BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People have the mindset that one death is a tragedy but a thousand deaths is a statistic

Agreed. I jumped into the debate a bit quick without getting my desired explanation across. I shall come up with a new and improved proposed debate in this round and then If you agree I shall create the debate and add you as the con side. (just so nobody else takes the spot first). How about this: Topic: the majority of people see one death as a tragedy but a thousand deaths as a statistic. Explanation: I think the title can stay more or less the same if I give my explanation. Firstly, by people I mean people who are not there to witness the event and could not know about it without the use of media. Obviously people who are there to experience the event first hand are going to find it tragic without the use of media however I want to focus more on the general public. We can take it as a given that people first hand obviously don't need media to find out about it. Secondly, like I said before the actual title is a saying, not meant to be a literal statement so some leeway must be allowed. What its really saying is that a minimal amount of deaths is seen as a tragedy (including one) e.g. school shooting, however a gigantic sum of deaths (on a daily basis) e.g. Children in Africa is seen as a statistic compared to a story such as a school shooting, in which a small amount of people are tragically killed. Obviously people see a thousand deaths on it's own a tragedy but in comparison to a tragic story of one death for example, I argue that people tend to not acknowledge the fact that a similar thing is happening on a vast scale elsewhere. I.e. It's just a statistic. I think that's everything covered. I know it's a big explanation but you have to understand that the topic is loose and its hard to pinpoint your explanation without your opponent bringing up things that you wanted to explain. So I have done that now. Sorry for the initial inconvenience.
People have the mindset that one death is a tragedy but a thousand deaths is a statistic

The example I gave of the daycare was referring exclusively to people reacting WITHOUT media involvement. I am not purposely trying to distort the debate, nor am I attempting to lead this debate further into obscurity. But your thesis's do differ, and what you wished initially to discuss stems off into ambiguity and leaves this debate open to a myriad of semantics. Respectively, I ask you to propose a new debate with a conspicuous definition of the terms you wish to use, as well as, we can agree on the structure of the debate and come to a clear thesis before we begin. Thank you.
People have the mindset that one death is a tragedy but a thousand deaths is a statistic

Firstly I will start off by reiterating my round one explanation. I feel as if the majority of people's mindset is set in such a way whereas an event such as a death is only reacted to if it's in black and white in front of people, through the news or media or whatever. Example 1: On the news there's a tragic story of how a teenager committed suicide because their father abused them on a daily basis. There would be a huge reaction nationwide and the whole country would be in mourning over it. However that day hundreds or even thousands of people would have committed suicide but people don't think of that when they hear a tragic story of one death. People kill themselves all the time and it happens on an hourly basis worldwide but just because one story happens to get to the attention of people then suddenly everyone's crying over it. But what about everyone else who killed themselves that day? Example 2: A little boy starves to death because his mother was unable to provide for him. Likewise this story would receive so much attention and reaction from people, yet thousands of children die in Africa every day from the likes of starvation which gets little public reaction. I am not saying that people think that a thousand deaths is fine, I'm just saying that in comparison to a story of a single tragic death the reaction is remarkably different; seen as a tragedy. Also when such a story does come along people generally don't think or give acknowledgement to the fact that the same thing is happening worldwide on a vast scale on a daily basis. If it's not in black and white or in people's faces then they tend not to bother. I look forward to your response.
The idea of the big bang isn't logical

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________ . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~., . . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-., . . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:, . . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\, . . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,} . . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.} . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./ . . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./ . . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./ . . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/ . . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .} . . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../ . . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../ . . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-” . . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\ . . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__ ,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-, . .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\ . . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==`` . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`\I figured that Con would forfeit. I will waive this round to give my opponent a chance to resond to my argument.
The idea of the big bang isn't logical

When you say the idea of the big bang isn't logical, that was not a fact. That was subjective, so using that as a valid point to declare that the big bang is false/God is real is not a factual argument. Another mistake, not all Atheists believe in the big bang. The point of the conservation is proving God's existence or validating he is true, so do that instead. Remember, just because we don't understand how something works/worked, doesn't automatically make it invalid.
Gay Marriage

Let's do this! Argument #1: Love Love is a complicated thing. But at least one thing is for sure: that love between one person of one gender being attracted to a relationship with another person of the same gender is okay! I mean, for example, if one man is attracted to another man, and they have a relationship, as long as these two men are happy, it seems that nothing should stop them from getting married. Gay marriage is even backed up: "The US Supreme Court ruled in 1974"s Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur that the "freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause." US District Judge Vaughn Walker wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 that Prop. 8 in California banning gay marriage was "unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses." (1) Sorry for this being only one point, and at that short, but thank you for accepting this debate. Also, remember, no rebuttals (disputing an opponents claim/point) until the last round References (so far) (1): http://gaymarriage.procon.org... Dynamicduodebaters, or DDD
Gay Marriage

The best part of the debate. This should be fun: Opposition's Point #1: "It is not marriage" In this argument, my opponent stated: "Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman" Well wake up bud, the world is changing. Many, many gay marriages are occurring now days. Also, take a look at this: "(broadly) any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities"- Dictionary.com Nowhere does it say that this "marriage" has to be between a man and a women! My opponent also said: "It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children." Ok, this is wrong on two levels. First of all, since when was the "primary purpose of marriage" to raise children? Marriage is usually made to bond two loving people together, not to make babies! And, it's not like you have to be married to have children! Second of all, since when does being in a gay marriage stop "the raising of children." I would like to propose a word to my opponent: A-D-O-P-T-I-O-N. Adopted kids can still be raised under two mothers or two fathers all the same! Opponent's Point #2: "It always denies either a mother or father" My opponent stated that: "He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model." Just because the child has no mother or father role model does not mean that they do not have a family role model! For example, two mothers could both be a role model for the child, or an aunt, uncle, sister, brother, cousin, etc. Opponent's Point #3: "It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union" I have repeated in this cross-examination time and time again that gay couples definitely CAN have "children." It may not be by blood but adoption is the same as having a child. You raise them, you take care of them, you love them, you support them, no matter if you are a complete blood parent. So yes, gay marriages ARE marriages and in them you CAN have babies! Opponent's Point #4: "Natural Law" Since when does "natural law" forbid gay marriage? And since when is marriage only about having kids? Opponent's Point #5: "It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right" My opponent stated: "Homosexual activists argue that same-sex "marriage" is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s." I do not compare these two problems. This "point" though does not have anything to do with if "gay marriage" is okay. Thus, you rambling on talking how this is incorrect to compare the two is useless. Thank you, the DDD VOTE PRO!!!!! References besides the first one: http://www.fasttopten.com...
Gay Marriage

Man that's a lot of typing, but no problem: 4. It Violates Natural Law Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law. Natural law"s most elementary precept is that "good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided." By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act"s purpose. Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality. Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. 5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right Homosexual activists argue that same-sex "marriage" is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s. This is false. First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected. Same-sex "marriage" opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility. Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the "marriage" between two individuals of the same sex.
Gay Marriage

Giving me a lot to think about Argument #4: Adoption rates You have been posting some very interesting stuff about families, especially about children. Well, have you considered that some kids have no parents and have become orphaned OR have families that beat them/ treat them poorly. Now, before you say "What about relatives?" What if all of your relatives besides the family you have left behind are overseas? Or if they are dead as well? If a gay couple were to adopt a child/children those children will have family. Might not be biological family, but still family. Would you rather have a mother and a father who hate you or two mom's who love you? The answer is obvious. Argument #5: It is a human right! We are all human. Male. Female. Short. Tall. Young. Old. Gay. Straight. 7 billion of all of us, stuffed into a planet. We created rights for a reason. To keep the balance between all human beings. Rights are not majority rules. Rights are for ALL of us. And by denying gays marriage you are violating 2 universal human rights "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty Article 16: (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State" There is NO part that says that gays cannot be married. And in article 16 it does NOT mention that only men can marry women. Every country that denies gay marriage is violating human rights. Thanks DDD
Gay Marriage

Thanks pro OK here we go again: 3.It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families. On the contrary, same-sex marriage is intrinsically sterile. If the spouses want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families. Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.
Gay Marriage

Thanks Con! Argument #2: Suicide Imagine you are 16 years old, in high school and gay. People who were your friends in 3rd grade now hate you because you like the same gender. No one wants to be friends with you, even the teachers are noticeably more uncomfortable teaching you. You hate all of the negative attention and want it to stop. Your parents won't move you to a different school and now that people know you are a homosexual they will never forget. You see only one way out: Death. "Teens who self-identify as homosexual are five times more likely than their heterosexual counterparts to attempt suicide, according to a study released last week. The study, published in the journal Pediatrics online on April 18, was conducted in order to determine whether living in a gay friendly social environment affected the risk of a teen identifying as homosexual committing suicide. It found that teens in unsupportive" social environments were 20 percent more at risk of attempting suicide than those in supportive" environments" Is this right? Death that can be avoided happens only because people will not respect a persons happiness. Do you want teens dead? No? Then legalize gay marriage! Simple as that. Argument #3: No impact on heterosexuals If you are in a heterosexual marriage your partner is of the opposite gender and it is you and your partner ONLY. How does it affect you and your partner? Does it cause you to get cancer, or you become homeless all because of those two pesky boys who got married? No? Then I do not see a good reason to deny people a right to marry. Marriage is a right and it does not affect heterosexuals one way or the other. Good luck DDD
Gay Marriage

OK lets begin! 1. It Is Not Marriage Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses. The promoters of same-sex "marriage" propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementary in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children. 2. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother It is in the child"s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent. The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex "marriage." A child of a same-sex "marriage" will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model. Same-sex "marriage" ignores a child"s best interests. Thats all for now.... back to you "pro".
Unicorns should be used as a source of global oil and fossil fuels to protect the U.S. in war.

Futom was an unstable dragon for powderization. Due to more research and information on the matter, scientists are now able to locate stable dragon teeth for powderization. To your comment on the 'power of 7 unicorns acting in unison can solve any problem though implosion.' is false. New studies have shown that unicorn horn energy is NOT strong enough to make Lance Armstrong's remaining testicle to implode on account that it was retro fitted with depleted DRAGON TEETH depostis. As generals around the world learned from the 'pimp my Kangaroo war' fought between Australia and Vatican city. That powderd dragon teeth grants increased agility to fighter plains and adds an extra umph to any explosives dropped on orphanages. Not only does powdered dragon teeth provide a powerful weapon modification, it can also be the american standard for money, considering that it is worth 5 times that of meth.
Unicorns should be used as a source of global oil and fossil fuels to protect the U.S. in war.

The problem with dragon teeth is that they have unpredictable results. Like in world war two with Hiroshima. The japanese tried to create a super weapon. In result they climbed the Zagros mountains and found the elder dragon Futom and they removed his teeth. After they had grinder the teeth to dust the teeth's nuclear properties intensified. The iodine levels climbed to substantial heights and the then the teeth exploded. The blast was so powerful it killed anywhere from 241,000 to 900,000 people. Though the strong properties of dragon teeth should be used unicorns would be a much better choice. The power of seven unicorns working in unison will cause even the greatest of problems to implode! This is why unicorns win every time!
Unicorns should be used as a source of global oil and fossil fuels to protect the U.S. in war.

I am in affirmation to the resolved. The unicorns could be used as a source of transportation like horses were used in the past. It is a known fact that unicorns can travel at the speed of light, so things would get done a lot faster riding one of them. The unicorn poop could simply be turned into oil and fuels, because of its strong chemical properties. The unicorns can use their magic powers to shoot lasers and rays of light from their horn. These rays of light, known as rainbows, will distract the enemy. During the time of distraction the unicorn will have more than enough time to impale its opponent. Unicorn vomit will also come in handy. The special magic vomit can be used as glitter bombs so after war the land will look shinier than ever before. This burst of shininess will be seen from all across the world and work as a beacon for aliens to see our planet from space. Once the aliens see the bright light they will travel from their distant galaxy to visit Earth. On their peaceful return back to their galaxy they will bring bacon the greatest gift ever to be given. Thanks to the unicorns we will have a bridge between Earth and extra terrestrials and that is why I am in affirmation to the resolved.