BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Children should not have homework.

Children spend too much time in school and not enough time outside and exploring their individuality, which school does not offer them. It causes emotional and psychological problems as children grow up because they spend the majority of their time inside, sitting on a chair and not being able to expend their energy physically or creatively as they like. It's not progressive or healthy for children to be inside all day for hours only to go home and have to do it further. I support children not having homework at all. The majority of childhood should not be remembered as being stuck inside on beautiful days doing paperwork. They are children, not robots. They need playtime. Let all the learning be done in schools and let the children have a break at home.
gay marriage

Thanks again, to ScarletGhost, and I will now move on to my rebuttals.Contention 1 and Affirmative Action Con's arguments for SSM are of the sort that the institution could be considered solely for Affirmative Action purposes, with a slight benefit for the economy. Her argument goes like this:1. Evidence demonstrates that the homosexual community is suffering because of intolerance.2. Legislation in favor of Gay marriage will reduce intolerance.C: Therefore, Gay marriage should be legalized.However, I offer two objections to her argument. My opponent has simply assumed that legislation in favor of Gay marriage would reduce intolerance. She has not offered any argument for this. Also, I contend this whole idea of affirmative action. I, and I'm sure many others, think that homosexuality is immoral and disgusting, and the government should not destroy the institution of marriage for the sake of helping, and thereby encouraging, homosexuality. In simpler terms: I do not like homosexuals, and it is my right not to. I won't contend the economic argument for now, being that it isn't very persuasive.Equality SubA: Antimiscegation analogy My opponent offers an argument for equality, using prior restrictions to interacial marriage as an example. But such a comparison falsely assumes there are no essential differences between race and gender. While race is irrelevent to procreation, same sex couples, as I have displayed, do not qualify for entering the institution of marriage, given they are not capable of procreation. Thus, this analogy fails.Other than the interacial analogy, my opponent doesn't offer any other arguments as to why marriage policy which includes homosexuals is required for equality (as gay marriage certainly doesn't serve the best interests of my homophobic agenda). If no arguments are maintained, and are thus assumed, we are going to have to deal with a horrific slipperly slope. But I'll get on his later.Equality SubB: Civil Unions Given that my opinion is biased, I don't think civil unions should exist either. However, if marriage policy is based on procreation, then it isn't wholly irrational to offer sub-marriages for couples, like homosexuals and others, who still possess some extrinsic value. But I think this point is mostly irrelevent.Pro's arguments and the slippery slope All of the arguments presented by my opponent can be applied to any other form of relationship. For instance, polyamorous, incestual, bestial, or asexual relationships, all of which are looked odwn upon by society, can benefit from marriage policy that includes them. But if the arguments are the same as for homosexuals, how can we justly, in the name of equality, deny any of these relationships from occuring?Conclusion: Marriage policy should always be aimed at recognizing real marriages. Now, Pro hasn't offered any alternative marriage policy, but instead argues that we should recognize SSM based on a few platonic benefits that society will receive. Given that my argument above is good, then such recognition is unjust. So I now leave to my opponent to argue.
AIS intersex people prove that God does not condemn gay marriage

My opponent's debate proposition is absurd. The existence of AIS intersex individuals does not in any way establish God's stance on gay marriage, any more than the existence of people born without limbs would establish God is fine with you lopping off your right arm or the existence of the black widow spider justifies spousal cannibalism.AIS intersex is, for all intesive purposes, a birth defect - that's not to be rude to people with this syndrome, it is simply stating the fact. Birth defects are abnormalities - in other words, they aren't normal in comparison to the population. Many religions take exceptions for individuals with birth defects or situations diferent than the average person - for example, in Islam the pilgramage to Mecca - the Haji - is considered mandatory for all able-bodied Muslims of financial means, but those who are not able-bodied or lack the financial means to attend are not obligated to attend,[1] while in Judaism (the basis for almost all religious opposition to gay marriage) virtually the entire Torah, except for bans on blasphemy and murder, can be overriden if following it would result in risk to human life.[2] One could easily argue that AIS intersex individuals would fall under a similar exemption, as, at the time the law was written, it would be difficult to impossible for the individual to know their true gender. Another argument one could make is these individuals are called to celibacy. Another answer could be God doesn't exist. But regardless, in no logical way does the existence of these individuals justify gay marriage, especially since the religious texts of all three major montheistic religions condemn homosexual acts and, by extension, gay marriage. To assume the only answer to this issue is "God approves of gay marriage" is folly.References:1. http://www.yoursingapore.com...2. https://en.wikipedia.org...
AIS intersex people prove that God does not condemn gay marriage

An AIS intersex person has a vagina, female breasts, and is hormonally more female than the average female. They also have internal testicles (sometimes external, but usually internal) and their DNA is male. They do NOT have ovaries, fallopian tubes, a uterus, or cervix. If God is against gay marriage and you believe the Bible agrees with your position, how do you sustain the contradiction in light of science? In other words, they are clearly born with male and female parts, which sex should THEY marry? Their DNA is 100% male. Outwardly, they appear female and are almost always attracted to men. If God is so caught up on our sexual orientation, and says marriage is only for male and female, what is a person with this condition to do? We know that God is a "just" God according to the Bible so he would not make a law or rule for one person and not another. These people are clearly born this way and through no fault of their own, are forced to deal with this dilemma. http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.isna.org...
Books are superior to the Kindle

1. Please be reasonable. No one is going to be reading in the tub or swimming pool even though those may break it. Only irresponsible people are going to be doing half of those things you said and if they are that irresponsible they should not have ANY electronic devices. As for robbery and theft it is easy to keep your home safe and you should take proper measures before you buy comfort items. The same can happen to anything, like a TV. With pick pocketing it is unreasonable that they would take it seeing as you don't store a kindle in your pocket as it is too big. Also, who would steal it. Most robbers don't read a lot because they are too poor to get an education. If you are responsible you also don't put your kindle 3 meters in the air with it balancing on the edge of a bookshelf. Also when traveling, you either have it in your hand or in your luggage. And if not there it will be right next to you where you can see it. Although it is not impossible to lose them, there is only a small chance of doing so if you are responsible and careful. 2. I am sorry for that not being clarified. I mean that when you are on a long car ride (From Wisconsin to Florida) you can buy the books as your guardian drives. 3. Three meters is not a reasonable height. That is about ten feet and I don't think a lot of houses have eleven or twelve foot ceilings. When I say reasonable I mean about three feet. The only proof I need is the fact I have done this myself and so has a friend of mine. 4. Of course you are not going to give a 4 year old a kindle. Do you give a four year old a Television or a iPod. NO!!!!! Of Course not. Kids need to mature and be responsible before they get electronics. If you did not like electronics, then why are you on DDO. I agree with you that they are only for good income families but so what. Other people may not have the education to read. The library is a great resource but you can't hold books forever or for much longer than a month (my library's rules) My family had trouble with that before for a homework assignment where you had to read the book and keep it for questions. Unfortunately, We only had one day to get it and the library was out of copies. So we bought the book on the kindle and read the book right away. No time wasted. 5.Great argument. I agree with you on that point. 6. Sorry, but I can't relate. I was a strong reader right out, due to family help. So I never really got to enjoy those books. This may sound really heartless but if books are works of art, and art is in the museums, then, using common logic, I can deduce books belong in museums.
Books are superior to the Kindle

You have forfeited two of the rounds. you obviously aren't committed to his debate. I will sum up with my original points as well as some we have come along to. 1. It has a large storing capacity so you can read multiple books on a long car trip on one device rather than carry four or five books around. You can buy books immediately and not have to drive to a book store or library. 2.It can drop from a reasonable height (three feet.) 3. It is strong enough to survive most things unless you are out to destroy it. I would have a few more points, but sadly my opponent decided not to debate in this argument. Vote Con!!!!!! :)
Books are superior to the Kindle

1.Okay, suppose one does read in the bath. Whether reading kindle or paperback, if you drop it, the device/ book is ruined. 2. What I am saying is people who have a tendency to lose things (There are such people) really do not need technology or small things they can lose. 3. A multi-million home is not proper measures. It is eccentric. Proper measures include, Keeping windows shut on the ground floor, locking doors, shutting your garage, and other such common things. 4. Thank you but the advertisement can not be trusted. I checked to see if it fit in my pockets but it didn't. Also, you do realise when something that big is pulled. 5. Sorry, bad argument. 6. thanks but that source does not work. If driving, it is difficult for a robber to steal luggage unless he pulls you over, forces you out of the car, and then proceeds to rob you. 7. Well, it is easier to hold onto one book rather than three or four. Also, If you run out of books to read(car ride goes longer than expected) than you can get new books rather than be bored. 8. Yes, but the height of dropping a kindle is hard to achieve unless you have set out with a passion to destroy your kindle. This can also happen with books. It is just as likely.(not at all) 9. Giving a little kid a paper book it a disaster waiting to happen. The kid is prone to tantrums and will most likely tear the pages creating a greater mess than the kindle would make. 10. I apologise for accusing you wrongly. 11. Sadly but you source is unreliable. The average salary for the American family is $46,326.[1] However it is even higher than that because that counts in all the unemployed and people who don't want a job. At least $65000. I would like to point out I said may. I was saying some (like the family's that don't want to work) will not be able to read. 12. Sadly, but these places are usually not at the average street corner and the some time to get to, unlike the kindles. I will use your lovely little chart. 12a) You need to get a book fast to work on homework. 12b) It is late at night and the book shops near you are closed. 12c) it will take too long to get to the nearest open book shop and back. 12d) The kindle provides instant purchasing and reading. 12e) Kindles are superior to books. 13. Not really. Books can be expensive. Lamps and couches are usually new and crisp and are replaced in about 5-15 years[2]. However books can last long periods of time and are sometimes a lot more expensive than couches. In fact the most expensive book I could find was Leonardo Da Vinci's Codex Leicester which is worth $30.8 million.[3] the least expensive book on kindle is only $6,232.00 (Nuclear Energy by K. Heinloth)[4] and the kindle is, according to you, $140 sources: 1. http://www.mybudget360.com... 2. forums.kiplinger.com/showthread.php?16880-Furniture 3. http://most-expensive.net... 4. http://www.amazon.com...
NASA should be shut down.

People believe NASA is not worth the funding. However, if you consider the facts- NASA has helped the U.S.A, far more than it has hurt it. NASA's funding is only 19 Billion, and if you compare that to say, our spending on Nuclear Weapons (25 billion) or our Department of Education (64 Billion), it is a very small amount. NASA also has an enormous economic return. For every one dollar spent on NASA, eight to ten return to the economy. There is also the fact that NASA has advanced our technology to huge extents. For instance- without it, we wouldn't have had the modern day computers and software. Third, there is the fact that NASA has continuously advanced our fields of science. For my final argument in this session, NASA protects us from NEO (Near Earth Objects). If an asteroid of 6 miles wide was on a collision course with Earth, what could stop it. Nuking might result in 1 mile wide asteroid fragments hitting Earth. NASA can redirect it, however, and move it away from our planet.
It Is Possible That A Maximally Great Being Exists

In this debate, it will be my opponent's burden to establish the truth of the relevant modal possibility of a maximally great being (who has necessary existence, if it is possible for this being to exist). It will be my burden to show that my opponent has not established the truth of the relevant modal possibility of a maximally great being. The first round is not for acceptance, as my opponent will provide an argumet in the first round. However, in the last round, Pro must simply put:"No argument will be posted here as agreed."I look forward to a challenging exchange.
All Abortion should be legal up to 20 weeks of pregnancy

To clarify, In my statement accepting the argument I said that once the baby was conceived, I believe that is indeed a life, Not actually a baby, But yes a life form that will form into a child. I believe that life begins at conception because there is no other way to draw the line. Conception is the most logical place to say when life starts. For your argument all abortion up to 20 weeks should be legal but after that it shouldn't be. How can you say that after 20 weeks it is just now a life. At 20 weeks the fetus already has fingers and toes and looks a lot like a human. The reason I state that life begins at conception is because there is no other place that you can just draw a line and say this is where it starts, Except for birth and I'm guessing most rational people think killing an 8 month old is cruel. Now I just want to put in your conclusion to share my thoughts about it. Here you stated, "In conclusion, The mother is a fully-developed human which can feel pain to a great extent, Has family and community relationships and is sentient. A fetus is not and may only be human in a very rudimentary form. Therefore, The rights of the mother to choose take priority over the right of the fetus. Furthermore, Not allowing abortion further endangers and dis-empowers women. " Now I'm going to take this apart piece by piece. First starting with the statement how the mother is a fully developed human which can feel pain, Has relationships, And is sentient, And obviously I would agree with that, That is just a fact. Where I disagree is where you state how, "the rights of a mother to choose take priority over the right of a fetus. " I agree with the fact that a mother is more of a human than a fetus; however, A mother's choice to kill a life-form she chose to have is not greater than the right of that fetus to live. Now i know you're about to type, "well what about rape, " and I will get to there but being only less then 1% of abortion cases it is not as big of an issue. What is an issue is that these woman are taking life that they don't want because they some how haven't learned that life has consequences after all these years. If you have sex, It is your right to take care of a child if it is conceived. Now onto rape, While I do think that this is more of a hard pill to swallow because you didn't chose to have sex so having a baby isn't a consequence of your own actions, I still believe it is wrong and I'll tell you why. I'm sure you would say that murder is the worst crime. Taking someones life purposefully out weighs everything else you could do. Now while I agree rape is a horrible thing, It is not worse than murder, And since I believe that fetus is a life, You can't kill it. That concludes my first statement, If I missed anything you thought was note worthy from your argument, Please feel free to restate it civilly. Obviously I also would love to see what you think about my arguments, Who knows maybe it changed your opinion but please leave your thoughts on my points as well
All Abortion should be legal up to 20 weeks of pregnancy

Abortion is the terminating of a pregnancy due to the removal of an embryo or fetus before it can survive outside of the uterus. When I say "All Abortion" I mean that women should have the right to choose to abort a pregnancy in any circumstance as long as the pregnancy has not lasted more than the current legal period of 20 weeks. Abortion post-20 weeks risks causing pain and suffering to a conscious human being which could survive outside the womb and thus is immoral.
The Democratic Party and Republican Party are not the same party with different names

Not only do the party's share some of the centrists.the centrists are the only ones getting elected. Take a look at people competing for the same seat and winning. If you conclude the political ideology of people winning the same political seat such as Bush and Obama are closer then people of the same political party such as Bush and Ron Paul, or Obama and. Lyndon LaRouche, then you must conclude the party's are the same. If you look at the median voter theorem and decide it is a much better indicator of how a politician will act once he is in office. Then you must conclude that they are the same party. There is a big show put on by both sides to convince you they are 2 wildly different parties. But the fact of the matter is these shows have been debunked. These shows just take advantage of the rare lone nut in each party and use that lone nut to scare supporters. http://www.patheos.com...
The Democratic Party and Republican Party are not the same party with different names

The Republican coalition is made up of Fiscal conservatives,Libertarians,Neoconservatives,Paleoconservatives,Progressive Conservatives, and Social conservatives. The Democratic coalition is made up of Environmentalists,Labor Supporters,Progressives,Minorities,Neoconservatives,and Social liberals. There is more too. "The people elected generally conform to the median voter" The two party system has not been polarized as much as in recent history(1). States are no longer even competitive in the Presidential elections. For example what would be the point in a Republican presidential nominee campaigning in New York in the main election. He won't win New York. (1)"Portrait of Political Party Polarization,"James Moody,Peter J. Mucha The two parties are distinctively different, not similar at all. They share some of the centrists but that is it.
The Democratic Party and Republican Party are not the same party with different names

I am not going to argue the parties are identical. They are clearly not. My argument is they are different factions of the same party.The word same has different connotations then the word identical. My characters are very limited so I you to do the work to familiarize yourself with unfamiliar concepts mentioned. 1.A political party can contain a wide range of views. Different factions can make up the same party. These facts are self evident.. 2. The party's themselves contain a wider range of views independently then the people ultimately elected do regardless of party affiliation. The people elected generally conform to the median voter. 3.80% -90% of all policy decisions by congress can be explained in one dimensional policy space. 4. Study's have shown that median voter theorem can explain Federal, state and local spending as well as international tarrifs . Sources: http://rdc1.net... http://www.corwin.com...
The Democratic Party and Republican Party are not the same party with different names

I will limit the primary reasons to three points. 1. Different reasoning The Democratic Party tends to lean left. While the Republican Party leans right. The left-right spectrum tends to be viewed as the separation between those who believe in equality and those who do not subscribe to equality. Left is associated with equality while the right is associated with inequality. The difference is not absolute because there are individuals who subscribe to some left wing and some right wing ideas(1). (1)Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction-Bobbio 2. Difference theories about governance The two parties have distinctively different ideas on how the United States should be governed. Here is the two party platforms. Democratic Platform: . http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu... Republican Platform: . http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu... 3. Different in practice Not a single Republican voted for the ACA.
I will not contradict myself.

My opponent could still have answered the question. Because as the rules say, "PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct." He did none of the above and therefore, my opponent did not answer the question by stating "why neither answer would be completely correct" which he obviously had the ability to do, just look at his explanation why he didn't answer the question in rounds 4 and 5. It still is a single question even with the implied extras. Furthermore, a definition is a definition, is a definition. Either definition was correct in the context, therefore, either definition could be used in the context. Just because my opponent believes I was talking about the animal does not mean I was. Obviously his assumption was wrong or he would not have contradicted himself in the first place. Seeing as he never talked about the horse or the beaver and only answered with a yes/no and I was the one talking about the horse or beaver. His objection is irrelevant as it relies on "frequency" but, why does this matter? It still IS definition. No where in the rules does it state that I have to specify which definition I will be utilizing. Heroin even in a world where no life exists stills has the "potential to cause injury" because life can exist on that planet at a later time. It has this potential because it is heroin which is dangerous.