BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Supreme Court should overturn "Diaz v. Brewer" (2011).

BOP: The first thing that you will notice is that my opponent has posted absolutely no case, but a rebuttal alone. This is a "should" debate, meaning that both of us have to list reasons why Supreme Court should or should not overturn this ruling. At this point, depite the fact that my opponent has created an argument against my own, he has no case to explain why Supreme Court should overturn this ruling. Therefore, I'm already winning this case by default.9th Amendment: I'm very aware that my source says this, but even with this iterated, my opponent doesn't explain why the Ninth Amendment wouldn't protect this. At the end of the day, my right of non-domination provides an essential level of fairness, and even though the 9th Amendment's nature isn't explicitly specified, this right is nonetheless vital.14th Amendment: "Nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." What this addresses is that the laws should protect everyone, and discrimination has been overturned in law as a result of the 14th Amendment with basis in the Equal Protection Clause. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) is an example of that. If the laws are discriminating against a group of people for no rational reason, it's a violation of the 14th Amendment.
Gay marriage

All humans should have the right to wed, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual. There shouldn't be a law banning gay marriage because a certain religion frowns upon it. State and religion need to be kept separate. Religion should hold no ground in this debate because not all citizens are religious, but all citizens must abide the laws. If homosexuality is against your religion, that's fine. But, it is not fair that an entire nation is forced to live this way because of an unjustified law. It is ignorant to believe homosexual couples can not properly raise a child. It's not dire for both a mother and father to be present, as ideal as that may seem. A single parent would be a great example of this situation. In the end, there is no legitimate argument on why gay marriage should be illegal.
Gay marriage

What more to say... gay marriage is and will always be controversial. I do not believe it will ever be socially acceptable. Until there is a logical reason for it to happen, no love is not logical with heterosexually or homosexually, there is no reason for society to accept it. However, homophobia should not be acceptable either. So yeah... I'm not going to spend time finding articles to support my argument seeing as the conbot10 did not bother to argue his last round. But yeah, if something doesn't help society, why should society help it?
Gay marriage

Marriage doesn't not always have to be religious. Weddings are a religious matter. Marriages are a legal matter. Therefore, there is no need for a "split". If everything that was frowned upon by a religion were illegal, you could be arrested for lying, being jealous, and getting angry. Many people bring up the arguement that God did not intend for same sexes to marry because they can not reproduce and it is an unproductive relationship. So should sterile people not get married? Along with that, does everyone believe in God? Many people also say that marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN. Yet, wasn't voting only for white males at one time? Being religious is great, but what someone else does with their life, such as having a gay marriage which is in no way harming anyone else, is their own business.
Gay marriage

Let me start this off by saying I am not antihomosexual. I just wanted to debate this with you. I don't see how you can say that religion has no bearing in gay marriage. Marriage of any kind is a religious ceremony and a civil union. The problem comes because it is both. What needs to happen is a split. We need a civil marriage (legally binding) and a religious marriage. This way, gay couples can be married under the law and the church has no complaints. In fact with a civil ceremony rather than civil and religious, anyone can be married in accordance with the law. However, one can not say that gay couples can be religiously married because the religion is against it. You can not hope to change the religion, but you can change the law.
Liberals contributed more to America than Conservatives

It was implied that we were talking about governmental policies, so if you would still like to continue on this subject, please stay in the debate. Liberal government has given you many things, like an end to slavery, civil rights, public education, clean air, clean water, clean and safe food, roads, the GI Bill, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, consumer protections, labor laws, women's rights, the Great Society, the New Deal, the Social Safety net , The Brady Bill, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and much, much more. And What did Conservative Government Do? Opposed each and every one of these
God does not exist

Thank you for accepting the challenge. Also thank you for setting the boundaries clear which I am suppose to do in the first round. I was actually expecting the counter argument in the first round itself but the boundaries which you have set is acceptable and is apt. As you have guessed, I would like this debate to be pivoted more about philosophy but anything else pertaining to the argument is also welcome. Without reinstating my argument I look forward for the counter argument. All the best !
God does not exist

I accept your challenge. Just to set some boundaries and clarify this debate, Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Arguments presented Round 3: Refutation Round 4: Reconstruction Round 5: Summary (no new arguments brought up) By looking at your line of analysis you presented in your first round, I'm assuming this debate will be philosophy heavy, meaning that all arguments presented and refuted should consist entirely of philosophy. Thanks and good luck!
is stalin a better meme than hitler

Dick's your Uncle and Fanny's your Aunty as it were. Joseph had a much better moustache than Adolf. Adolf gave some cracking speeches though, he could really whip the crowds into a frenzy. It's all me me these days. Joe and Dolfy were a bit like that too. All sexy boots and big overcoats. And don't get me started on the goose step. As for hairdo's, well Joe was head and shoulders above Adolf when it came the bouffant. That low side parting and big comb over just didn't cut the mustard.
Eating meat in 1st world countries is usually gluttony.

Again, we all know eating meat is greedy and selfish, but not all greedy and selfish acts are bad. You have proved at least this much. However, this is irrelavent because the definition of gluttony has nothing to with greed, nor how it impacts others and the environment. You are not responding to the arguments ive amde all this time and you keep repeating yourself. In thet future try to use premises and conclusion to lay out your argument better.
Eating meat in 1st world countries is usually gluttony.

Eating meat is habitual and greedy. By the very nature of eating, it is habitual. Eating meat is greedy since you both being selfish, by destroying the environment via your habits and consuming an excess in the resources required to substation yourself. Way back in the past, when Jesus fed the fish to people, it was a third world country. They didn't have large diesel tractors back then. "Full Definition of greed : a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed" Thanks for the debate. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Eating meat in 1st world countries is usually gluttony.

Gluttony is again, defined as "habitual greed or excess in eating." I quote you "I find consuming meat is usually gluttony due to the excess strain on resources." Your reason why eating meat is invalid, as gluttony, by definition, cannot be caused due to the excess strain on resources. The definition doesnt say anything about resources. You said that eating meat is only permissible if you are going to starve. However, you contradict yourself by saying that it was ok for jesus to produce a 1000 fish and feed it to people who are only hungry, they are not starving, yet they eat meat. Also, you state that if you destroy "gods temple/your body", god will destroy that person. But what does destroying your body even mean? This is a subjective question, and because we would like objective and non-arbeitrary answers, God couldn't come up with the 'correct' answer, even is all his supposed power. Its like if like asking the question "which painting is better? da vinci's mona lisa or van gogh's starry night?" God could simply not give a 'correct' answer. Also, being greedy is not synomynous with being gluttonous. Just because we dont need to eat meat and we eat alot of it doesnt make the act gluttonous. If you can prove that eating meat is habitual and excess in eating, then that would make meat-eating gluttonous. Also, you still havent proved that being gluttonous is a bad thing. You can use all the bible quote you want but you cannot base your argument on an appeal to authority. If being gluttonous is bad because it harms your body, then it is not the meat eating that is bad in itself, i would be the people who overeats that is the bad thing, not the act of eating meat.
Eating meat in 1st world countries is usually gluttony.

It's not that the fish was factory farmed as much as that hunger was a real threat in the the era that Jesus ate fish. Its not gluttony if you need the food to survive. What makes eating fish gluttony is the fact that so many other food choices are available. If a person was starving on a desert island, it wouldn't get gluttony it eat the fish. Today we have refrigerators, freezers, large tractors, more reliable transportation, and many other factors than minimize the chances of somebody starving to death in a 1st world country. I find consuming meat is usually gluttony due to the excess strain on resources. A person is being immoral and greedy when eating meat, when there is so many alternatives. Eating vegetarian, absence of all meats, is healthy and safe. [15] As for proving God exists, does it really matter? Even if we prove God does not exist, people will still believe in God. People will still read the Bible and pray to God. The definition of gluttony will not change regardless of God's existence. I thank my opponent for continuing this debate. Source 15. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Eating meat in 1st world countries is usually gluttony.

It seems to me like that you are ok with the act of eating meat itself, but you have a problem with factory farming. When i stated that Jesus ate fish, you said that was ok, but the problem is that these days it is factory farmed. How the fish is farmed has nothing to do with the definition of gluttony. You argument is invalid. You also still have yet to prove that god does exist, but, you may be saving that for later. Let me ask you this- what is wrong with factory farming, and why is it that 3rd world countries can get off with factory farming while 1st world countries cannot.
Eating meat in 1st world countries is usually gluttony.

I would think that eating meat in first world countries is not gluttony, and here's why. .. Gluttony is defined as "habitual greed or excess in eating. " Now, I am a meat-eater, but I dont eat out of habit, nor am i eating too much (im 16 and ony weigh 51). I would expect much of the population shares substainal common ground with me. Therefore, when first world people eat meet, it does not match up with the definition of gluttony. Also, you mentioned that the bible says gluttony is a sin. However, the bible does not PROVE that gluttony is a sin, so you are basing your arguement on the 'appeal to authority' fallacy. Also, you are assuming a god exists, with is somewhat problematic, but I can work with it. Ealier you stated that "God is punishing people for gluttonous sins". This is a hugly invalid claim, as this is no sign or miracle from god- we know why many of us are fat, and there is no need for a supernatural explaination. Also, It is a well known fact that it takes up alot of resources to eat meat, but that would not entail why it is gluttonous to eat meat. In debates with this well used premises and conclusions to make a logical flow of thoughts. Here is your arguement- P1- Eating meat uses up alot of resources P2- Eating meat causes alot of health problems Conclusion- Eating meat if therefore gluttous I just dont see the logical flow from premise 2 to the conclusion. And can yoy explain the meaning of the bible quote "Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and their glory is in their shame. Their minds are set on earthly things". I may agree that eating meat is greedy, as in doing so, we are using up resources that could be used to end world hunger, but it wouldn't be gluttonous, per se. The word gluttony usually as negative connotations, but i fail to see the truth behind this. Sure it may make you fat, unhealthy and diabetic, but what it you dont mind those consequences. What if i think that eating meat is worth all those problems. What if you arent christian. For your sake, Ill use some biblical arguments if that was what you were looking for. In the bible, god apparently designed humans, right? Well then how come he designed us are omnivores? How come he didn't mind it when a lamb or two got sacrificed, but now you say that he cares if we eat meat. Also, god permitted meat-eating in the days of jesus- didn't he give a thousand people bread and fish or something? Fish is meat, so why would jesus give people meat is it was soo bad? Good luck
Should Religion Exist

It may not seem that religion existed that long ago, but it most likely did. It was generally polytheism, and it was still existent even thousands of years ago. Whether we are mentally weaker really depends on how you interpret the purpose of life. Is it to live simply or to aspire to achieve the best things we can physically do? If the former, then yes, modern age man is weak because we now rely on so many other things than just a few tools to get tonight's dinner. If the latter, we trump early humans in every possible way, we now have projectiles that easily kill animals as opposed to hoping they bleed out after a few arrows/spears. So how does religion play into this? Well, in some cases I can see your point that religion can make people weaker, because it's a very "dumbed down" version of how to live righteously. This means that some people only remain on the level of religion, refusing to believe anything else outside of it. Then there are those who choose to use it as a reference for their conscious decisions, the people who choose to make a better use out of it. I can't really stress enough that it's not so much religion that causes problems, it's humanity. Some people lack the willpower to make anything out of themselves, and they therefore resort to barbaric ways of living. You've clearly decided that you don't need religion to get you places in life, which is completely understandable, but sometimes we must think about other people beside ourselves. There are countless people who do need religion, whether we want to acknowledge it or not.
Should Religion Exist

When I was young I grew up with good morals without religion being involved because my parents were non-believers. Good morals didn't start from religion at all, but I do agree that religion has made these morals more popular among the people. Honestly Christianity has good morals and also morals that are shunned by society today do to the fact that many of the morals are illegal. Judaism is okay except for the fact that they have most egotistical believers and most don't have proper educations which hurts society still but in a non-physical manner. But let's have it this way, when we were on the brink of extinction over 10,000 years ago, we were small clans of around 8-10 that hunted for our daily food and all the harsh things before civilization came along which there was no religion. These people lived with bare willpower. So are we mentally weaker than our ancestors after religion and civilization came to? Honestly just on my own status I hate being weak at anything. If anything religion has helped along with other things to make the human race mentally weaker (Not dumber but less mental strength).
Should Religion Exist

From your previous statements and inquiries, it seems that you are currently only focusing on the negative aspects of religion (the moments in which sociopaths rose to power and were able to use it to their advantage because the followers did not truly understand their religion's guiding values). This was most evident when you stated "But at the same time sure if religion had good morals it would be great and many more would believe". There are indeed many religions with good morals and also a great many more people who are aware of what they're believing in. Although I am an Apatheist, I do recognize Christianity and Judaism as strong examples of religions that contain good morals. The Commandments advocate for some of the most basic moral decisions (don't lie, cheat or steal). Of course there are some flaws, like being denied the right to eat ham, but that's because those religions predate to a point where civilization was still a fresh idea, and guided by one smart person rather than many. Remember, there are always mediums that people use as a scapegoat to justify killing (religion, video games, social media, education, etc.). That does not make those things inherently bad, just inherently unlucky that immoral people choose to use those things to their advantage. Rarely are the cons higher than the pros, they tend to be fairly balanced if you choose to see both sides clearly, and find that there's more than one way to approach a solution to a problem. Removing religion would be devastating to people, if anything you would find more blood spilled over that, than by just keeping it and allowing people to find some form of redemption through it. Religion helps people who are on the brink of being completely lost to society, from inmates to drug addicts religion paves a path to a greater lifestyle (maybe not the greatest, but still greater than most). I attended a religious school during 1st and 2nd Grade, and I can tell you now that that was all I needed to tell right from wrong up until this point, to this day my character is still the result of a few good words in a book. So it is what you make of it, but overall I do think it is something this world still needs.
Should Religion Exist

Even if there is a wrong fixed by a right the wrong has still occured hasn't it? For example Hitler led a large group of people blindly believing him and he was the reason for the deaths of millions. But Hitler also stopped inflation in a dying country and also put hope into the the hearts of millions now didn't he? They sound almost exactly the same. But besides that point killing no matter using religion or no religion as an excuse the killing is done so there is no point to it. But at the same time sure if religion had good morals it would be great and many more would believe. But there would be political wars anyways and guess what? There is no such thing as a religion with only good morals so it's still an overall con now isn't it? So why have it then if the cons are higher than the pro's?
Should Religion Exist

Well, the argument of what is real and what is illusion is for a different topic. Regardless, some people are in desperate need of feeling good, would you rather they subside the problem with drugs, alcohol, or other substances? In many cases a seemingly imaginary being is a much safer route for people to follow, than the physical realities of this world. With reference to Islam, I am not very proficient enough to start a debate about that religion, and I do think that is also a bit too specific for the overall subject of this debate. I believe firmly, however, that you would agree with the existence of a true religion, if it were an advocate of good moral standings. In other words, I believe you would also advocate the necessity of religion, if there were an ideal set of beliefs that all humans could agree upon (one that brings out a sense of rectitude). To agree with some of your points, I do acknowledge that religion has a dirty past, but that goes without saying for many world views. Capitalism, Communism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc. are all ideologies that have both followers who choose to use it for good and those who use it for bad. Lets just take a possible situation where religion just didn't exist at all, how much do you think the world would really change? The people who kill behind religion are either one of two people. 1. They are people who are easily manipulated into a cause they think is just or 2. They are the manipulators who know how stupid people can be. Do you really think without religion that these people still wouldn't exist and that everything would be sunshine and rainbows? From my point of view, of course not, they just happen to use religion as a justification for simple killings. With that said, religion does quite as much off the records. I have seen countless situations where religion was a means for redemption from a terrible lifestyle, whether people put themselves there or they were born into it. So why should it hurt to keep religions that accentuate good living? Remember, it's not about the religion, it's about the people. Some people hate American culture so much that I guarantee you they didn't need Islam to find a reason to attack American citizens on their own soil. Some people hated the Muslims so much, that they didn't Christianity to find a reason to rape and pillage the Middle East under the title of Crusader. That, my friend, is the illusion.
Should Religion Exist

See though that people shouldn't need to hold to an imaginary being just to feel good. Nothing is solved grasping illusions but instead they need to walk the extra mile to grasp truth and strength in life, even at the cost of scars. The dark ages also began after the fall of the empire after political and religious beliefs were confused and so the empire fell and the dark ages began. Believers put that on themselves. While the leader of the religion, let's say "God" was a man who murdered almost a million people (Not including the great flood) by either not believing in his exact religion or fighting against people in his religion. Heck 42 boys were mauled just for calling a man badly. While also at the same time, the radicals are the people who lead and shape the religion that others see. Like ISIS could've been okay if they weren't trying to kill everyone of different beliefs. Even 9/11 (disclosing conspiracy theories) happened because America didn't follow the rules of another religion. Honestly I'd rather be alive than have debates and wars so the few non-fighters of religion can feel better about life.