BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should pass the legislation to Legalize Gay Marriage

Oh boy I got talk about thanks for the length I can tell you've put serious though into this issue within society 1. OK Men and women have never been the same through history we have tried it and in the end we always have different roles it's in our brains http://science.howstuffworks.com... 2. OK I know humanity is very unnatural but in truth it's only because of our increased abilities if tigers had a higher sense of consciousness( which they don't except in Narnia) I'm sure they would be devote to the pursuit of knowledge but homosexuality has nothing to do with learning, hopes, faith ETC.therefore it is unnatural UNNATURAL- Contrary to the ordinary course of nature; abnormal. In nature almost no animals are homosexual though they do know about it's obvious since they have had homosexual sex before but its a very rare and abnormal thing to do 3. It is my belief child should not be be able to watch the Media has too much influence in a child's life it shouldn't be needed to raise a child and ave them understand men, women, and life in general. http://kidshealth.org... 4. Church and state should not be separated he only as where church has gotten out of hand then I an recall westbro baptist and I completely agree with declaring them a hate group, church makes people comforted it grants happiness and gives you faith to believe in not only the church but also yourself 5. seriously???????????? I though you were better than that what a cheap-shot the democrats supported slavery lol Yes, very actively before and during the Civil War. After the war of course there was no slavery to support, but the Dixiecrats were solidly against equal rights for former slaves. It wasn't until John Kennedy and the 1960s that the Democrats began supporting racial integration and equality. Before the 1960's when democrats flipped sides they filibuster the civil rights movement http://www.care2.com... oh, and by the way MLK JR. was republican liberals have made in impossible to run the U.S.A Conservatives have worked hard on budgets since the days of Reagan trust me the Debt didn't rise in the Reagen era due to Reaganomics it rose, because the liberals in congress wouldn't pass a budget Conservatives are still working on today it has been in wok for decades and Liberals has been denied during both the bushes and Reagan meanwhile they proclaim us as satanic for no passing Obama's http://liberallogic101.com... funny how I was so classy and your were complete D**K
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should pass the legislation to Legalize Gay Marriage

1. all around men and women are completely different and same-sex couples would destroy meaning in a relationship 2. If you can't produce offspring in your relationship then your relationship is unnatural 3. There would be no role model within a child if he never/rarely saw the opposite gender in his household 4. Gay marriage is incompatible with the beliefs, sacred texts, and traditions of many religious groups. The Catholic Church, Presbyterian Church, Islam, United Methodist Church, Southern Baptist Convention, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, National Association of Evangelicals, and American Baptist Churches USA all oppose same-sex marriage. 5. America was founded as a conservative nation and should always remain one, since American democrats moved further left America has spun into turmoil in politics and nothing is getting done it's best to stick with what works Source: . http://echochamber.me... I look forward to round 2
Steroids should be banned in all pro sports

My opponent has neglected to respond to any of my points and instead just kept going on about how Anabolic Steroids are bad for you; a point which I am not denying. The resolution of the debate is "Steroids should be banned in all pro sports," my two arguments were that corticosteroids are used to treat a multitude of medical conditions and that steroid use would not affect the outcome of those listed sports. My opponent did not even address these points. I end the debate with the resolution negated and urge a Con vote.
Steroids should be banned in all pro sports

My opponent is making his case based on the effects of anabolic steroids. This is only one type of steroid whereas the resolution calls for the ban of steroids in general. In my argument I contend that if steroids were completely banned from use in all professional sports then athletes that use corticosteroids to treat their conditions would be barred from competition. I will state again that corticosteroids are used to treat skin conditions such as eczema, psoriasis and allergies. They also are used to treat hay fever, many autoimmune disorders such rheumatoid arthritis, asthma and polymyalgia rheumatica. Corticosteroids are also used to prevent organ rejection in transplant patients. Sometimes they are injected into joints to reduce joint pain and swelling. If these facts are not enough to convince the voters I will also provide an argument as to why Anabolic steroids do not need to be banned from _all_ professional sports. Anabolic steroids are used to improve and accelerate muscle growth. This gives these athletes an unfair strength advantage and is the main reason that they are banned. There are many professional sports where strength means nothing. These sports include [2]: * Auto-Racing * Curling * Motorcycle Racing * Speedway * Radio-controlled model * Video Games My opponent may also argue that since aggression is a side-effect of steroid use that they should be banned. I contend that this is not the case as aggression alone does not pose a threat. It is only when a person actually causes harm to another that is a problem. This is a crime in and of itself and would possibly lead to jail time for the aggressor and legitimate ejection from a sporting league. I look forward to my opponent's response. [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Steroids should be banned in all pro sports

Steroids will not make the game more fun for the players, or inserting for the audience. If one team takes steroids and the other team doesn't it won't be a fair game. Taking steroids for one whole month to show off your skills in a sport for one day isn't worth it. The affirmative's plane will not solve nor make it better. Already many players take steroids and only get banned for ten days, and then they get to come back like nothing happened. Taking steroids to improve your skills in sports just doesn't make sense, when you're destroying your body mentally and physically. An ESPN article stated the new improved rules for the steroid policy: A first positive test a fifty game ban, a second positive test a one hundred game ban, a third positive a lifetime ban, these rules were in effect on Nov. 2005. As you can see these rules are strict. If you would want to take this MLB policy away it will only increase the number of steroid active users. Taking steroids cause a number of side effects. The effects destroy your body mentally and physically. An article from TeensHealth said that the effects for women and men are hair loss, anger depression, delusion, vomiting, high blood pressure, liver damage and many more. The specific risks for women are increased facial hair, deepening of the voice. Some specific risks for men are sterility the inability to have children, breast development, and pain while urinating. There are many so many other side effects that I could not list them all. The advantages of players who took steroids would make the game unfair. For example a pitcher who took steroids, who pitched a ball at 97mph, is not fair to someone who doesn't take steroids and pitches at 87mph, with equal throwing power before taking steroids. Taking the game will make the game totally unfair. If one team took steroids they would run twice as fast and throw harder and farther.
Steroids should be banned in all pro sports

Definitions: Sport - the occupation of athletes who compete for pay. . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... Athlete - a person trained to compete in sports . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... Steroid - any of several fat-soluble organic compounds having as a basis 17 carbon atoms in four rings; many have important physiological effects . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... ~~~~~~~~ Arguments ~~~~~~~~ Many steroids have legitimate medical uses such as the treatment of arthritis, many skin conditions, hay fever, and joint pain. Athletes that suffer from these conditions would be unable to continue competing if steroids were banned from use. ~ The resolution is negated. [1] . http://generalmedicine.suite101.com...
Ban All Forms of Abortion

First, I believe that even though he will have an extra round, it is only fair that my opponent should give his closing arguments during Round 5. Response to Argument A: My opponent has pointed out two situations in which (as he claims) abortion is appropriate. a) Pregnancy Complications - Perhaps it is moral in this instance to use abortion. I apologize if I have spoken too quickly. I do believe that abortion would be necessary in this instance, but only if neither the mother nor the baby would be able to survive these complications. b) Unwanted Pregnancy - As a Christian, I believe that pregnancy resulting from rape is merely what God has intended. Besides, without the abortion, both the baby and the woman would survive. Besides, which is worse: a woman suffering from pregnancy and childbirth or an innocent baby dying merely for having been conceived by a rapist? We always exploit all the other members of the animal kingdom, sometimes for mere pleasure. We hunt, we eat meat, we keep them has pets, and we even make money off of them by putting them in cages and having them do tricks so people can pay to see them. But we do not exploit humans in this way. For instance, everybody leaves their pet dog all by himself, but nobody would dare leave a human baby by himself/herself for a minute. So why should we sacrifice another human simply to avoid suffering pregnancy. How is a fetus any different from a newborn baby? And how would it be possible to tell if a woman was actually raped or if she is just inventing the story to get herself an abortion? How can we allow a rape victim to get an abortion without letting everybody else get abortions just because they "feel like it"? Response to Argument B: While some people may support abortion, others may not approve of it. The conservative Christians feel under-represented in government and would accept a ban on abortion. By not banning abortion, we transgress God's commandments. The Bible says' "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." (James 2:10 NIV). In allowing abortion, we openly support murder and therefore anger God. We must not allow the murder of innocent babies. Response to Argument C: My opponent has stated that it is wrong to accuse a rape victim of murder if she gets an abortion. Pregnancy from rape is God's plan. God either intends to punish us for our sins or wants to test our faith. It is a terrible sin to go against God's plan. Those who transgress against Him and do not repent will never reach heaven but will instead burn in hell for the rest of eternity. I believe that both the woman and the individual performing the operation must be charged with second-degree murder.
Ban All Forms of Abortion

Well, since Pro requests me to argue my case first, I shall do so (but for the future, say that you want the opponent to argue, and also should i post anything for round 5 or not? to make things even)Argument A - MoralWhen pro suggests 'Banning all forms of abortion' this must include abortion during cases where:a) Pregnancy complications which could kill the mother and the baby if she does not abort the baby. Is it right to force the woman and baby to die just because killing the baby is wrong? Is not sentencing both to die twice as bad abortion, in my opponents viewpoint? So the women who get such complications are basically sentenced to deathb) Unwanted Pregancy - I doubt rapists will bother to use condoms, this could result in female victim to become impregnated without her will. Is it right to force her to to have her baby with a rapist? Whats more, what if the victim is not financially secure or a teenager who is not mentally ready to raise a baby with care, love and lots and lots of patienece. In that case, it is obvious that there should be no child, but rape victims who are either too young or too poor will not be able to abort their child even though they are not ready to raise their child or will only give the child a life of poverty and guess what's next? A life of crime.Argument B - PoliticalThe people of the United States of America is fairly split on this issue, despite during my research having encountered numerous sources where there are claims where the majority people think abortion should be legal and other sources saying the majority should be illegal.So let's argue on the premise that it is around 50-50. Even so, I doubt that there would be a majority of radical anti abortionists who would want abortion reguardless of whether or not the pregnant woman has a risk of dying or is not financially sound enough to raise a child. Most people are in the gray area. And and extreme move such as outright banning abortion will bring much controversy to the United States. And this is a country already receiving so much controversy and hate from other people from around the world, other national governments and even their own people. This will only make things worse for them. Argument C - abortion and murderMy opponent seems to think that abortion is like murder. So if a poor person gets raped and impregnated and cannot afford to raise a baby, she obviously gets an abortion, does this mean that she should get charged with murder?Another point I would like to emphasize. If a woman gets complications which means she has to abort her pregnancy or die, then isn't forcing her not to get an abortion the same as the government killing 2 people? If abortion becomes illegal. My opponent has to argue that the penalty for abortion should be the same as murder, otherwise what seems to be his primary moral argument of comparing abortion to murder obviously goes away.
Ban All Forms of Abortion

I am surprised to see that somebody would be willing to accept my challenge so quickly. I would prefer to allow my opponent to argue his case first, since he is for abortion while against it. Nonetheless, I would I like to say a quick word before he argues. I believe in a personal God, and I would like to point out that the Sixth Commandment explicitly states, "Thou shalt not murder." The word murder is defined as "the premeditated killing of a human being by another." I do not see any reason for why a fetus should not be considered a human being. I will present further arguments in the following rounds.
There will be another imperialist and predatory war on the DPRK

WAR ON DPRK DEBATE: ROUND 1 This debate will be discussing a likely war on North Korea. I am arguing that there will be a war of some kind. However, I am totally against any war on the DPRK. We will be discussing its history and current state and if there will be WAR! Who will start the war? What will be te motive of the war?
The idea that a human can act outside personal Interest is a delusion

I'm going to anchor my argument to Darwinism and evolution. Hehe. >:) One of the human race's most powerful trait is its ability to coexist and to make sacrifices of personal interest to aid in that of others. Let's look at this trait from an evolutionary standpoint. Let's take an arbitrary sample group of neolithic man, for example. Within this group are many types of man with different genetic traits. More notable are those who act completely out of personal interest with no regard to others. These selfish specimen are functionally less beneficial to their species than the less selfish specimen. Thus, it is seen as more beneficial to the species, as a whole, to gravitate more toward those who have more utility: those who are willing to make sacrifices for the interest of others. Those in the species who is not willing to sacrifice their own chances of survival in order to ensure that of their functionally worthless children are less likely to leave progeny; that trait is simply either pushed into the minority or completely wiped out. This process is often termed natural selection and is the reason modern people favor traits such as kindness and compassion over its counterparts when looking for partners. On the same tangent, I can easily contrive an anecdotal case which alone shows that a human being can act outside personal interest: mothers. Not all are equipped to have or take care of children, but many are willing to risk or sacrifice their lives, livelihood or personal/economic liberty to both have and sustain the child. Single moms with no family working minimum wage to barely enable the survival of herself and her child. Isn't this exact case I've described acting outside personal interest? A girl I know once said that she would commit suicide if she has an abortion. She is unable to supply for the child economically, but she would rather let her years wither away for the sake of the child. She'd rather die than not have the child. She regards her own personal interests as lesser than the life and livelihood of her child. Those who aid in the survival of their species get to have their traits passed down, which often includes the trait of kindness and compassion. These are traits which are key in the ability of members within a species to act outside of personal interest for that of others; it is the ability to act for the good of the species. For the purposes of this debate, all I had to do was show that a single human being can act outside of personal interest. Any act of altruism would have done, and the mother example is only one of many.
The Earth Is Not Overpopulated

I will post my rebuttals in the debate, and not post any defense of my case. BurdensThe Burdens are that I have to prove one part of the Earth overcrowded, with all animals, etc. DefinitonsThis isn't really an argument. It is just an expand of the definitons, and the basic burdens of the debate. I agree with my definitons, my opponent needs to provide arguments that there is food, water, and shelter for all of us. I won't really expand on this point right now, and just leave it like this. OvercrowdingMy opponent shows that if the Earth was equally sized, then a person would get around 20000 square meters of land [1]. However, as a definition of Earth is overpopulated, it isn't only about humans, isn't it? Does Earth only have humans? There are around 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 insects [2]. They are in the Earth also. Why don't they count? Also, is there a place with only humans? Humans mean a society, and in a society, there are stores, cars, streets, factories, department stores, etc. We can't just count humans, because humans don't mean the whole earth. Also, no one uses land in Antartica, and very few use Russia (north east. ) Therefore, this argument is invalid. ResourcesA: FoodMy opponent says that we have 1 1/2 times of food to feed everyone in the planet. As looking at Pro's arguments, he is definetly only talking about humans, and once again, THIS DEBATE IS NOT A HUMAN-BASED DEBATE. The debate is about the Earth being overpopulated, not about too much humans. And, as far as we found, there is around 1,589,361 species in the world, definetly more [3]. And, humans are just one species, so definetly, there is not lots of food for all animals. Therefore, this is refuted. B: WaterMy opponent says that most water isn't fresh, mostly in glaciers, which is basically a concession. Pro says that there are some methods to make the ocean water fresh, but a) no source b) if you use the evaporation trick, there won't be much water left, c) the fish won't have any water. Therefore, we can't do that. Melting glaciers, sure. Pro says that there is enough water to satisfy everyone. But, he didn't include other animals, so this is invalid, and every species, even plants need water, and you need water to do many things, such as cleaning, so there won't be much water to satisfy every animal or plant in Earth. C: ShelterPro says that earth has 3 trillion trees, which we can make wood from. However, many animals live in trees, and if we use them, they have to evacuate. Pro doesn't have any proof that every person can have a house. Also, there is no one equal, so some people will have bigger houses, so there can't be houses for all people. We didn't count nature, or stores and things we need, so this is rebutted. ConclusionI have shown that the Earth has no food, water, or shelter for all of us, including animals, because humans doesn't mean Earth, therefore we have to include them, and if we include them, there won't be much water, food, and shelter for all of us, therefore you have to vote for Con. Sources[1] . https://www.google.fr...[2] . https://www.si.edu...[3] . http://www.factmonster.com...
The Earth Is Not Overpopulated

Full ResolutionThe Earth is not overpopulated.DefinitionsThe Earth: "The third planet from the sun, having a sidereal period of revolution about the sun of 365.26 days at a mean distance of approximately 149.6 million kilometers (92.96 million miles), a sidereal rotation period of 23 hours [and] 56.07 minutes, an average radius of 6,378.1 kilometers (3,963 miles), and a mass of approximately 5.9736*10^24 kilograms (1.3169*10^25 pounds)."[1]Overpopulated: "Excessive population of an area to the point of overcrowding, depletion of natural resources, or environmental deterioration."[2]Rules1. No forfeiting.2. No semantics or trolling.3. All arguments must be visible inside this debate and character limits cannot be broken. Sources may be posted in the comments or in an outside link.4. This debate's resolution, definitions, rules, and structure can only be debated before you accept this debate. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's argumentsRound 4: Defending your arguments and conclusions (no new arguments)Sources[1]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...