BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Allow gay marriage

"Marriage" as a word may or may not come from religious origins, but in its current state, as recognized by the state, it is purely a legal contract. Any religion can still choose what groups qualify for marriage, but this debate is solely on whether GOVERNMENT should make such a decision. You say you do not want to change the definition of the word, yet you admit that the definitions vary, and THEN propose the state CHANGE its word for marriage! Under the law of the land, marriage is a contract. The contract allows the two people who agree to it to share property, and offer special legal status as "spouse," with benefits I previously mentioned. Now, what you must prove is WHY this status should be granted to heterosexual couples, and not homosexual couples. You have already said "My arguement is not to prove that gays SHOULD NOT be allowed to live together, or function as a family unit." That is EXACTLY what a marriage contract does! Religion is separate from state, and rightfully so. Whether one religion or another makes use of the word "marriage" is irrespective of how GOVERNMENT uses it. If your church forbids two people of the same gender from marrying, then they do not have to recognize them as married. But government does not and should not have the power to forbid two adults from legally contracting on the basis of what one religion or another says.
Allow gay marriage

I suppose you are right, and I apologize for my misinformation. The only reason that I had cited it, was because I can recall a few years back when this debate began to make headlines, that the only definition referred to traditional unions. It does greatly disturb me however, especially considering that the word itself is derived from nothing other than religious contexts, and that our government (and many others) chose to use it as our word for union. I would argue that if they wish them to be equal, they no longer call them marriages at all. Only civil unions. Marriage in itself IS between a man and a woman, and the ONLY reason that Webster's changed it's definition was because of the way was currently being USED in pop culture. The definition itself, in ORIGIN, from nearly every religion in the world, STILL refers to a male and a female bound together in holy matrimony . If you can find me at least ONE mainstream religion where marriage refers to same sex unions in the least,then I would have learned something NEW today. If not, then the true definition is held by those who originally used the word, not Webster's. As for your comment on the "Civil union", and that being discriminatory towards gays, the fact of the matter is, the government should not have the power to change the meaning of a religious sacrament, such as marriage, to appease those who don't qualify for the title by definition.
Allow gay marriage

According to Merriam-Webster online: Marriage: 1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage So long as you accept that gays have an equal right to co-habituate, to raise children, and "function as a family unit," your argument becomes nonexistent. The fact is, unless a homosexual "civil union" is given the identical status as a traditional marriage (in name and in the eyes of the law), gay couples will always receive the short end of the stick in some way. As it currently stands, people in homosexual relationships cannot file joint tax returns as a "family unit," cannot serve as consent-givers in medical situations, and are often passed over in estate disputes when a will is not present. You have already said that gays should be given equal status, but we know from experience that "separate but equal" is never actually equal. You have also failed to address one of my initial points: government power. By allowing the government to say that gays are not entitled to marry each other, you are allowing the government to define which groups of people are allowed to marry. I reiterate that once the government has the power to say gays are limited to a "civil union," they have the power to say that any group, for any reason, is also not eligible to truly marry. The Constitution does not grant the government this power, and no free society could give the government the power to legislate relationships and still call itself free.
Allow gay marriage

My arguement is not to prove that gays SHOULD NOT be allowed to live together, or function as a family unit. Instead, I beleive that there should be a different word for a "gay" marriage. The DEFINITION of the word marriage, REGARDLESS of WHERE YOU LOOK IT UP at, is "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. " By DEFINITION, gays CANNOT be married, as it is not a TRUE marriage. Unless you change the definition of the word, this is not an arguement you can win, by any means. And we're not changing the definition.
Allow gay marriage

The question of gay marriage is fairly simple one, given that there are no real arguments to not allow it. What makes one marriage less valid than another? More to the point, what makes the government qualified to say whose marriage is valid and whose marriage isn't? And by what standards does one determine which marriage is valid and which one isn't? Is there a litmus test for how much people love each other? (Love is clearly not the issue, as people of opposite genders can get married for money or sport in this day in age.) Consider for a moment, the slipper slope outlawing gay marriage presents. If the government can say "Two men cannot marry," what is to stop them from saying "Blacks cannot marry whites?" Or even "Blacks cannot marry?" Once the government begins passing laws in an area, their power will expand exponentially. This is why our government has specific limits on what it can do. None of those limits encompass the government passing standards on who can marry. So by what right do they bar certain groups from marrying?
Allow gay marriage

You said: "Because of this, it is more likely, and probably a better idea altogether, that the word itself is returned to the religions from where it came, and all current marriages are simply recognized as civil unions." But you ALSO said: "And we're not changing the definition." You cannot have both. To say that the government cannot use a word of religious origin is somewhat absurd. Many religious texts predate American government, and to suggest that THEIR definition of a word should hold sway over GOVERNMENT simply by virtue of their's being here first is unfeasible, pointless, and all around ludicrous. If I am understanding your argument, you are saying that the word "marriage" is one that belongs solely to religion, and should not be used by government. You do not aruge that both homosexual and heterosexual marriages should enjoy the same rights, only that BOTH should be rechristened "civil unions." Therefore, you would agree with the statement "Both gay and straight couples should be allowed to enter a legal contract that grants the same benefits as the one currently known as "marriage." If your argument is that they should have equal rights, but the relationship would bear a different name, you are arguing for a "separate but equal" approach to marriage, an approach the Supreme Court has ruled cannot be applied to ANY public institution. (And an approach whose flaws are clearly demonstrated throughout history.) If your argument is that they should NOT have equal rights to contract, you are saying that the government should be granted power to decide which consenting adults should be allowed to contract with others. Again, this approach is in no way acceptable in a democracy. The only remaining argument that could be made against allowing gays the same access to marriage contacts is that marriage is a religious institution, and that government cannot tread on religious ground. By THAT appalling logic, you are saying government cannot pass laws regarding the legal status of women (who are not allowed to even leave the house in some Muslim faiths), could not allow the use of alcohol (Mormonism and other faiths forbid alcohol),could not FORBID the use of alcohol (Catholicism and other religions use wine as a sacrament), or even outlaw SLAVERY! (The practice of slavery is mentioned and condoned in many religious texts.) Practice religion how you choose, but no law can be passed or changed because of what a religious text says. The term used for a contract is irrelevant. If a government uses the same word as a religion, so be it. So long as the law does not forbid someone from worshiping as they choose, religion has NO impact on matters of state. Least of all on phrasing, which seems to be the only facet of gay marriage to which you have raised any sort of debate.
Allow gay marriage

The fact still remains that government used the word already used and coined by countless religions. Goverment is merely borrowing a pre-existing word, a pre-existing bond, created BY religion. And it is BECAUSE of this that they simply cannot change the meaning of the word. And it is BECAUSE of that, that it is simply IMPOSSIBLE for two men, or two women, to become "married" Can you imagine what would happen if government tried to change the definition of the word, or start applying it where it cannot be applied? I will give you a hint. It happened. And your religious fanatics flipped. Now YOU may be an atheist, but there are millions of people in this world ready to die for what they believe in. And to have their faith tread on by the government would not paint a pretty picture. As I said before, America was founded on Christian belief's. Which is likely why they adopted the word "marriage" to begin with. They cannot change the word without serious repercussions, and I do not think you have fully thought through how that would pan out. So they do their best, they call it a civil union. Because of this, it is more likely, and probably a better idea altogether, that the word itself is returned to the religions from where it came, and all current marriages are simply recognized as civil unions. They can still be recognized as marriages within the community of the religion, and...wait...perhaps we have been missing the point? Are you sure that the title marriage was not simply adopted from a pre-existing rank held within a religious community as a form of public title? In fact, that is exactly what it is. Just as "Father" can be an official title (adopted from the Christian priests), the word marriage can be adopted in the eyes of the government. However, those who simply do not have that title cannot just pull it out of thin air, it must be obtained! And while ALL marriages happen to be civil unions, not all civil unions can be marriages. It's simply a matter of origin, although I can see where you are coming from.
George W. Bush was a bad president.

Resolution: George W. Bush was a bad president.Rules: (1) Debater must have typing experience and internet access.(2) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate(3) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.(4) No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.(5) Must insert one witty quote per round.CiRrk Additional Rules:(6) No new evidence or arguments last round(7) Drops are concessions(8) Foreiture = lossRounds: (1) Acceptance + Internet High Five(2) Main Argument (3) Rebuttal to opponent's main argument (4) Response to rebuttal + closing arguments + voting issues (one paragraph)"Full government control of all activities of the individual is virtually the goal of both national parties." -Ludwig von MisesDefinitionsGeorge W. Bush: The 43rd President of the United States This guy--> http://l.yimg.com...Bad: Of poor quality; unsatisfactoryI accept this debate which I have thusly created and challenge those of rhetorical wizardry to a verbal duel. With my hand elevated and ready for forearm pronation, I slap yours in a ritualistic manner. Good luck to whomever accepts, and may the Gods smile upon you during this debate.Kittens!
Geocentrism

I believe Earth is spherical and motionless in the center of the universe (not orbiting anything, and not spinning). This is my model, and my main proof for Earth not moving is the 1887 Michelson & Morley experiment.To describe the experiment in the simplest way possible, they shot two light beams in different directions. One lightbeam was towards the direction they thought Earth was moving. The other lightbeam was perpendicular to this one, but for argument's sake I'll pretend it was directly opposite the first light beam.If Earth was moving, the first lightbeam wouldn't be measured as fast as the second, because they'd be 'catching up' to that beam as they rode on the moving Earth. Since the second beam went the other way, and they'd be on Earth zooming away from it, it would seem to travel faster. Specifically, it'd seem to travel at the speed of light plus the speed of Earth.In reality, they measured practically no difference in the speed of the lightbeams. This proves Earth isn't moving.Thank you.
Evolution VS. Literal Creationism (PART ll)

Here is the link with my previous arguments. (1) Since the BoP was not established, it is shared.Rebuttal 1:This is just for your link. Your link is incredibly bias, as all the links in it are specifically for creationism. I won't post links specifically for evolution. Based on this, we won't know if your link's info is true. Therefore, it renders your link useless because of the bias. Please don't use links like creation today or answering genesis.Rebuttal 2:Don't take this as an insult, but I love Pro's ignorant logic behind this argument. She states that you must believe in the Bible to be a Christian. This is not true, as I am a living example of that. I do not believe in the Bible, yet, I'm still Christian. I also don't see how this would help your case, as many people agree with me.Rebuttal 3:I love how this argument has nothing to do with what I believe in, as I am a micro evolutionist. However, I will do my best to refute it.You're problem is in the scientific classification of animals. However, I have found you the evolution of the Hyena (2). You made so many flaws in this debate. First off, the book you stated, we don't even know exists, because you neglect to put a link to it. Also, even if there is a book, you neglect to put any evidence to back up the authors claims.Rebuttal 4:My opponent then issues a challenge to me that doesn't even involve the current debate, which is poor conduct. However, I will entertain the challenge. I can believe in a higher power, however, I have seen the Bible to be faulty in many points. If you want, I will go into the flaws it has.Rebuttal 5:An easy answer to an easy questions. We evolve because of a series of mutations in the DNA. The reason why we became smarter is because, as we evolved, our brain capability for many things changed. We are still evolving today! (3) Then you ask me a Bible question. I don't believe God created us in his own image. No, he didn't. The rest is rhetoric so I don't need to refute it anymore.Rebuttal 6:I love your lack of sources! No sources whatsoever! Rebuttal 7: This has nothing to do with this debate, so, I'm not going to waste time refuting it.My arguments still stands. It has not been touched by Pro.Overall, Pro has nothing backing up any of her statements. If you look on the previous debate, I have sources backing up mine. Therefore you must vote Con!1. http://www.debate.org...2. http://www.wearesites.com...3. http://content.time.com...
Evolution VS. Literal Creationism (PART ll)

Pro = Creationism Con = Evolution This is a debate based off of CoolDudeBro's first argument in Part l (which isn't labelled as part one, by the way). If Con accepts, as I certainly hope he does, he can just copy and paste from the previous debate and use it in this one. After such action the debate will be original and formal. The layout will be as follows: arguments, then rebuttals, then conclusion. I think we all know the definitions so I will not repeat them. Even though "part 1" was a while back, I think we should still do as I promised. So LET THE DEBATING BEGIN!
Evolution VS. Literal Creationism (PART ll)

Rebuttal 1:I love your tenacity. Using a forum post you don't even have the original article for and using it as evidence is a ballsy move. Luckily, I look at my opponent's links. Your link is from a forum post on a BIAS website. The author even neglects to link us to the article he got this information from. This was posted in 2011. I will now show you an article from a credible source made in two thousand twelve that backs up my claims. It states that we are ninety nine percent similar to the ape. (1) Please read the whole article. It says in in multiple paragraphs.Rebuttal 2:We have emotions and feelings because our brain evolved in some ways. Apes have feelings. They even mourn for their dead (2). The Tower Of Babel didn't bring host to different languages, races, ETC. I would like to challenge you to a spin off debate which you may accept here (3).Rebuttal 3:*face palm* Not the skull, the brain!Rebuttal 4:Is this a joke? A stupid you tube video with no scientific backing? Wow, the world has reached a new low.Rebuttal 5:Another bias source! Please, stop with all of these! If Satan was a serpent, how could he talk? He was in a serpent's body, and they have no vocal cords.Rebuttal 6:I feel I don't have to even try to refute the first few parts of your arguments, as this debate has nothing to do with my status of being a Christian. You do realize the book you gave was from Stephen Hawkings, a devout Atheist right?Bias sources normally put out bias information. For instance, would you trust an article that says smoking increases your life span if it was published by a tobacco company? I wouldn't. It's the same thing. Tell you what. Bring me links that aren't from anything like answering genesis or any other Bible site, and maybe it will be a credible source. But, come on man! Answering genesis? All of your sources are from a creationist origin. The last comment came off quite rude. Good luck!1. http://news.sciencemag.org...2. http://www.livescience.com...3. http://www.debate.org...
Yo mama joke

Please clarify 2-5 jokes (3 per rd.). Please do not use abbreviations, I am genuinely confused by what you are trying to conveyIt means 3 per round, now on to the debate.Yo mamma so fat I took a picture of her last Christmas and its still printing. Yo mamma so fat not even Dora can explore her.Yo mamma so poor that when I put out a cigarette she says, "Who turned off the heatter.Your move.
Birdman is clearly inferior to Rob1billion

Thank you for leaving out the visceral analogies this time around. Contention 1: I received an F in chem 2. But I was savvy (and heady) enough to officially have that grade removed from my transcript. Since I am not a chemist, my grade is irrelevent. I have been on the dean's list the past three semesters since. The rabies story (as well as the train story) can be saved for another time, thank you. Contention 2: Taco Burrito helps clean the digestive tract, as Con alluded to. I have a strict regimen of hot sauce and tequila that keep my pipes cleaner than stainless steel. Also, I'm the one who introduced Birdman to running and tennis, so his impudence towards his mentor is greatly unappreciated. Birdman's overhand shot really is no match for mine on the tennis court, and the statistics attest to that. He is full of bologna up to his neck. Contention 3: No, your not playing the race card. I already have; you simply weren't smart enough to recognize it. Birdman is a self-proclaimed "asian-caucasion". All the mercury from the sushi he is eating is building up in his brain. "This contention lacks logic". What the hell are you talking about? Your own contention? I said your guitar skills were mediocre and you agreed with me! Unfortunately, Con has failed to address 2 out of my last three contentions and they will need to be extended. He is a newbie, so he hasn't yet learned that when you don't address someone's arguments it makes you look like a fool. That's alright Mike, better I do it than some random debater out to make an easy meal out of you. I'd like to end this round by saying that I would like to thank Con for showing up today, despite his lack of experience and tact. Although he performed horribly, both hor himself and for his asian race, he showed us all that debating Rob1billion isn't something to be taken lightly.
Birdman is clearly inferior to Rob1billion

OMG!! WTF!! :o Contention 1: Rob could not handle Chemistry 2, so why criticize me? (I received an AB) I am as serious about my studies as Rob was when he found out rabies can be aspirated. (hilarious story...maybe Rob would tell it if it did not make him sound so...haha...whats the word...RIDICULOUS!!!) >o Contention 2: Physically, Rob and myself are very fit individuals. I attend the gym three times a week and keep a pretty good regimen of weight and cardiovascular training. Rob likes to attend Taco Burrito three times a week and keep a pretty good regimen of wipe and flush. ("that green sauce is amazing!") I can, have, and always will be superior to Rob in tennis. I wear the matching headband. I have the better serve. I am quick like a bunny. Rob has to spend every other point looking for a hair tie. Rob has no idea how many points I give him every match. Want proof? C'mon Rob...let's set up a match and put money on it. Name the location and time so everybody can attend this massacre. (Get the EMT on standby.) Oh yeah, I am the EMT! After the smack down, I'll make sure to bring all the necessary equipment. Once I'm through, Rob's gonna have more than a hurt ego... Contention 3: My guitar skills ARE sub-par and that is the way I like it. I play because I enjoy it, nothing more and nothing less. I'm playing the race card and am calling this contention RASCIST!! I am part ASIAN!! I'm always SQUINTING!!!! Does this mean I'm intellectually inferior to ROB? This contention lacks logic. Contention 4: Well played Rob, well played. My singing is hilarious and downright offensive! Isn't it obvious that I was doing this for entertainment purposes? I suppose my singing is pretty bad. Unfortunately, like the previous contention, my singing has nothing to do with my intellect as compared to Rob. Hey Rob, must I reiterate the meaning of the word intellect? It is the faculty of thinking and acquiring knowledge, something I have been actively engaging in for my entire life. The proof is in the pudding my fine sir. Grab your dictionary, consult your girlfriend, and try to learn something. Because I am learning you an @ss-whoopin!! Perhaps, in light of this new definition of intellect, Rob would like to revise his next three contentions?