BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homosexuality is quite unnatural!

"For one to conclude that homosexuality is not natural, they must conclude that it is harmful to the species, or at at the very least it is not in anyway beneficial" - Since when? Clearly homosexuality is no detriment to the species unless everyone "turned gay" which would lead to extinction. Homosexuality is contrary to the purpose of gender, contrary to the purpose Nature intended by dividing sexual species up into male and female. Thus homosexuality is abnormal and unnatural. "Lets begin with delving into the perception that for one to be valuable to society, one must be able to conceive a child." This "point" is meaningless. Plenty of straight couples can't have children and many single unmarried people choose not to have children for whatever reason and I'm sure they add value to whatever society they belong to. Homosexuality ultimately serves no biological process and again is contrary to the purpose of gender. It's unnatural. I reject any and all perversions of gender as simple "baggage" that a society can live without. As a man I fully understand that men are simply "nasty" savage brutes and that women are the most underrated, under appreciated gifts of love, life and sweetness on earth. To say that women are the 'fairer' sex is a serious understatement; they are the glue which holds the entire world together. Male and female blend together on every conceivable level that two people can and gays will never understand that. I'm supremely grateful that I'm not gay! I'm a purist and reject anything that cheapens the gender bond, whether it be incest, gendercest, pornography, rape, or any other vile unnatural slap in the face of Nature our backwards species can conceive. Man has no respect for Nature whatsoever and I'm frankly disgusted with it.
Homosexuality is quite unnatural!

Last year a certain Lynnette Cowper on www.patheos.com purported to show seven "iron-clad" reasons (at least she thought so) why homosexuality is NOT unnatural! Without going into great detail concerning her "refutations", suffice it to say that essentially she based her argument predominately on the notion that because homosexuality occurs elsewhere in nature (i.e., within other species), homosexuality is "natural". But what she failed to consider is that the term unnatural has other equally valid definitions such as: contrary to the ordinary course of nature; abnormal. Based on that definition alone, homosexuality, because it contradicts the entire meaning (and hence purpose) behind gender because it essentially goes against the ultimate purpose of procreation (the normal and natural sexual union of male and female needed in order to perpetuate the species) is absolutely, positively abnormal and unnatural. Incest contradicts the natural purpose of sexual reproduction to be conducted outside one's own family to ensure a healthy blending of genes and to guard against birth defects. Both homosexuality and incest are equally U-N-N-A-T-U-R-A-L!! Both are abnormal behaviors that contribute nothing to the perpetuation of the human species! I'm not a religious person (in fact I"m strictly agnostic) so I don't believe homosexuality is immoral, nor do I think it's criminal. That said, I do stand behind Nature 100% in endorsing heterosexuality as the only legitimate form of mating (sexual mating, that is, since technically speaking only male and female can sexually mate): ~500,000,000 years of evolutionary legitimacy to back up that claim, baby! To compare homosexuality to heterosexuality as if they're both "the same thing" is incredibly asinine, absurd, and, quite frankly, offensive. On the scale of unnatural abominations homosexuality lies somewhere between incest and cannibalism (and mind you, both occur in nature). Male & female: Viva la difference!
Religion and State

Many thanks in advance to whoever accepts this debate. I look forward to what I hope will be an educational exchange. The ResolutionThis debate will be about the theoretical questions and interpretive issues at stake in the First Amendment's two Religion Clauses, which read: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. .. "Interpreted literally, the Establishment Clause prohibits not only government favoritism of religion, but also government actions "respecting" an establishment of religion, which include any indirect effort to aid or endorse religion. The Free Exercise Clause also has strict separationist overtones, suggesting that Congress may pass literally NO law regarding religion. Hence, interpreted literally, these two clauses seem to achieve Thomas Jefferson's stated goal of building a "wall of separation" between church and state. And yet, the Supreme Court has never actually applied a strict separationist approach to their decisions. Instead, the Court has inconsistently wavered between a moderately separationist interpretation and a more accomodationist interpretation that goes beyond the text to define the proper relationship between religious practice and civil authority. In this debate, I offer my opponent a choice between arguing for the separationist or the accomodationist interpretation of the First Amendment. I will argue the other side. Whichever side we argue, we nonetheless take as our common ground the First Amendment. No further changes to the Constitution are to be suggested, as the debate is not about what the Constitution should mean but about what the Constitution does mean.
Religion and State

pro's first argument: con did not provide any evidence that religious claims are not true.i don't know what to say. in this century of scientific progress somebody can ask proof that religious claims are not true. i have never heard at least one religious claim that scientifically proved right. some claims are disproved by science totally, like the claim that 1] world is less than 10,000 years old, 2] god created this world,3] if you disobey god, you will go to hell.etc. some religious claim are disproved by common sense. claims like:1] god is kind, merciful2] god loves you3] god will protect you.etc.so i think pro will get evidence that religious claims are not true.pro's second argument: if religious claim or religion is wrong why protec them? why even have a religion clause?well although neither science nor common sense prove religion right, most people cannot trust either science or common sense [atheist/scientists excluded]. they are emotional and often they feel insecure. that's why they stick to these bogus claims. they find peace by believing that they are true. for them there is religion and religion clause.since most people believe that religion is true does not make religion true. since religion is not true, there is no need of accomodation interpretation from logical point of view.but... oh yes, you can say for those timid people, accomodation clause might solace them.
Religion and State

Con drops all my arguments. A thoroughly disappointing debate, I think it's obvious who the vote should go to. That said, let me just refute Con's arguments, for the sake of thoroughness. Con argues "there is no possibility that religious claims are true," but provides no support whatsoever. That is an extraordinary claim, and the fact that so many people believe religious claims are true suggests that stating there is no possibility that religious claims are true would require extraordinary proof, which Con has not provided. But let's be generous to Con, and grant for the the sake of argument that no religious claims are true. The point is still irrelevant to an interpretation of the First Amendment. We could turn the argument, and say, since no religious claims are true, the state needs no protection from religion, so why even have Religion Clauses. Why even interpret them? They're irrelevant. That's nonsensical. Whether religious claims are true or not, the First Amendment is about protecting religious liberty. And that means that there will be cases in which citizens' religious practices conflict with the state's civil laws. How do we deal with that situation? Accommodation, on a case by case basis. Con provides no arguments against that. Vote Pro. Gonna propose this debate again, and hope it goes differently.
Religion and State

Pro argues that the accommodationist and separationist interpretation of the Religion Clauses are compatible with each other, and therefore, not subject to debate. Truth is, Pro's argument stems from a huge effort in misunderstanding or misrepresenting what these two interpretations actually say. The separationist interpretation of the First Amendment argues for a complete separation between church and state. In effect, this means absolutely no law regarding religion. The idea is that every single law must have a plausible secular purpose. The accommodationist interpretaion of the First Amendment argues that it is preferable to accommodate religion (not ignore it) because of the possibility that religious claims are true, and if they are true, are clearly of higher authority than civil law. The difference is that the accommodationist interpretation allows, on a case by case basis, religion exemption from civil law, whereas the separationist interpretation does not allow exemption from civil law. The separationist argues that the law must be completely separate from religion, and this means that it cannot favor a religion by allowing a religion exemption from the law. Accommodationists argue against this point, suggesting that it is preferable to allow exemption for the purpose of preserving religious liberty. The distinction in many ways comes from the tension between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Establishment jurisprudence demands that the government not make any law regarding religion, but the Free Excercise Clause undercuts this by requiring that government allow citizens to practice their religion. I already presented my argument for the accommodationist interpretation. Con completely disregards and drops my arguments, and provides a very problematic argumen in support of separationism. Note that Con's argument is arguing that the two interpretations are equivalent. This means that Con wants a tie, as the BoP is shared. Thus, Con's argumentative strategy implies an inferior position (desire to tie instead of win), but let's look past that to see why Con's equivalence argument fails.The accommodationist defintion Con provides is that the government cannot prefer one religion over another, but that it can make laws regarding religions. That is the key difference, as the separationist definition Con provides explicitly denies government the right to make laws regarding religion. That difference leads, as I have explained, to the case where accommodationists exempt religion from civil law (without prefering that religion over another), whereas the separationist would never allow religious exemption from the state's laws. I admit, I'm somewhat disappointed by Con's arguments. I hope he picks it up in the next round, and we can really get into the philosophical questions at stake here.
Religion and State

approach of interpretation of first amendment:1] separatist:"prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress"2] accomodation:"prohibits the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another"http://en.wikipedia.org...now lets study these 2 approaches: you will find these 2 approachs coming one after another. they are not 2 separate approach. there is a link between them.i am showing you how:first accomodation comes and after that separation comes. lets consider this:1] accomodation:the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another.2] separatist : the establishment of a national religion by Congress.if u.s. govt. prefer one religion over another, only then govt. can automatically,unofficially establish a national religion. for example: suppose there are 2 religions: christianity and islam. if govt. prefer christianity over islam only then the govt. can automatically,unofficially establish a national religion called christianity.on the other hand if govt. don't prefer christianity over islam, govt cannot establish a national religion. in fact in order to establish a national religion, govt. must prefer one religion over the other.so these 2 approaches have cause-effect relationship. they are not contradictory to each other.and since they are not contradictory to each other, they cannot be subject to debate.
Whether banning smoking is a good idea or not.

This is because I lost an argument in round 1 when when the debate started. Well should why the passive smokers they go to another place, and firstly people do to not roam around on the roads for no rhyme or reason, they must be doing this for a reason and I am not sure that, it can be fulfilled in a place like a mall or a cafe. When the owners of the cigarette brands advertise, they do not mention all the harmful effects, it is the same with fast food advertisements. On the cigarette packets in the tiniest UNREADABLE form is written " Smoking Kills". It is somewhat the same with the fast food boxes, except it is usually written " Fast food kills ". You can check on the packets or look it up on the internet. CON is being unreasonable and saying that we should ban fast food also, but fast food does not harm the passers under any circumstances. SMOKING DOES. Con is saying that it would effect people because they would loose their jobs, this is true, but would the governments like their countries being filled with smokers or would they prefer that a small number of people compared to the population be fired. Again there is a great chance that they might get a job somewhere else, or if not, they can request the government to place them elsewhere. WHETHER I HAVE A DECENT REBUTTAL OR NO IS NOT YOUR DECISION. Yes the Cigars can be made easily but in a few decades there will be a ZERO CRIME RATE. By that time Cigars WILL SURELY VANISH. But for this to take place, the step of banning smoking has to be taken now. Killing makes contract killers relaxed, why doesn't the government make that legal too. You are really bad at typing because I cannot make anything out in the second last paragraph, so next time you are in a debate, please type something THAT MAKES SENSE. Below is a copy. " Good " was in Italics. "Now, my opponent obviously hasn't fulfilled is burden of proof yet and failed to provide decent arguments and references as to why smoking would be a good idea. "
Whether banning smoking is a good idea or not.

Thank you for accepting the challenge my worthy opponent. As you said "Banning it would be a breach of the right to choose". Yes it might be true but the smokers mainly smoke on the roads and not inside their houses and so other people get exposed to the smoke and become passive smokers whether they are in favor of this or not. I believe this is what would be a breach of the right to choose. As you said there are many other activities as harmful as this or even more but they can only cause harm to the person engaged in these, not the by passers. For example, if a person does not workout, he is the one who will not be healthy, it will not effect the others any circumstances. You also mentioned that it would be bad for business. Yes banning it will be bad for business, but some things have to be banned as they are unhealthy to the general population. The smoke released from these cigarettes is Carcinogenic. This is a proved fact, and the government can not always think about business the government cared only about money, why did it then ban cocaine and other drugs, it should have legalized it one one condition, that all the payments are to me made by Cheque, but no. It isn't always about the money, sometimes you also have to think for others. By banning smoking we mean that the government will stop any business related t it, that includes the factories where it is made, the shops where it is sold, everything. So that means that there will be no Cigars or cigarettes remaining, so the addicts will not be able to smoke it. Sure there will be a few thousands of them in circulation even after the demand, but eventually they will be finished. If there are no Cigars or Cigarettes, there would be no increase in the crime rate because there will be nothing to steel My opponent also mentioned that it helps a person relax, yes it does, the fact is undeniable but there are other safe ways to relax which do not cause harm to anybody including themselves.
Uniforms For Schools

Ok, well your main argument seems to be that uniforms would eliminate kids ability to express themselves. This doesn't require much of a rebuttal. Sure, no uniforms allows kids to express themselves, but that can be negative. You have to think that there are those girls who dress like sluts, and boys who dress like trailer trash. In the case of the girls, that could lead to rape. As for the guys, they're going to get a bad reputation from the start. Also, you must remember the people who are poorer. They can't necessarily afford nice clothing. So, they get made fun of by those who are wearing designer clothes and things like that. Now, I would assert that what you wear can affect your personality to some extent. In my school at least, the girls who like like sluts are sluts. The girls who look smart generally are. The guys who look like trash are, and the ones that look smart are. Now, some of them I know personally. A few years ago, when they wore different clothes, they were good people. Now, those same people have changed their clothes, and become delinquents. Now, if everyone were dressed in uniforms, the general attitude would be different, and test scores and success rates my be higher. This is all for now. If I think of something else, I'll bring it up. Thank you and good luck.
Dogs make better pets than cats

Great! In the last round I stated: "A 'better pet' only needs to more appropriately fit the definition of a pet based on the nature of the pet in question. In this case I will argue that the nature of a dog makes a better pet than the nature of a cat based on this definition. Again, the definition of pet that we're using is: "a domestic or tamed animal or bird kept for companionship or pleasure and treated with care and affection. "the pony was a family pet" used as an affectionate form of address. "don't cry, pet, it's all right"-Google Let's break down the major segments of this definition into different parts (omitting the unnecessary examples): A pet is: 1) a domestic/tamed animal or bird 2) kept for companionship or pleasure 3) treated with care and affection 4) used as an affectionate form of address Now the question remains: does the nature of a dog or cat fit this criteria better? Let's take a second look. 1) a domestic/tamed animal or bird. Both a cat and a dog fit this description equally well. 2) kept for companionship or pleasure. Both a cat and dog can provide pleasure. But are cats and dogs equal companions? Here's the Merriam-Webster definition of companion: 1 ":one that accompanies another :comrade, associate; also :one that keeps company with another." You can teach a dog tricks by interacting with it and he'll give you feedback. Cats don't give you the time of day if you tried teaching it anything. You can have your dog accompany you around town or on a jog around the neighborhood by putting a leash on it. Cats on a leash walk wherever they please. You can play fetch with a dog and he'll return to your company. If you tried to play fetch with a cat it would probably attack whatever you threw then walk away. Dogs are usually very excited to be in your company and walk up to you when you enter the room. Cats don't do this unless they're unusually happy or you have something they want. These are examples showing why dogs are a better candidate than cats for a better companion. 3) treated with care and affection. Both cats and dogs are equally capable of this 4) used as an affectionate form of address. Both cats and dogs are equally capable of this This shows why the nature of dogs makes a better pet than the nature of cats according to this definition of pet. I've given numerous examples showing that dogs make better companions than cats. Over to you con!
Dogs make better pets than cats

"a domestic or tamed animal or bird kept for companionship or pleasure and treated with care and affection. "the pony was a family pet" used as an affectionate form of address. "don't cry, pet, it's all right"-Google A "better pet" only needs to more appropriately fit the definition of a pet based on the nature of the pet in question. In this case I will argue that the nature of a dog makes a better pet than the nature of a cat based on this definition.
The state governments should pay voters for voting

The State government paying voters will promote fraud, will force voters without a fully formed opinion to take a stance making political polarization worse than it already is, and will become a bureaucratic monster riddled with corruption, inefficiency and will waste the money of the taxpayers. A test of political knowledge can easily be manipulated into a political agenda by the ruling party with techniques such as loaded and leading questions. This will further the political polarization of states by empowering the leading party reducing the amount of swing states and hurting the entire democratic process. In addition, for many questions the answer might be partisan such as questions about the "gender wage gap" which some argue does not even exist. By paying those who succeed in the test of political knowledge not only does it promote inequality by benefiting those with easy access to the Internet and other vast reservoirs of knowledge but it also can hurt productivity in the days leading to the test where people skip work in order to study up on the subjects. In many cases, people will swallow facts with no real understanding of the political intricacies of them and will form opinions from ignorance just to milk the money from the state government hurting the citizens who actually understand the political climate.