BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
As a black homophobic atheist, my rationality is far superior to ALL atheists who support gays

1. yes and it goes without saying so you dont say it 2. use links. When i put in Olatunji et AL 2001 i got a study that had NOTHING to do with homos. 3. use links. 4-7. you can only attack arguments made by me. I wont defend what someone else says. this is a debate you must attack what I say, just you and me. 8. that's great, but it doesn't affect us so why must we mess with them. My arguments. 1.may it be noted that Pro clearly dropped that argument 2. Pro claims his rationality is FAR superior to ALL atheists who support gays A. superior is subjective B. I'm an atheist who supports gays. C. therefore, all i have to say is that my rational is superior, and i win the debate Because this disproves the ALL part of this topic 3. "My rationality is superior."
As a black homophobic atheist, my rationality is far superior to ALL atheists who support gays

1. Youre wrong. it's very relevant to investigate both sides of an issue to come to an unbiased, fair conclusion. Once again, I'm proving that I'm rationally superior to you pro gays 2. Homophobia is rooted in unwanted sexual advances (Pirlott, Angela et al) Homophobia rooted in disgust, not fear. (Olatunji et AL 2001) Now, I challenge you to prove that pro gay atheists mentioned those studies even once other than commenting the article that post the studies 3. Did you confirm with research that the answer is "no" or did you just said "no" because you're biased? Homophobia =disgust Disgust =disease avoidance behavior Homophobia -disease avoidance behavior Homophobia = stigma Stigma = avoid communicable pathogens Homophobia = avoid communicable pathogens Homophobia rooted in disgust, not fear. (Olatunji et AL 2001 Disgust is an adaptive disease avoidance behavior (Valerie Curtis et AL 2011) Disgust sensitivity disaprove of gays (knobe 2009) Evolutionary origin of stigmatization (Kurzban r 2001) 4. You're telling me that Atheists never used the population control argument in favor of homosexuality? Okay, I will post some links in around 3 to prove you wrong 5. I see you're still lying.... if it's not population control or social bonding, do pro gay Atheists have any argument about homosexuality in regards to evolution? That makes it even worse 6. So you're saying Atheists never once mentioned homosexuality among many species to argue in favor of homosexuality. I thought you would give me a good debate. Instead, you just decided to just lie. 7. Still lying huh? Lol. This is unbelievable. So you're saying Atheists never blame religion for the main cause of homophobia. Is this a joke? 8. Gay and bisexual women have higher rates of bacterial vaginosis http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Lesbians are more likely to be depressed because semen is good for WOMENS' health and helps fight depression. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Gay women have higher rates of mental health issues including depression https://www.lifesitenews.com... Gay women are more likely to be overweight http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Gay women are more likely to develop breast cancer Study shows women who get pregnant in their twenties decrease the risk of breast cancer. Gay women are less likely to get pregnant in their twenties and even less likely to get pregnant at all compared to heteroexual women.
As a black homophobic atheist, my rationality is far superior to ALL atheists who support gays

1. irrelevant2. citation please3. to answer that question: "No"4. That is an argruement made by my good friend Straw Mann (he is german.), however, that is not an arguement made by me so you cannot attack it.5.Another arguement made by my good freind Straw Mann. Not only that but it also needs a citation!6. Yet another arguement made by Straw Mann.7. I feel like im going to have to mention Straw Mann a lot.8.Some CRAZY facts, but no crazy citation, also an arguement made by my good friend Straw Mannnow on to my arguements1. Your rational thinking is not superior because superior is subjective, and you have not defined superior.
There should be harsher punishments for animal abusers.

Since my opponent has forfeited, I extend m last argument as my closing statements. As a closer to that, I have shown how most of my opponent's arguments fail either due to technical reasons (hunting scenario) or because he ignored the guidelines. He refuted nothing successfully while I refuted everything. I will offer my opinion of a point break down. Agree before - It would be interesting to see. Agree after - I would urge a vote for me here. Conduct - I would urge a vote in my favor here because my opponent has forfeited a round. Spelling and Grammar - I would urge a vote in my favor because I noticed many errors in my opponents posts. More convincing arguments - I would have to urge a vote in my favor becaus my arguments were better, I had no hypotheticals, and my opponent forfeited a round. Sources - I would urge a tied vote here because we I said that I used one dictionary. The rest of my information was common knowledge. The citation from another debate doesn't count in my opinion. My opponent cited one source, a dictionary, and even though it made no difference really because his definition was nonapplicable to this debate, he still cited something. Once again, these are my opinions. You don't have to select these vote options, but I urge that you do. One last note, if my opponent forfeits this round, I will be voting. If he makes a post thn I might not vote. Thank you for following this debate.
Grand Theft Auto V

I've played the game, and I found it to be one of the most fun games ever. Yes, there is a lot of things involving drugs, drinking, language, violence, and a little bit of sex, but not much sex. The Drugs: The main character doesn't once light up a joint throughout the game, and he hates drugs. A lot of people around him use it because of the high money it gets, but they do have a high price to pay in the end. The Drinking: In the game, Niko can go to bars and drink with his friends, then become drunk. Lots of other characters get the ideas too, but it's not a major issue in it. The Language: It's something you're gonna have to ignore. Yes, there is a lot of language, but Niko attempts to slow down on what he says to people. Lots of other people swear like crazy, one for example is Patrick McReary. He drops the F-word in almost every sentence he says, more than once. The Violence: Another thing you'll have to get used to, but again, even Niko himself doesn't want to do it. In the game, you cannot hit any women. The main thing is, there are lots of characters that are thrown off buildings and some are even set on fire. One had both of those. The Sex: This is something I would say you'd have to least worry about. You can have sex with your girlfriends in the game, but you don't see it at all, but you can hear them. Niko goes to strip clubs too. Now for the good stuff. The Good Role Model: Niko is a man who loves his cousin, but he hates how his cousin had lied about being rich, but promised they could achieve it. Niko is a Russian man at first looking for revenge on someone who killed twelve of his army friends for a thousand dollars, but has the choice of whether to kill them or not. If he doesn't, he actually feels very relieved. He doesn't like the drugs or too much violence, he tries to clean it up by doing violence to stop the evil people from smuggling drugs in the end. The Game-play: It's pretty easy to learn if you've not played any of the GTA games. The first thing you'll notice though that the controls and camera have changed since San Andreas. Bottom-line: I'd recommend this game for fifteen and older, but sure to teach them not to do the wrong things that others do in it.
Grand Theft Auto V

Picture the scene. A parent with a small child in tow approach a cash desk at a retail shop to buy Grand Theft Auto V. The advisor selling the game informs the parent that the game is rated 18 and contains extreme violence, language and sexual content. This information flies over the head of the parent, distracted by a message on her phone. 'It's fine' the parent mutters carelessly as she hands the game to the minor and away they go. This happened many times in the store during the hectic 24 hours following GTA's launch and I'd imagine all over the country. I know this because I was the person who served this customer. Yes, I work in games retail and write a gaming blog, what are the chances? The thing is, I no longer enjoy the former profession anymore and it's for my above ramblings that I have grown frustrated. I'm sure there are many parents who never wish their child to be exposed to interactive torture scenes and up close titillation. I'm also aware that older gamers will proclaim to have played Grand Theft Auto when they were fourteen but 'they're fine now'. I respect those opinions, but when they have kids themselves, or worse have other people's kids bully or shout obscenities around them, will they have the same trade of thought? Most parents in this generation are mostly uninterested in video games. Their disinterest and rampant naivety is to blame for the exposure their children have to ADULT only material. A lot of parents will not make the link between an 18 rated game to an 18 rated film. Grand Theft Auto looks cartoony to them and they exist on the same machines that power up Skylanders. An 18 rated film to parents, stands by itself as a piece of fictional reality that is absolutely for adults only. The point I'm making is that parents need to be educated on gaming's darker side. They need to be told that just because a game looks cartoony, that doesn't automatically excuse possible psychological effects that can result in a twelve year old simulating the act of pulling out a man's tooth with a pair of pliers. It's unacceptable. This act of violence in GTA's most notorious scene is no less disturbing than anything in a Saw or Hostel film and I'm confident that a lot of parents who allow their very young to play Grand Theft Auto are not allowed to watch the aforementioned films. 'My parents allowed me to watch R-rated movies, but they did so with rules. I couldn't curse like the movie did. I needed to know right from wrong. My parents watched along with me. It was a trust I earned, and I think some kids are quick to dismiss that it's a two-way street. I had lunch with a dev the other day whose 15-year-old plays GTA V for the parents. He plays, they watch, the family bonds. That's how it should be -- for them. I get that not every parent enjoys GTA's humour; I'm not saying everyone should do that. But there needs to be a dialogue. Kids need to talk to their parents about what this is and why they want it. Then, they have to listen to what the parents say.'
Grand Theft Auto V

As per usual, only half of the true story is told by these review websites, much like common sense media. To be honest, as long as your child is over thirteen and knows their right from wrong then there's no real reason to stop them from getting this game. My son had been asking me for the game's in the GTA series for quite a while, allot of his friends have had this game since they were as young as 10 and he didn't understand why I wouldn't let him have it. But after looking at the game and seeing him play it at one of his friends house, I decided to let him have it. Firstly the mini game in the strip club isn't always on, and there's no mission which makes them go there, so you should be able to trust them enough not to go there. The majority of the swearing is in the cut scenes, which you should be able to trust your child to skip if you want them to, and the same goes for the nudity (although it isn't shown very often, once once or twice throughout the game). Since the missions which are told in the cut scenes are repeated in the menu, skipping these cut scenes shouldn't interfere with their play through of the game. So in whole, as long as your child is mature enough to skip the cut scenes and know that the game isn't real life, then I don't think you should have any concerns about giving it to anyone over thirteen, since the language isn't any different (and probably less frequent) than what they would hear at school.
Nietzsche's mustache could beat the sh#t out of Mark Twains mustache!!!

My deepest and sincere apologies to my opponent for me not making clear the premise of my debate and causing my opponent to waste an entire round. I invite any possible judges of this debate ( I doubt anyone will vote on this one) to take my error into consideration. What I mean by "beat the shlt out of", is the general appearance of the moustaches in question, including color, size, how well they are groomed, and given the choice, which one would you want to curl up into and take a nap. But, I also mean the general superiority of the moustaches. Which one is more physically fit? Which one can do long division, and which one is more cultured? For instance, Nietzsche's moustache could bake a mean souffle!
Nietzsche's mustache could beat the sh#t out of Mark Twains mustache!!!

Before we begin this debate, I would like to confirm my understandings on the topic of this debate. As Con, I certainly hope that you, as Pro, can provide me with substantial definitions of some of your key terms in your motion. I certainly would like to understand your definitions of "beat the sh#t out of " and the scope of this debate. My limited understanding of this debate shows me that this is a debate on the overall appearances of the abovementioned people's moustaches, however, it would be mutually beneficial if you, as Pro and the instigator, can define the scope of this motion, allowing for a meaningful and fruitful debate.
The ADVENTURE FIGHT!!!

You're waiting until the last round to bring out the big 'what is real' guns? I'm as real as you are. If I'm not real, neither are you, since last I checked, real or not, the Asteroid Belt is in the universe. This is just a ploy of desperation: my opponent has little to lose, since he is at this moment languishing on an asteroid (and somehow miraculously managing to avoid freezing, suffocation, and extreme depressurization), so he has decided to make a suicide run! I don't really mind, though, because all of that Valerian in the tea made me very sleepy, so I'm going to go take a nap. Toodeloo!
The ADVENTURE FIGHT!!!

A little problem for you is that you would not be able to throw an asteroid large enough to destroy a planet (in fact, there are very few asteroids in the Main Belt that are even large enough to destroy a planet). Let us assume, however, that you somehow succeeded in throwing one of the larger ones, say Juno, at Earth. You run into an unfortunate complication: Israel's nuclear strike against the USA was launched from space, for stealth, so your asteroid got nuked before it ever reached Earth. Furthermore, because you have not sought medical attention about your problem (being shot with a neutron beam would make you become radioactive, and the nuclear radiation would kill you), you are stuck, dying, in an asteroid belt, and cannot reach a hospital, because, thanks to your remarkably Wiley Coyote-esque attempts at destroying Earth, you have surrounded it with a radioactive halo of toxic debris. What is my next move to combat you and your quixotic attempts at annihilating me with fantasy? I shall lounge around in Tibet, sipping a lovely cup of Valerian tea.
The ADVENTURE FIGHT!!!

Okay, so I get eaten by a condom. I then sit in the belly of the condom for three days and three nights, before being regurgitated in Israel, safely away from my opponent and his morality cannon. I then start a riot, which causes panic and the government, inspiring them to launch a nuclear strike against the US, to destroy my opponent and his morality cannon. Then, to tie up the loose ends, I make a short trek to Nīnawā, Iraq, where I preach to the city about morality, inspiring more riots, during which they destroy the morality cannon factories.
The ADVENTURE FIGHT!!!

I accept this refreshingly silly 'debate,' though with mild skepticism. Assuming we're following scientific principles, I would point out that a lightning cannon would make a zapping, vibrating sound, more than a bang. [1]That much said, I don a body-sized rubber condom, which would prevent me from being damaged by the lightning cannon, then I bombard my opponent with a neutron beam.Over to you.Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
teens should watch R-rated movies

Before I start, I'd like to mention Pro's Ad Hominem Attacks. It is pretty obvious in his round 2 arguments, as the only thing that he tries to say is attacking me. Furthermore, more attacks occured in the 'comments' section of this debate. Lastly, he challenged me to a debate claiming that 'vampires are gay'. .. . Needless to say, this should at the very least result in the loss of the conduct point to PRO. =====PRO also basically dropped everything about why we shouldn't encourage children to watch r-rated movies.
Men should be able to wear high-heeled shoes without being chastised about it.

"Dude, in today's world, women can do ANYTHING." - This was meant not in a denotative way but rather in a conotative manner and anyone that reads this debate would know that. If this has spurred some form of debate on words and how they are used, pick that up with my attorney, aka, me in another debate. Furthermore, women are allowed to do anything they want in this society. "" "Eventually men will become obsolete so we should milk the world for what its got now before it is too late!" Is this to say that men should do what they wish before they become unnoticed? Please clarify. If so, what makes you think that men will become secondary to the women? I do not completely understand what you are trying to say here. "Not in the Netherlands they are not." Is this to say that men should only wear high-heels in the Netherlands, as its the main place where men are not generally taller than women? Please clarify." Yes to both scenarios with modifications. I gave an example of when men are not shorter than women. Also midgets or dwarves as some of them prefer to be called should be able to wear high-heels but it would be unacceptable!!! But, also I was making a joke about obsolete! My dear boy, don't you read? It is obvious that many people believe men will become obsolete and unnecessary because women now do not require men to reproduce, only DNA. Men should shake off the reins of anti-patriarchy and create a balance by forcing their way into allowing men to wear high-heels. Thanks again my uncheeky friend. - Cheeks
Men should be able to wear high-heeled shoes without being chastised about it.

"Dude, in today's world, women can do ANYTHING." Women CAN do anything. Its that society doesn't accept it, just as society does not accept men wearing skirts. You argue that women can do anything. Men can do anything, too. There are certain prejudments made about men, and women alike. Women are pressured by the world to look and act a certain way, to dress with fashion, to be a size two. "Women that wear hoodies are considered cool, not looked down upon." When women wear hoodies(or anything in that nature), it is considered not fashionable, while men can get away with wearing them everyday(excluding formal events). "Eventually men will become obsolete so we should milk the world for what its got now before it is too late!" Is this to say that men should do what they wish before they become unnoticed? Please clarify. If so, what makes you think that men will become secondary to the women? I do not completely understand what you are trying to say here. "Not in the Netherlands they are not." Is this to say that men should only wear high-heels in the Netherlands, as its the main place where men are not generally taller than women? Please clarify. Its not normal or recognized by the statuses we have set. Men don't wear lipstick(besides in theatrical performances) or women's underwear, so why should men wear high-heels? Though my opponent has rebuted my questions, he has lacked to provide a response as to why men should wear high heels. It seems that he is fighting for the fact that women get to do many more things than men
Men should be able to wear high-heeled shoes without being chastised about it.

"Women also face many problems and prejudices against them as well. Many think women cannot do many of the things men can do, for example, football. You say women can wear high heels, dresses, etc. I've seen many men who wear t-shirts and hoodies. When women wear these things, they are commonly looked down upon." Dude, in today's world, women can do ANYTHING. There are so many feminist rights advocacies out there that women get away with murder because they can. Women this and women that. Eventually men will become obsolete so we should milk the world for what its got now before it is too late! Women that wear hoodies are considered cool, not looked down upon. So I believe men should be men and wear them high-heels! "Have you noticed that many women are shorter than men? What would it be if men wore high heels? Men would still be taller than women, making things difficult for the woman in the situation who may be shorter than the man she is with. High heels help even out height(in some situations). If men also wore them, they would be pointless." Not in the Netherlands they are not. You can find six feet women all over the place! For tourist males, we need those high-heels because they only place we're big in, is around the middle! "I'm sorry you feel this way. I do not classify myself as a meanie because I debate the 'other side' as you say. This is a prejudment on me." Well, I don't think you are a big meanie. Sorry. I hope we can still be friends. But you never refuted that you were a bigot! :)
Men should be able to wear high-heeled shoes without being chastised about it.

"Women get to do so much stuff without any ramifications. They can wear high-heels, dresses, skirts. They can punch and hit men and it is OK. They can give purple nurples without fear of getting them back." Women also face many problems and prejudices against them as well. Many think women cannot do many of the things men can do, for example, football. You say women can wear high heels, dresses, etc. I've seen many men who wear t-shirts and hoodies. When women wear these things, they are commonly looked down upon. " I say men take some rights for themselves in society. We should be able to wear high-heels and it be OK with society." Have you noticed that many women are shorter than men? What would it be if men wore high heels? Men would still be taller than women, making things difficult for the woman in the situation who may be shorter than the man she is with. High heels help even out height(in some situations). If men also wore them, they would be pointless. " Anyone that debates the other side is a bigot and a big meanie!" I'm sorry you feel this way. I do not classify myself as a meanie because I debate the 'other side' as you say. This is a prejudment on me.
Men should be able to wear high-heeled shoes without being chastised about it.

Women get to do so much stuff without any ramifications. They can wear high-heels, dresses, skirts. They can punch and hit men and it is OK. They can give purple nurples without fear of getting them back. I say men take some rights for themselves in society. We should be able to wear high-heels and it be OK with society. Anyone that debates the other side is a bigot and a big meanie!