the 2nd. The right to bear arms and to create a militia if needed. Until the 21st century, we as humans in the post-industrialized world find it a crusade to create a peaceful and equal utopia; regardless of religious, political, and sociological beliefs. No matter how strict a gun regulation law is criminals will get weapons. "No assault weapons ban, no gun violence restraining order, no ammunition magazine capacity law would have prevented the San Bernardino slaughter. No gun control law has stopped Robert L. Dear Jr. from allegedly killing three people in Colorado."[1] Today's society is not different how it was a hundred years ago. In industrialized countries, they experience the highest standard of living, equality, and a pursuit of happiness. You say " restricting the sale of guns is to provide this greater ideal for the government, to maintain equality." I disagree with that statement because humans will be humans. We are not perfect and when something seems to perfect it'll cause fear, chaos and destruction. "Attempts to outlaw the manufacture and importation of handguns have failed because they stimulate the genesis of a black market for guns similar to the black market for drugs. Laws seeking to keep handguns out of the hands of criminals, juveniles, and mental defectives have failed to reduce crime because active criminals either have guns already or can steal them"[2] Banning weapons will destroy the country and divide the population more than it is today. Just like abortion and immigration. http://www.usatoday.com... https://www.cliffsnotes.com...
Guns should be more heavily restricted in the US

First, I will contend that equality is the primary thing our goverment should be achieving. Using social contract theory[1], the natural state of man is one of anarchy where the strongest rules, but this is unmaintainable for many reasons, some of which are obvious. No one has any security and the strong rules over the weak. So, what we do is create social contracts which are rules we must follow lest we be punished for our actions. These rules are manifested as our government, the entity that creates and enforces laws. These laws are primarily to maintain equality and safety, so that no man rules over any other and people do not have to worry whether someone will kill or punish them for not following someone else's self serving orders. With this in mind, I propose that the reason for restricting the sale of guns is to provide this greater ideal for the government, to maintain equality. Assuming that we have a good gun control plan that keeps guns out of the hands of most criminals, this provides a very strong barrier to violent crimes which is the breach of the contract that provides equality. Deterrence with our prisons is nice, but if we can do more, we are obligated to do it. Criminals have easy access to guns now, but if those guns are much harder to obtain for their suppliers, guns will eventually decrease and gun violence will decrease. 1. . http://www.iep.utm.edu........., primarily the philosophy of John Locke
Feminism Is Hypocritical and Sexist Against Men

Hey, Andrew. I'm sorry but I'm going to forfeit the rest of this debate because I am going to close my account.I just want you to know that this isn't typical of the website, so if you want to debate someone of at mediocre quality, you can stay on here and wait for a few weeks for a debate challenger to accept. Rarely would someone of mediocre quality (see: this entire website) would forfeit, so if you want to debate more, stay here.
Feminism Is Hypocritical and Sexist Against Men

Before I start thank you and good luck to you too. I don't deny that there are real feminist who stand for equality, but I'm talking about the "Feminazis". I believe we need to stop the rabid, insane hypocrites because they are getting out of control. Even when we're talking about real feminist I never hear them talking about things that effect men. I believe that anyone who actually stands for equality of both sexes is an egalitarian. because if you think about you're it's impossible to equalize both genders by only talking about the problems only one gender has. And a feminist can't stand for equality on that basis. The definition of feminism is ."The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." It may seem like a good thing but when thinking about it is like trying to make gray without using black paint. Just only using white paint. It's just not possible. In order to become a completely equal society we need to go for Egalitarianism and then take both genders problems, and do three things 1. Look at each problem 2. Determine if it's actually a problem (On the basis of - A. Does this really have any actual effects on people? B. If so how damaging is it? C. If we do fix it would people actually notice a change? D. Would people care? E. is there an actual solution?) 3. Fix the problems Only then could we make a completely equal society.
Feminism Is Hypocritical and Sexist Against Men

I accept. It seems my opponent outlined their case, so I will do mine as well: Feminism is based around equality True feminism favors the person who deserves something, not on the basis of sex Feminism is helpful for both men and women. But before I begin, I will concede that there are some "feminazis", or people that take the name of feminism and go onto misandric hate-spewing talks. But this debate isn't about the select minority, or even the majority if feminazis were the majority, it's about the idea of feminism in and of itself.Good luck and I wish for an excellent debate.
Feminism Is Hypocritical and Sexist Against Men

I believe feminism is hypocritical and sexist. 1: They never talk about men's problems (How divorce cases always favor women, and men are fucked emotionally and financially; or how women can hit men and get away with it; or how women get about half the sentence a man would get for the exact same crime.) 2: They blame men for EVERYTHING! (Feminist "All men are Rapist and men can't be raped" 3: They make up false statistics. (Women make 75-78 cents for the exact same work or 1 in 5 women are raped) 3.5: If you prove that they are wrong you're a misogynistic, woman hating, douche.
God exists

Resolution - god existsDefinitions:God - omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, eternal, conscious being that actively intervenes into our world, listens to our prayers, judges us after we die. Basically it's god of the Bible or Quran. God under discussion is not an idea, not a word, not a concept. God doesn't equal consciousness, god doesn't equal conscience, god doesn't equal energy etc. I hope it's clear now what kind of god I want to discuss.Burden of Proof:Burden is on my opponent to prove that above mentioned god exists, he or she may use whatever kind of evidence, argument or proof he or she likes.I will be showing that arguments presented are flawed in some way or another therefore insufficient to arrive at a conclusion that existence of the god is a fact, plus I'll present my own arguments for the absence of god which my opponent should rebut.I know that there are people completely convinced that the existence of god is a matter of fact so I think this BoP is fair.Rules:1. My opponent should start his or her argument in the first round.2. My opponent is not allowed to make arguments or rebuttals in his or her last round so we can have equal number of rounds to argue. He or she should write "thank you for debate" or like.3. No semantics4. If my opponent accepts debate it follows he accepts all rules, definitions, and BoP mentioned earlier.Good luck and have fun!
Zoophilia/Bestiality should be legal and is not inherently immoral

Like I said in my second argument, I'm going to switch back to debating about the morality of zoophilia. In my first argument, I said that the morals laws of a country were dictated by its populace, and even though you disagreed with me at first, you seem to have agreed with me, as per this. "I fully agree with you that a nation's (or smaller group) morality dictates the laws they pass. What's more I don't think the law should be based on anything but morality. " You said that the morality of a group dictated its laws, and that the law should be based only on morality. Let's take the Christian morality as an example, since it is the majority religion across North America (I'm assuming you live there.) The Bible says that a man may not lie with an animal, so according to the morality of the group, bestiality is immoral. Another argument for zoophilia could be that animals enjoy sex, and so do humans, therefore it's OK. (I'm not saying that you said that, BTW.) It has been proven that only a tiny fraction of animals have sex for reasons other than reproduction (as in pleasure) so subjecting an animal that only has sex for reproduction to sex for pleasure seems wrong to me.
Zoophilia/Bestiality should be legal and is not inherently immoral

Very good arguments. I might even actually reconsider my point. As you can see, I got off to a rough start there since I wasn't very well educated when it comes to zoophilia, however your argument has helped. I also got off to a rough start because I tried answering your question with a religiously-backed argument, which doesn't work most of the time. I'll try arguing from a secular viewpoint now, so I'll be taking away the focus on the morality aspect of this (since you covered it pretty well) and more to the legal, secular aspect. I'd like to ask you a question: What would the implications of legalizing bestiality be? Just think for a moment. What if bestiality was legalized in your country? What do you think would happen then? Surely there would be some riots or protests from religous groups taking offense at the legalization of it. Also, think about this: Would it be inherently useful to legalise bestiality? We know that it is hard to find exact numbers of peoples with a sexual attraction to animals due to the stigma attached to it. Think about it: would legalizing bestiality help the people who are born with an attraction to animals, or would it hurt them? If it was legalized, people would still be unaccepting at first of it, and people with an attraction to animals would be outcasts. Eventually, they would be accepted, yes, but it would take a long time for people who aren't even used to the idea of people having same-sex attractions to get used to the idea of inter-species relationships. Legalizing it would cause a great deal of harm to these people. I think that most zoophiles should adopt a "don't ask, don't tell" policy for the time being, and just patiently wait until bestiality starts to get accpeted.
Zoophilia/Bestiality should be legal and is not inherently immoral

I think your first two arguments for zoophilia ( it should be legal and it isn't inherently immoral) go hand in hand, since the morals of a nation dictate its laws. My argument against it is that it cannot be legal since most of society opposes it, and considers it to be immoral. Morals are dictated by a society based on what would be in the best interests of the society at large. I think that zoophilia is inherently immoral because you are forcing an animal to do what they are not usually able to do. A counter-argument for this could say that we shouldn't ride horses, either, since they aren't conditioned to do it by nature. I think that zoophilia could only be moral if the animal was raised so that having sex with humans would be considered normal by the animal, and not strange. Domestic pets and farm animals are brought up in a similar way, therefore they do not mind staying with humans and staying in man-made environments. But even if you were to bring up an animal to be conditioned for cross-species sex, it would be a massive waste of time to do so. To answer your second argument, your "mountain of previously derived facts" becomes a mountain of previously derived morals. No one has tried to examine the health risks or psychological risks associated with bestiality. According to your argument of "nothing is inherently moral or immoral on its own but becomes one when presented in the context of previously derived facts", bestiality would be considered inherently immoral.
terrorism vs islam

Islam has become radicalized rather greatly due to recent terror groups claiming allegiance to Allah... such as; ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Boko-Haram, Muslim Brotherhood. etc. As well as countries with a Muslim majority funding such groups like Iran and Saudi Arabia. So, it becomes really difficult to say "this is not what Islam is about" when so many people follow these beliefs and even provide material support. I have not even gotten into some of the ideas of Islam yet either where the Qur'an has very radical anti-western beliefs. Yes, there are other terror groups not following Islamic beliefs or pledging allegiance to Allah, but the vast majority happen to be Islamic following/backing.
Anger

Lack of Advantage to my Opponent's Plan.As of right now, there is nothing wrong with our current society that would call for anger to improve it. For a vast majority of the human population, survival is a given security, and many people are looking towards pursuing a life of luxury. Furthermore, the life expectancy of the world is continuing to be on the rise. According to Michael from VSauce in 2013, the first person who will live to be one hundred and fifty years old has already been born sometime in 2010.Lack of Inherent Barriers.We do not need our opponent's plan to initiate anger in people, because there is no direct opposition in the government to the idea. Our current system in Washington is full of plenty of anger already, so Pro's plan is unnecessary.Lack of Solvency in my Opponent's Plan. "Anger solves nothing." -Ghandi, at some point in his life.This quote strongly suggests that my opponents plan to use anger more often will make no significant change to the status quo of our current society.Lack of... Plan.My opponent did not present a plan, therefore Con has no current arguments necessary to be refuted.Disadvantages to My Opponent's Plan.1. North Korea has lots of anger. You what else North Korea has lots of? Concentration Camps.2. Soldiers in World War I experienced a lot of anger. You what they also experienced a lot? Mustard gas.3. Donald Duck gets angry a lot. You know what Donald Duck doesn't get a lot? Laid.CounterplanIf people need moral motivation, they can watch American Ninja Warrior. That TV show encourages excercise, motivation, and self-esteem by showing that normal nerds like you and I can do amazing things. Anger is not needed for such a thing.Framework Obviously, because my opponent is proposing the plan and has made the affirmative statement, he has the burden of proof.For these reasons and more, I urge a Con vote.Sources http://dafk.net...http://jellotime.com...http://pleasecomment.us...http://annoyingcursor.com...http://beefchickenpork.com...http://onandoff.org...http://violentpower.com...
Gender neutrality

Conclusion: 1. Pro has not showed why he agrees with Gender Neutrality, nor has he shown why we should also agree. 2. Pro’s entire case is bare assertions, as he provided no evidence whatsoever for what he presented. 3. Pro’s case is largely unrelated to his resolution, as there is not one single contention that argues for Gender Neutrality! If there are any, it’s distinctly for the opposite of the resolution: “Without distinction between genders society as we know it will not survive, cannot survive. ” 4. Pro thus failed to carry his BOP. 5. Pro also forfeited his 3rd round, warranting him a penalty in Conduct. => Therefore, it’s clear Pro lost the debate, in both in Arguments & Conduct.
Gender neutrality

Resolution: - Gender Neutrality: the idea that policies, language, and other social institutions should avoid distinguishing roles according to people's sex or gender [*]. - I shall remind the voters that the BOP is on Pro. - Besides the fact that Pro’s whole case is a bare assertion fallacy, for which he provides no evidence whatsoever, it is also off topic. There is not a single word denoting gender neutrality (nor any related ideas) in Pro’s entire case. There is literally nothing to argue against here. - Therefore, I shall await Pro’s arguments for Gender Neutrality so that I can refute them. [*] Wikipedia.
We should turn Saudi Arabia into a democratic nation

I am taking the Con side of this debate. My opponent will argue that we should turn Saudi Arabia into a democratic nation. I debated this once before, but my opponent presented an illogical, incoherent, and heated argument that was not fulfilling in the least. The voters on that debate wished to see it presented again, so here it is.R1: Con rulesPro Opening argumentsR2: Arguments and rebuttalsR3: RebuttalsR4: Rebuttals and conclusionsSince Pro is arguing to change the established system, BOP is on Pro.
Cross-species Genetics. Its the next logical step.

although I must say you are a good debater you have one little thing to worry about I have been saving this until the end. the end of the debate and the end of you just seem to go well together. the costs. will Americans want to spend millions of dolor's to pay for a cross spices they will barely pay to keep a hospital for children with cancer open and alt of Americans don't have the money to give, the rich people wont give money because they are to stingy and don't care about the welfare of the people just the welfare of themselves and another thing the risks I think you understand the risks of mutations and crossing a species genetics. these living things can and will die if we do this if you kill thousands of cats trying to find a cure for a rare cancer strain will you be saving the spices or hurting it. so I guess the next answer you want to ask yourself is when is this sort of treatment okay. you have never stated that nor will you get a chance to I have saved this strong point for the end you have been a good debater but again not a great one.