BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The government should be required to recognize domestic gay marriages.

Hm, my opponent seems to have repeated what he did last round - which is to give no substantive response. My opponent's response to the BoP is absolutely incomprehensible. Instead of arguing about it, despite his skewed understanding of it, I'll just agree that the BoP starts with me. However, this is no problem since I already have fulfilled it - I gave my argument! In fact, I repeated this argument twice, in which the second time I explained it in even more detail. There should be no controversy that the BoP is now on my opponent, but we have yet to see a rebuttal. Instead, I have to deal with this flimsy sidestep my opponent attempts. What is this notion that if I don't make a reference to the words in the resolution, my argument is irrelevant?! To be honest, I'm confounded as to what in the world my opponent is thinking. How does literally typing down the words "government' and "recognize" affect the validity of my argument? I made it blatantly clear what I was arguing for - that gay marriage should be legalized. This is just another way of requiring the government recognizing domestic gay marriages. I can't believe my opponent is even claiming my argument is irrelevant is the words from the resolution don't appear in my argument. That was never necessary for a valid argument - the only possible situation I can think of is if the instigator makes a specific rule stating so in his/her first round. However, a simple read will demonstrate this is NOT the case. I have nothing else left to say; my opponent has absolutely no case for his position yet. He's been evading this for 2 rounds now, so I can't say my expectations are going to be high. "Until my opponent actually addresses the resolution at hand, there is nothing I can refute." ----> Ironically enough, you should heed your own words.
The government should be required to recognize domestic gay marriages.

With the BoP, I have essentially fulfilled my own BoP with the statement that entities should not be required to recognize anything without a good reason, which PRO would need, so although the BoP is technically on both of us, my arguments transfer it to PRO. Because my opponent has never protested that entities need reason for recognition, it is conceded, so he has effectively taken the BoP upon himself. With a reason why the resolution should be negated until affirmed, I have fulfilled the statement, "Innocent until proven guilty," as described by my opponent's source. Now, as for my opponent's argument, it's rather brilliant. However, he's missed the point. His argument is that heterosexual couples can be married, so homosexual couples should be allowed to be married, as well. There's no problem with that. However, nowhere in his arguments does he make any reference to governmental recognition of anything whatsoever, and especially not to recognition of domestic gay marriages. The words "government" and "recognize" only appear once in his entire R2 argument, and that is with his quoting of my own arguments. Therefore, his arguments are rather irrelevant, and no refutation is necessary. Until my opponent actually addresses the resolution at hand, there is nothing I can refute.
The government should be required to recognize domestic gay marriages.

My opponent gives a swift response, but it's absolutely lacking in any substantive arguments! When people say the BoP is always on PRO, or the instigator, I would say that this only happens in real life situations, such as court for example. This is why we have such concepts like the benefit of assumption[1] - commonly known as innocent until proven guilty. However, this is a debate. Both debaters come into this with full knowledge and will to participate, otherwise why would they have decided to debate in the first place? Therefore, both sides have a certain burden or obligation to backup their position and arguments, irrespective of whether or not they are the instigator. Yet, my opponent's conception of the BoP isn't my main issue with his argument. It's the fact that he has virtually given no response to my opening argument - he simply sidesteps it. He states that I have have made "no argument so far as to why government should be required to recognize such a marriage". Are you kidding me? I explicitly stated in my first round that if we both agree about the value of the Equal Protection Clause, then I would argue it should follow that gay marriage shouldn't be prohibited. Why? Because on one hand you have heterosexual couples get married, which is undoubtedly a right, while on the other hand you have homosexual couples being restricted from marrying. This means there is a difference in rights, an inequality. Now, of course it's perfectly legitimate for a certain group of citizens to have different rights than others. For example, children do not have many rights that adults do, and it's for valid secular reasons - namely that the brain development of a child is not fully completed. However, I would contend that there is NO valid secular reason for restricting gays from marrying while allowing straight couples. THIS is clearly my argument, there should be no room for confusion. Since I've stepped up to the plate, my opponent should do the same and not simply disregard what I wrote. ---References--- 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The government should be required to recognize domestic gay marriages.

I, too, hope for a great debate. My reasoning for the placement of the BoP is that no entity should be required to do something without reason. If my opponent disagrees, he can attack that reasoning. Otherwise, I have no BoP. My opponent's argument so far is that the government should not deny gays the ability to marry. That's fine. However, my opponent has made no argument so far as to why government should be required to recognize such a marriage. Until he makes such an argument, I cannot refute. With that, I leave the floor to my opponent.
The government should be required to recognize domestic gay marriages.

My opponent has defined all terms, and I agree to all of them. I'm positive that semantics won't be a core of this debate, so there's no need to bring up such a point. However, I do want to point out that in a debate it is not only PRO who has the BOP (Burden of Proof) - the CON side has it as well. My opponent has graciously allowed me to make the first argument, so I will do as such. There are essentially two ways of going about this debate - we either argue about facts or values. It is our duty to sort out the facts if we agree to the same values. If our values clash, then it is our duty to resolve such a conflict. Since I find it common (if not always) to have values be the foundation of a substantive argument, I will put down my values of why gay marriage should be recognized. I argue that all citizens must be treated equally unless there is a valid secular reason for it - this is known as the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment[1]. I assume my opponent agrees to this value as well; if he doesn't it, then he is free to attack it. As an obvious follow up, I believe there is no valid secular reason for denying gays the ability to marry. And here is where I stop. The most probable path now is that my opponent will line up counterarguments against my position such as whether or not homosexuality is natural, whether it will result in a slippery slope, etc. To refute all possible counterarguments would be breathtakingly absurd - I will simply wait for his counterarguments and respond accordingly. So there you have it. I eagerly await my opponent's response. ---References--- 1. . http://topics.law.cornell.edu...
The government should be required to recognize domestic gay marriages.

"The government" - Any government in the United States recognized as a government by the U.S.F.G. "required" - "imposed a compulsion or command on" http://www.merriam-webster.com... "recognize" - "to acknowledge formally" http://www.merriam-webster.com... "domestic" - "originating within [the United States]" http://www.merriam-webster.com... "gay marriages" - "the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage" http://www.merriam-webster.com... I'll let PRO make the first argument, because PRO has the Burden of Proof, in the sense that no entity should be required to do something without reason.
Obama is not a socialist

Barack Obama in our media is portrayed by GOP propagandists as being a "socialist". However, Obama is clearly not a socialist, but rather someone who believes in the true powers of capitalism. One point that seems to come up when debating whether or not Barack is a socialist is his health care reform. This is clearly not a socialist policy because the government is essentially telling you what to buy. Now, people freak out when they hear this, but think about- government regulation is present in our everyday lives. For an example, the government makes us buy car insurance, so why can't it force us to buy health insurance. Also, under the current health care regulations, the government is not selling health insurance to the masses, thus health insurance hasn't gone public. People still buy health insurance from private companies, this furthering Barack Obama's capitalist views. I hope you consider these opening points throughout the debate. (Just a note, this is just my intro, so I didn't include definitions.
Man should be locked up for at least ten years or bond should be at least one million

First of all, the minimun sentence for taking a life ( muder) is 25 or 60 years. Is a dog not alive? In other words, is it not a life. This man , Jacob Rodgers, has taken this puppys' life for a simple incedent, wetting his bed, and all he got was a 5 thousand dollor bond, or if convicted a 30 month sentence. I find this quite unsettling. Im not saying he should serve all 25 years cause i know that will never happen, but to bring this dog justice i say at least 10 years or a higher bond. Secondly, What if when he comes out he is tempted to do it again, i mean his punishment wasnt so great. he can decide to escalate to taking human lives. Basiclly, I am just worried for the safety of my animals and even other human lives. . http://www.statisticbrain.com...
Yoda is the Best Star Wars Character.

Yes, I understand that Yoda was a Jedi, but Han is also more prominent in the movies. When I am talking about the movies, I mean the original trilogy. And let's face it, Han is WAY more entertaining the Yoda is. Han has so many accomplishments. Here is a list: 1. Supplied the Millenium Falcon to Luke and Ben. 2. If it weren't for him, we wouldn't have had Chewbacca. That is worth it right there. 3. He was alive at the end, unlike Yoda. 4. He was very street smart, so he knew how to get out of sticky situations. 5. He was incredibly entertaining.
Yoda is the Best Star Wars Character.

Yoda is much better than Han in many different ways. First off he is a JEDI; Han is not. Not only is Yoda a Jedi, he was a member of the Jedi High Council and, at one point, was the Grand Master of the Jedi. This makes him almost definitely the greatest Jedi of all time. One would also have to look at the plot of the movies. These movies are about the Jedi. The Jedi are the most important characters and Yoda is the greatest of the Jedi, therefore he is the greatest Star Wars character of all time. You also say that Han's personality makes up for him not being a Jedi, but let's think about his personality. He is an arrogant, greedy, impatient smuggler who almost lost his woman to her own brother. You also say that Han put up with Luke's whining but look what Yoda did for Luke. He changed him from a whining boy into a strong Jedi. It is true that Han supplied the Millennium Falcon to Luke and Ben but he wanted to do it for a price. Even if he had not taken them, Ben would have found a new way to get to their destination.
Yoda is the Best Star Wars Character.

Thank you for challenging me to this debate. I will admit, Yoda is definitely one of the Top 5 Star Wars characters, but Han Solo is by far the best Star Wars character. Han may not be a Jedi, but his personality definitely makes up for it. I mean, very little from the Star Wars Trilogy beats the moment that he shot Greedo at the Mos Eisley Cantina. That is classic Han Solo/Harrison Ford. And let's think about it. Who puts up with Luke's whining in the movies more? Yoda or Han? Han puts up with it much more than Yoda. In fact, Yoda couldn't even handle his whining. Yes, Yoda has some amazing accomplishments, but none of them would have been possible if Han wouldn't have supplied the Millennium Falcon to Luke and Ben. I look forward to hearing your counter-argument.
Yoda is the Best Star Wars Character.

Yes, Yoda was in all six movies, but no true Star Wars fan would really care too much about the first 3. And I did forget about Chewy being in #3, but it was only for a few seconds and nothing really happened. And with Yoda living 900 years, that is NORMAL for his species. I do know that he returned as a ghost with Ben, but he was still dead. Plus, Han is pretty good with a gun too. I do realize that he didn't believe in the Force at the beginning, but he came around to it. It could also be said that he revolutionized the most during the Trilogy. He started out very greedy and scummy, but by the end he was a hero with his priorities straight. I will admit that Yoda is probably the #2 character in Star Wars, but Han Solo is by far #1 in my book.
Yoda is the Best Star Wars Character.

When you say he is more prominent you are only talking about the Original Trilogy. Yoda is in all six movies, making him much more prominent overall, and how can you say Han is more entertaining? If you take into account all three prequels, Yoda is in some of the best duels of the entire series. Yoda vs Count Dooku; Yoda vs Emperor Palpatine. These duels just show how powerful Yoda really is. I would also like to argue your point " If it weren't for him, we wouldn't have had Chewbacca." Chewbacca was in the third movie and he fought alongside, guess who, Yoda. Also, you say an accomplishment is he was alive at the end, unlike Yoda. Yoda was 900 years old, accomplishment I am almost positive Han could not top. Yoda also returned at the very end of the sixth episode, as a ghost alongside Obi-Wan and Anakin Skywalker. Lastly, you say he was very street smart so he could get out of sticky situations. Yoda could get out of sticky situations just as well as Han could. You think Yoda was not street smart? He could get out of a situation much easier than Han Solo could. He could also do it without having the entire Galactic Fleet on his tail. That leaves you with two (somewhat) valid points, "Supplied the Millennium Falcon to Luke and Ben (Obi-Wan)" and "He was incredibly entertaining." Come to think of it, this second one really isn't even a point because you are trying to prove he is entertaining. Overall I think my argument proves Yoda is a much better Star Wars Character than Han Solo and, probably, is the greatest Star Wars character of all time.
Schools should teach less from books and teach children in experience

Hello everyone. This is my first post so I might screw up a little. Recently I have heard about a project of my aunt. The project is creating a school where the children do not learn from books but learn by doing things. For instance, they learn how to use math in sailing (How to calculate how much degrease the sail has to be turned etc, things like this.) I personally think that teaching by actually doing things makes the kids memorise it longer. I am interested in your opinion!
Schools should teach less from books and teach children in experience

Teaching by actually doing things certainly has its benefits, but the biggest problem is that schools simply do not have the resources to go to such elaborate measures to have kids learn stuff by actually doing things..... Im fairly confident that 95% of schools cant afford for all of the students to go on a sailing trip just to learn a bit of math too Books are the cheapest way for schools to teach kids, but they are effective enough to get the job done to the point that teaching through experience is only minorly more effective but at a much higher cost, meaning its simply not worth it. If you spend $30 to get a B then its not worth it to spend $200 more just to get a B+, especially when you dont have $200. In the same way its better to stick with using books to teach rather then spend a fortune on something different that will only slightly raise results since its simply not worth it.
Resolution: Single-Gender classrooms would improve the quality of education in American publicschool

I do not provide points that the pro does. He has also committed a black and white fallacy. "Therefore you must vote pro". Also a dicto simplicitor. Stating a solution without any reasoning to back it up. Therefore he has undermined the process of debate entirely. I have tried to get the link, but they prefer not to show others there info any more. They are entitled to there unalienable right not to be forced to provide info. We must respect that.
Resolution: Single-Gender classrooms would improve the quality of education in American publicschool

My opponent has disregarded my statement that I shall do it after him. Therefore I have not failed to fulfill it. He has not even read what I had said. (he told me). He has made a Hippocratic statement. For he has made a study in his case, from Australia. He says that he is winning because I don't have a link. Tell me this. If a lawyer is reading his case but doesn't have a link, does he lose the round? No, It only takes up space and the link is unnecessary. Tell me, do you click on the link? If he wants the link I'd give him it. But guess what, no one does. Therefore the need fore one is unnecessary. He has failed to fulfill mine, save for one. Stating, I am winning is unprofessional. Not saying to ignore him, stating it in the same manner hat one points out a fallacy. If he does not understand this, then he does not have the right to refute what he does not know.
Resolution: Single-Gender classrooms would improve the quality of education in American publicschool

Case 3: No Academic Benefits Many studies have shown that there is no significant academic benefit to single gender classrooms. One metta study has shown the following: (1) "Proponents of single-sex schools argue that separating boys and girls increases students" achievement and academic interest," said author Janet Shibley Hyde, PhD, of University of Wisconsin-Madison. "Our comprehensive analysis of the data shows that these advantages are trivial and, in many cases, nonexistent." A separate analysis of just U.S. schools had similar findings. Researchers also looked at studies that examined coed schools that offered single-sex instruction in certain subjects and found no significant benefits for boys or girls in these cases. The analysis, funded by the National Science Foundation, included studies of K-12 schools published from 1968 to 2013. Among the studies, 57 used stronger research methods, such as studies in Trinidad and Tobago and Korea that randomly assigned thousands of students to single-sex or coed schools and tracked their outcomes. Other examples of more rigorous studies controlled for pre-existing differences between students, such as testing students before and after they enrolled in either a single-sex or coed institution. The total sample included 1,663,662 participants in 21 countries. The studies examined students" performance and attitudes in math and science; verbal skills; and attitudes about school, gender stereotyping, aggression, victimization and body image. They did not find sufficient evidence to show any difference in these attitudes between boys and girls in single-sex or coed classrooms. Theories that single-sex education may be better for students have included the idea that without boys in the classroom, girls would be able to thrive in traditionally male-dominated subjects, such as math and science. "The theoretical approach termed "girl power" argues that girls lag behind boys in some subjects in coed classrooms," said co-author Erin Pahlke, PhD, of Whitman College. "This is not supported by our analysis and, moreover, girls" educational aspirations were not higher in single-sex schools." The authors noted the lack of studies on single-sex education among low-income students and ethnic minorities, particularly in the U.S., and recommended further research in these populations. " Furthermore, my opponent suggests that I prove his sources wrong, without stating my sources wrong. He is likely wanting me to be trapped in a corner. In fact he said he wants to be a ****. I would first like him to prove my sources wrong and I shall refute them. I shall not lose fore I have not denied the challenge.
Piracy

I welcome my opponent to what I hope will be an educational and entertaining debate. I agree with my opponent about that piracy is a widespread feature of today's world. What I disagree is whether piracy should be cracked down upon. 1) To show you the inanity in my opponent's argument, I will first focus on one of her more extreme claims: "Indulging in piracy is no better than a full fledged theft or a murder." Pro compares piracy to murder. I don't know about you, but being the brainwashed person that I am, I think taking someone's life would be morally worse than stealing their book. Maybe it's just me. 2) No, piracy is not very hurtful. (a) By illegally downloading a tune on BitTorrent (a file-sharing application), I am not really hurting the song-writer. I am not depriving anyone of the ability to listen to that tune, as happens with physical theft. If I steal your cookie, you cannot eat it. But if I pirate the song, you could still hear your version. (b) Moreover, I would not have brought that song anyway! Whether or not I pirate that song, I will generate no revenue for the song-writer. (c) But more importantly, if I hurt anyone at all, it is more than likely the big, fat multi-million corporations that do not need or deserve the money any more than my poor self. Sure, the corporations might have put in some work for the tune, but I still don't think they deserve so many millions without me sipping an ounce of their benefits. Moreover, if the song-writers etc. did not make enough profits of their song, they would simply stop making the songs. This means song-writers and corporations generate sufficient profits of their songs. 3) Piracy is in the long-run good! (a) Piracy--> the sharing of ideas --> cross-fertilization of ideas --> innovation --> progress! People who would never have been able to experience a certain idea can do so with the help of privacy. A large public realm of ideas is VERY IMPORTANT to maintain. It is the wellspring of creativity. (b) Piracy = free publicity. The fact that I pirated some obscure artist's music makes it more likely that I will someday buy some music from that artist. CONCLUSION: Piracy is like a pair of spectacles, it helps us see more than we would otherwise. Piracy is not as harmful as my opponent portrays it, and is actually beneficial in the long-run.