BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
universal background checks are a common sense solution to gun violence

people like to say criminals don't obey the gun laws so why have them. they don't obey drug law, theft laws, murder laws, or any laws... does that mean we shouldn't have those laws? the fact is, some people will not run and get a gun if they have dont have one because they are denied. if they dont have a gun when they might otherwise commit a crime, a crime has been prevented. if there's any doubt, why not err on the side of caution and pass the background checks?this isn't even controversial. ninety percent of people favor checks. and even seventy percent of NRA members. so anyone i'm arguing with on this is in a big minority. and, aren't we forced to conclude the only reason this doesn't pass, doesn't even get to the floor to vote in congress, mean that they are beholden to the gun lobby, and the likes of the NRA? that's the only way to make sense of it as far as i can see. forty percent of sales do not involve checks. there is plenty of room for improvement here. if we treated guns like cars, and required licenses, checks, permits, etc, people wouldn't even bat an eye or think diferent about it. only when someone moves your cheese and challenges a status quo do people even care.[not that we couldn't do more. the more likely a person is to have a gun, teh more likely tehy are to kill someone. this is common sense. but it's also empirically proven....the more guns a person or geographic area has, the more likely they are to commit crimes. countires with that take away guns have less crime. it's a fact. ] people who might challenge me... do you seriously contend that one hundred percent of people who are denied a gun and might commit a crime will run out and get one? those kinds of absolute statements are notoriously known for being false. so what gives?
Adults are unfair to children

Con has forfeited the round and I shall continue my debate. Reason #3: "Because I said so" Now, this may be insignificant to some people. But, still, "because I said so" is no excuse to give a command. If you keep your motives for your student/child a secret, there's no point of doing it. Saying "because I said so" makes everything POINTLESS. If you want your child or student to follow you, GIVE HIM/HER REASONS TO FOLLOW YOU. Don't just come out with the fact that you're over 18 years old and you have to do what I say. That doesn't work. Especially with kids who growing more mature and they're following their own path. Those things that I addressed may work on younger kids, but it's unlikely to work on growing teenagers because they're starting to notice the truth and how things really work. They start to learn how to think for themselves. Saying "because I said so" shows laziness and doesn't set a good example for kids. Reason #4: They tell us to stop doing things, but when they turn around, they start doing those things themselves. This kind of ties in with reason #1. Okay, I have to go because I'm chatting with my debate friend which is a girl and I've pretty much explained nearly everything.
wearing a school uniform at school

Hi, thank you for debate with me. First our topic is "Wearing school uniform at school". My position is pro. Your position is con. We choose this topic because, nowadays this is burning issue in the society. Some people think that student doesn't need to wear school uniform at school. Because every people have to respect their own talent and personality. However, the others think that we have to wear school uniform at school. So teachers can control them easily. To my mind, students need to wear school uniform at school. What is your opinion about this hot burning issue?
The world is not yet overpopulated and population will stop growing (eventually)

I will provide definition: Overpopulate: to fill with an excessive number of people, straining available resources and facilities: Expanding industry has overpopulated the western suburbs. . http://dictionary.reference.com... I await your acceptance. Also the BOP is = for both as this topic has proof for both sides and I would like it to be =. No arguing otherwise. Also the resolution you argue is : the world is already overpopulated, and population will continue to grow forever. I say the world is not yet overpopulated, and the population will peak and level off or decline sometime in the future.
Polygamy should be illegal and same-sex marriage should be legal.

I respect your faith and I truly believe in freedom of religion. I will not be able of changing your opinion, but the true reason for a debate is not convincing your opponent. It is about convincing the audience. Therefore, I will continue presenting my case: The Bible is an unreliable source of information. The Bible, as I have stated before, is a book based on the hallucinations of peasants, lies and propaganda spread by theists, and distortions of fact. The Bible does have some truth in it, however. I acknowledge that Jesus and Moses existed, and maybe Noah did too, but these characters didn't necessarily do what the Bible claims they did. If you want to convince the audience and I that the Bible is in fact reliable, tell me the name of who wrote it. Tell me where it was written. Tell me when it was written. Tell me FACTS. That is all I ask. Without facts, your argument is not valid. Therefore, you must come up with something different.
Polygamy should be illegal and same-sex marriage should be legal.

Before I start I want to start talking about God and the Bible. As I said its a book of teachings that god told us how he wants us to live our lives not a fairy tale. Another thing about the Bible is when on Easter Jesus was resurrected into Heaven and his body wasn't in the tomb. Some things science can't say and you just gotta believe in your faith. http://www.focusonthefamily.com... My best source: Bible I don't want to go to into the the god hates gays thing because like everybody on DDO know that. I want you to know that religion isn't a fairy tale, its brings us together and tells us how to live our lives through kindness and peace. Here's what the Bible Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are also debated among denominations and scholars. Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." (NIV) Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (NIV) While many Christian denominations and scholars believe these scriptures clearly condemn homosexuality, others believe that the Greek terms used were meant to describe the homosexual behavior present at Pagan temples. Prostitution or Homosexuality? Romans 1 discusses how the people gave into their lust. Yet the meaning of the acts described are debated. Some see the passages as describing prostitution while others see it as a clear condemnation on homosexual behavior. Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (NIV) See how the Bible doesn't mention "marriage" but talks that to guys having sex is abomination. I'm pretty sure that most people will be married before they sex With Polygamy, It is wrong with 15 individuals but with three it is fine, same-sex is under one person but infections like AIDS can form more easily. With a man and a women having sex (even with more than 2 people) the only worry is STD but we were condoms to protect ourselves from. Science Has also proven that AIDS/HIV is found when the same-sex have intercourse.
Polygamy should be illegal and same-sex marriage should be legal.

A fellow debate.org user and commentator, Taylur, has written the following: "I am pro same-sex marriage, so I feel it wrong for me to be against polygamy. What if three people loved each other equally -- shouldn't they be able to marry each other? People in favour of same-sex marriage claim that love is love, but I have met some people that love more than one person and are in open relationships. I'm undecided. The only issue I have is that, in the case of a subsequent divorce, the legal stuff could be really complicated." These are words of wisdom, my friend. I am going to modify my argument for polygamy: Polygamy I am opposed to most of polygamy due to the lust and desire for sex. However, when three or four people love each other equally, they should have the right to marry. Multi-people relationships are acceptable, but polygamy in the extreme cases - six or more people - is outrageous. Now that I have rephrased my argument, I am going to make some additional points: God and the Bible The Bible is a book based on: 1. Hallucinations of peasants 2. Lies and propaganda spread by theists 3. Desire for power The Bible does not prove anything. And there is no proof that the Bible was written by intelligent individuals. Until you can present evidence that supports the Bible, I must say, your points are invalid. Also, there is no evidence of a God of any form. Therefore, without any evidence of God, you must assume there is no God until you have solid evidence and proof. Moral issues Excluding God and the Bible, don't you think we have a moral obligation to enable individuals to marry anyone they wish? If you will not endow people this fundamental right, you are a moral failure. Conclusion Based on your lack of proof and my ability to present a case based on facts, we must conclude this debate in acknowledgement of that same-sex marriage should be legal. Unless you have additional arguments supporting your claim, this debate is over.
Polygamy should be illegal and same-sex marriage should be legal.

Here is what I got to say: Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states but it is legal in parts of the Western Hemisphere. Is that what you mean?, Because I'll go with that. I believe Homosexuality should be illegal in the United States. I know that polygamy is not love but more of sex but the family isn't gay so there not breaking any rules of the lord. You also said that gay couples are good for there adoption for children, a straight couple can not have sex and just adopt a child as much a gay couple. Homosexuals can care for childed but the kid will end up gay too. Yes you probably heard about that homosexuality is a sin in the Bible but do you now what that actually means? Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them" 1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God." Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper." The Another thing about Gay couples and Polygamy relationships are virus like AID/HIV. The thing is when a Homosexual couple is in intercourse there bodies aren't set up to mate with a male so AIDS will for. I don't mean like if you kiss a guy, I mean you bang each other. With the opposite sex you got to be were of natuarl virus like STD (witch we use condoms to protect ourselves) The Bible is a book written by the follower of Jesus to tell us who he wants us to live and how we can get into Heaven, I am a proud Christian and I am glad I'm one too. I don't understand why theirs so much debate over Homosexuality. He told us not to swear or kill, We don't (or shouldn't do either). Homosexuality and the Bible is kinda like that.
Polygamy should be illegal and same-sex marriage should be legal.

I will restate my opinion: Polygamy should be illegal and same-sex marriage should be legal. Here is my argument: Polygamy Polygamy is the practice of a man marrying multiple wives or a woman marrying multiple men. I will now inform you why I am opposed to this practice: Polygamy shows a man's or woman's desire for sex and greed for pleasure. Love is meant to be between two individuals, not multiple ones. Love is a matter between two, not five or ten or fifteen. I am not a Christian, but I share a common belief with most theists: Polygamy is wrong. A man marrying multiple wives was normal a great many centuries ago. However, in this modern age, one of logic and justice, polygamy is not to be tolerated. Polygamy is not only a moral issue, but it is also a health issue. Having multiple wives promotes the spreading of STDs. Polygamy encourages an increase in sexual acts, such as sexual assault, prostitution, pornography, etc. Same-sex marriage I understand that homosexual relationships, interactions, and marriages are an issue that most Christians are opposed to. However, there is no logical reason why same-sex couples shouldn't have the right to marry each other. I am aware that the Bible doesn't speak positively of same-sex marriage, but that is no excuse to deny individuals their fundamental right to love whoever they wish and to interact with the person they love. Same-sex marriage also encourages a change in overpopulation. If every human were heterosexual and had a child, that would automatically create billions of children. But, with homosexual people included, there are less children produced. Before you make a child, why not adopt a child in need? Why not adopt a child who is suffering? Many theists argue that homosexuals cannot care for a child. That is completely untrue. There is no difference between the parenting capabilities of a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple. The Truth You are better than this. We are better than this. Humanity needs to cease listening to a voice that isn't real. Humanity must start listening to fact and logic. Just because "God" says so or just because a two thousand year-old book states it, does that automatically make it all true? I am a proud Atheist. I am independent of lies and I will not listen to tales of God and Jesus. I will only believe FACTS, which Christians and all other theists surely lack.
Polygamy should be illegal and same-sex marriage should be legal.

I declare that I strongly oppose polygamy and strongly support same-sex marriage. I look forward to debating this topic with anyone who does not believe so. In this debate, I wish to see the following rules implemented: 1. Incorrect grammar and spelling is not to be tolerated. Minor issues are okay from time to time, but I want consistent, proper writing. 2. Both you and I will treat each other fairly.
Polygamy should be illegal and same-sex marriage should be legal.

I'm sorry for forfeiting, I got kinda busy To be accurate the Bible is a collecting of stories that was not written by a single person but Jesus followers were some of the writers and Moses was too. The Bible was said to be written 3500 years ago. The stories of the Bible haven't changed. It might seem like it changed but in the Dark Age, monks copied out of the Bible to make a new one. The Bible is still being spread, By Christian people.
THW not provide healthcare to smokers

Due to my forfeit, it would be unfair of me to respond to what Con has said in his last two rounds, as he would never get a chance to defend himself. However, that does not preclude me from pointing out all the arguments he has failed to address. Firstly, Pro has not even attempted to respond to my counter-plan (banning smoking and utilizing the public healthcare system to provide former smokers with addiction recovery therapy). As I explained, my CP has an enormous advantage over Pro's plan in that it actually mitigates the harm which smoking inflicts upon society, whereas Pro's just exacerbates it by restricting smokers' access to medical treatment. Treat the drop as a concession on Pro's part that my plan is superior to his. Furthermore, Pro flat-out ignores all three of my rebuttals, each of which independently undermine his case -- (1) that the cause of people's health problems is completely irrelevant, given the stated goal of a public healthcare system, (2) that smokers do not have as much autonomy over their smoking habits as Pro claims they do, and (3) that most health problems are at least partially self-inflicted, so it doesn't matter that the health problems associated with smoking are too.
THW not provide healthcare to smokers

in response to my opponents forfeit, haha, it's ok. ======DEBATE====== So Ladies and Gentlemen, we can now clearly see that side opposition failed to give us an extensive explanation on why the prohibition of healthcare to smokers are damaging equality . Before I draw my conclusion, i would again like to point out that the ban is only eligible for SMOKING RELATED diseases and other diseases will be treated. The main clash of todays debate is on the equality issue. We have been debating on whether implementing a ban of healthcare on smoker is unfair for the smokers or the general public. Side oppositions constantly bombards us with quotes from UN, stating that equal protection should be given to all people. Yes, indeed. Equality is vital to society. We are actually enforcing equality by providing healthcare to non-smokers before smokers providing that the smokers have smoking related diseases. Since birth, the government and authorities have been providing the entire population with equal opportunities of getting medical service, and they are also given the right to choose. Side Opposition specially emphasized on the importance of equality and rights and the government has been devoted in providing that. Rights are given and free choices can be made. Smokers chose to smoke and fall into the pit of misery. As freedom comes with responsibility, they should solve their health problems themselves independently, instead of compromising the ability of the government to help the patients who are really in need and those who didn't "intentionally get sick". Therefore, for the sake of equality - this policy promotes equality and thus should be enforced. Countries around the world have been devoting tons of resources in helping smokers to quit smoking - all because smoking is obnoxiously bad to their individual health and damages the social atmosphere in a whole. Now we have in front of us today is a perfect policy that could force smokers to quit smoking once and for all effectively, so what are we waiting for? Are we giving up this opportunity just because of some baseless principles and theorems. Humans are intellectual, they should know how to choose wisely and intelligently. Health is gold. Time is running short. Time to act, That is why side prop takes the debate
THW not provide healthcare to smokers

Allow me to do a few rebuttals. 1) Aim of Health care I concur that healthcare system refers to the establishment of a harmonious and healthy society. But you might have missed one of the keywords i mentioned above - general picture. The government should never prioritize the smokers as in the general picture- the non-smokers make up the majority. Moreover, by implementing a prohibition of using healthcare on smokers, a deterrent effect can be casted on them. As healthcare system plays an integral role in a citizens life as they provide basic medical service that help maintain health and life, if we take this away from them, they would be forced, or more appropriately, motivated to quit smoking. Quitting smoking will inevitably improve there standard of heath and eliminate third party harm (second-hand smoker) and thus meets the goal of healthcare - establishing a just and healthy society 2) Equity Not giving healthcare services to smokers might seem to be unfair to them, but in reality, it isn't. Side Opposition mentioned that smokers should be *prioritized* because they are suffering for smoking-related problems. So will it be unfair to the non-smokers if they are prioritized ? Smokers chose to value the momentary pleasure of smoking more than health and they chose to harm themselves. On the other hand, non-smokers did NOTHING to harm themselves and damage themselves. If we prioritise the smokers, would it be unfair to the non-smokers? Yes it would be unfair. They should be granted the healthcare services first as they did not"choose" to get this kind of disease. Therefore, for the sake of preserving the spirit of equity, this policy should be enforced. Onto my case. 1. Harmful effects of smoking It is undeniable fact that smoking affects the health of human beings. Cigarette contains numerous toxic substances that would accelerate the coming of death. Nicotine, cyanide... and countless bad contents that would not only harm our health today, but also in the long run due to addiction. Addiction, is the main problem of smoking. It deepens our pit of misery and make us suffer even more by provoking us to smoke more and killing our self softly in a self-destructive way. Smoking not only affects individuals, but also breaks up families, partnership and even being laid off by employers. More importantly, smoking leads to another huge social problem - second hand smoking. Second hand smoke is the smoke exhaled by smokers which contain the same content of the tobacco and has the possibility to cause cancer to the person inhaling this gas. So the truth is out - smoking causes third party harm. As a responsible and effective government, it should take up the responsibility to STOP smokings from smoking and implementing deterrent policies - the policy mentioned in the motion is definitely significant in motivating smokers to stop this "poisonous act" and in the long run, facilitate a healthy, just and positive society. This is why this motion should STAND
THW not provide healthcare to smokers

Public healthcare, refers to the safety net provided by the government to ensure the well-being of the health of citizens. They are aimed to establish a harmonious, just and healthy society. According to the World Health Organization public healthcare refers to organized measures to prevent diseases and the public healthcare is aimed for the whole population, but NOT individual needs. As smokers are the "individuals", this motion should definitely stand. Before going onto my substantials, I would like to point out that the prohibition of the usage of public healthcare of smokers are only limited to smoking-related diseases. To begin with, smokers have their choice to choose smoking or not. Since young, schools have been educating the young the importance of health and how smoking would damage their body both physically or mentally. As educated persons, they should be able to differentiate between the good and the bad, what they should do and what they shouldn't. As they have chosen to walk on this path to the pit of misery, they should take up their own responsibility and solve their own problems, instead of relying and wasting the social resources. Moreover, the government has been devoted a lot of resources on setting up advertisement to discourage smoking and they have even printed the side effects of smoking on the boxes of cigarettes. Being told thousands of times not to smoke, if the smokers insist to smoke and value the pleasure of smoking over the importance of health, they should definitely depend on themselves when they get smoking related diseases - asthma, lung cancer.. I will continue my second point in the next round