BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Same sex marriages

Civil Unions. Same sex marriage. Whatever you want to call it. It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3... It's still love <3...
Parents should be allowed to discipline their child with force! (spanking, etc.)

First off, I agree, You should go with an alternative to physical harm if possible, but sometimes it is not. You are right no one wants to hurt there child, why would they? the point of physical punishment is not to hurt the child technically. It is to get their attention, yes pain comes with it, not an excruciating amount but again enough to grab their attention and they will remember what they can look forward to if they do that action again. I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one, spanking does not teach children to resolve things with violence. When I was a child was spanking, when my father was a child he was spanked (and hit with a belt) and nether one of us are violent. I know plenty of people who have been spanked and had physical disciplined as a child and are far from being violent. No a child raised right, and taught right will understand that a smack upside the head means their doing something very wrong and that, that is not acceptable behavior. This does not mean that, the child will go around thinking that it is ok to be violent and hurt others. If that is what they think then the parents did something wrong. This paragraph from (http://journals.cambridge.org...) has a point. " and children who had been the objects of violent discipline became the most aggressive of all groups" Of course they are going to be more violent is they had violent discipline they're going to turn out more violent. That is not what my point is at all. I'm not saying you should go out and start beating your kid. I'm saying that yelling at them and telling them to sit in a corner won't always work. It's not wrong to sit there and grab the child's ear if they are dong something wrong. When I say that I'm not saying that when they spill a glass of milk to pull them by the ear. Here's an example, Say my child were to draw on the wall, first time they have ever done it. Alright, I will teach them, explain to them that drawing on the wall is not ok and why. Then I will have them help me clean it up. They do it again, now there is going to be a punishment because you know you are not supposed to draw on the wall. So you will get a time out and clean up the wall. They do it a third time, now your going to get spanked because this is the third time you have done something your not supposed to. This Canadian study that you show me, I have to laugh at. Spanking my child is not going to cause a lower IQ! and how is criminal assaults related to physical discipline? So every person out there who has caused a criminal assault has been spanked. I'm sorry but I find that hard to believe such non sense! If you beat your child that can cause mental problems, and yes that can lead to violence, but spanking your child can not. Once again, if I spank my child it WILL NOT cause mental disorders! I'm not beating the kid to a pulp! he's being smacked on the butt a couple of times. No harm can possibly come from that.
Parents should be allowed to discipline their child with force! (spanking, etc.)

First, I want to state the obvious. If an alternative to physical harm exists, it's best to go with that. No one would want to harm their child, nor would a parent want to have their child fear them in a harmful way. Thankfully there is alternatives [1http://www.positive-parents.org...] [2 http://www.positiveparentingconnection.net...]. Spanking teaches children to resolve things with violence. A child sees their parent resloving problems with them via a smack, it's clear the child will see this as a viable solution to problems. This has been shown in numerous studies. A total of 273 boys and girls from diverse backgrounds served as subjects. The findings were consistent with a socialization model in which higher levels of severity in parental punishment practices are associated with higher levels of children's subsequent aggression toward peers. Findings indicated that children who had been spanked evidenced levels of aggression that were higher than those who had not been spanked, and children who had been the objects of violent discipline became the most aggressive of all groups - Cambridge Development and Psychopathology Journal [3 http://journals.cambridge.org... ] A Canadian study done at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario of Ottawa, gives evidence that physical discipline harms the developmental growth in children, resulting a lower IQ. [4 http://health.yahoo.net...]. Some evidence also shows physical discipline is connected to criminal assaults. [5 http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...] The American Academy of Pediatrics has concluded that “The use of physical punishment to discipline children has been linked to a range of mental health problems and is strongly opposed...” and “study authors conclude reducing physical punishment may help decrease the prevalence of mental disorders in the general population.” - [6 http://www.aap.org...] Parents shouldn’t be able to use physical discipline on their children. I certainly agree with the Canadian study that surveyed two decades of spanking research, that "...no study has found physical punishment to have a long-term positive effect, and most studies have found negative effects." [7 http://www.theatlantic.com...] Back to Pro.
Parents should be allowed to discipline their child with force! (spanking, etc.)

I think it's all nonsense that you can not discipline your child the way you want to. Why should a parent not be allowed to smack their child when they are doing something wrong? Now i'm not saying to beat your kid to a pulp, or leave bruises, or welts, or make it so DCF has to be called. But if my kid is doing something wrong, and they don't listen to yelling, why should it be wrong for me to smack them up side the head, or grab them by the ear? After a while of you screaming at your kid, they can block you out, they know how to ignore you, so what do you do then? they won;t listen to you, your at your whits end,you don't know what to do. Don't you think that it grab their ear and pull that, that will grab their attention? I think so.
Is genetic modification playing god and therefor a unethical and a sin.

I agree to keep to the format suggested. This will be a bit of a repetition from my original statement but I have no points to argue against. My main argument is that GM can not be unethical or a sin because no basic action humanity can do, if performed under the right conditions and for the right reasons, be deemed a sin. GM is just part of humanities grate religious journey. To change nature is what man has been doing since its birth. Gm is just that proces at a new level. Yes monters can be made but so can perfection on another scale. To say that it is playing god is stupid. In saying so you are defining parameters around gods power. It is no more playing god than carving a statue or generating electricity . GM is a amazing new force which could ether sink or elevate our society by a unimaginable amount, but so could the invention of electricity or steel. The best example of this is the power to split the atom. At the time it was also playing god. And it also had the potential to lift or sink society. It started with a little bit of dip ( Bombs) and for a while it seamed that it wold destroy society but then it raised our society to a new level providing us with a anything source of electrical power which we could not have developed without. Yes we could create monsters that rip people in half in pain from their miss shaped organs (or a zombie apocalypse) but humanity subconsciously strives for goodness and I believe once we get there it will be the greatest monument to god humanity has ever built. The power of god is to do what man can't. And with the advancements in GM I believe that religiously, morally, physically and philosophically we can genetically modify nature. I once again apologise if I followed the incorrect format or went off topic.
Is genetic modification playing god and therefor a unethical and a sin.

I'm not debating whether or not torturing animals and doing inhumane experiments for the sake of science is in anyway correct. I'm debating whether the basic act of changing the natural computer code that generates all forms of life is morally or religiously incorrect. Now, many people tend towards the idea that that genetic modification is blasphemy, a disaster waiting to happen because humanity is striving emulate god's grate power something that can only end in disaster, eg a zombie apocalypse. The general paradigm is that genetic modification will only be used for evil purposes eg. when GM companies produce sterile crops that cause other crops to become sterile in order for farmers to be forced into buying their seeds year and year again. The fact is that currently people are unsure of the dangers surrounding eating GM foods and prefer to stay as far away as possible. I admit that I too am a bit sceptical about the current GM food seeing that it rather untested and obscure. But once again im am not arguing whether GM can cause atrocities. My argument is the following: Saying that GM is blasphemy is in it's self blasphemy. Humanity tends to view things we can not do as gods power. 400 years ago trying to replicate lightning would have been considered blasphemy and when somebody died of electrocution everybody would point to divine punishment. Confining gods powers to GM is it's self blasphemy. God's power is to do the impossible. To create the laws of physics not to to follow them. When we can do that we can start debating. The fact is that changing iron into a spoon is as much sacrilege as editing life. We can not draw the line beween god and humanity. Yes like all basic human actions it can be used for unethical purposes but like all basic human actions it can be used for brilliance. Human actions are only ethically defined by the context in which they are performed. Please forgive me if I have not followed correct debating format. I hope my argument is still valid.
Cats are better than dogs

Both rounds are for all out debate. No abuse of semantics, dictionary's, or any form of abuse towards words. Any word that is used in this debate will contain only one meaning. Also, when I mean dog, I am talking about a fully grown dog, not just a puppy or a one year old dog. I thank my opponent in advance for accepting this debate and I await his approval and first argument for this debate. As the topic states, "Cats are better than dogs" and as my position states, I am pro meaning I am for this topic's literal meaning. Burden of proof First Cats are better in size. They will take up less space as they will be much smaller than a dog (not a puppy or one year old dog as a I specified above). They are very space conservative since they will stay in their small bed and they have a litter box. Second Cats are easier to handle (in most cases). They will not slobber everywhere like most dogs do. They will shed hair on sofas, but it will be easy to clean up unlike dogs who shed enough hair to make a broom. They won't scratch furniture or other valuable items as long as they are near a scratching post. Third Dogs will chew almost anything from paper to furniture instead of there chew toy. In fact, everything is their chew toy. With cats, you toss them a ball of yarn and they will play with the yarn. Cats wont mess up your furniture or any valuables (unless your provoke them) if you give them some yarn, a shiny object like an empty tin can or a ball. Conclusion I thank my opponent in advance again for accepting this debate and I hope he will de his best. I have only posted three arguments for now to slowly guide everyone to understand our arguments.
Advertising Cigarettes should be banned

I could not help myself from smiling upon reading your rebuttal. My dear friend (i assume i can labell you that), it`s very simple, and obviously you`re obfuscated by my points or you don`t see it at all. If you see your little brother or sister or an older sibling perhaps, outside your home and puffing that stick of cigarette, would`nt you cry out for your voice to be heard as well? I am not merely focusing on the Mother`s cries, but for the rest of the people who found their loved ones other significant others in the hospital confined and diagnosed with lung cancer. I commend your kin and critical thinking though, but still, i affirm my points are very eveident. let me elaborate and fruther expound it then. First, I don`t blame it solo on the tobacco companies why people indulge in smoking nor do I put the blame on smokers, but I blame it on the ads itself. What do I mean by this? Simple again, advertising place a paramount role on influence, I pressume you`d agree with me on this. Second, lung cancer isn`t the only reason why I propose that the government should ban it`s advertising; but morseso with the negative effect it furnishes on the people seeing an individual doing it. It`s plain and simple, italia... I propose the banning of Cigarette advertising because it neglects the rights of those who are naives, and hence, influenced by what they see in television, such as an adult smoking. This constitutes to so many things on the amendments you`ve been stating. I am not taking away these people`s rights to smoke, ladies and gentlemen. But rather, imposing the awareness that is evident. With this, I propose firmly.
Advertising Cigarettes should be banned

Banning advertisements about Cigarettes will and shall help. Ladies and Gentlemen, fists things firsts... I never stated in my argument that banning such advertisements will decrease the smoking rate of the people. Nor did I think or will say that this goes out to all detrimental things in this world, such as Alcohol. The issue I raised in this debate is very specific, and that is to ban the advertising of Cigarettes. How does this affect the society? Very simple ladies and gentlemen, it will and shall diminish the increase of young people to go out in the market, but a pack of cigarettes and smoke it even though they know they do not know how to. Just like the issue in the Philippines, where I come from, a certain organization has declared their rights for alcohol advertisements and the use of contraceptives, particularly condom that makes the youth more indulgent to sex. for this matter, I would like to clarify in advance that I am not saying sex is bad. But rather, I am saying that it will minimize the curiousity of the young people to have sex or the society defines it as "premarital sex". And it has already been approved. The relevance of this statement to the issue I dare raised is for the people. particularly the parents to be aware of the status-quo. Is this will be approved by the government, it will only prove that democracy and the crying out of the parents who has scolded their children who has engaged in smoking cigarettes and voiced out their concerns has room for the government`s ears.
Advertising Cigarettes should be banned

When you buy a pack of cigarettes, you`ll find below it a warning pasted,"Government Warning: Cigarette Smoking is addictive." or it could also be said as dangerous you your health in the television. What`s so vague about it is that the government still allows the manufacturing of which when in fact it`s really detrimental to the body. If the government does not want the people to smoke, to prevent lung cancer or what have they, then they should start diminishing advertising Cigarettes in television and radios and print ads. After all, it`s still the same old story at the end of the day. A guy or a girl lights a stick of cigarette, years later, he or she`s diagnosed with lung cancer. With this, i propose.
Marriage is strictly religious and is between a man and a woman

My opponent has not provided absolutely no logical argument and ignored my requests for abbreviation on his assertions. He has made baseless assertions and not backed them up with any logic or factual information. He has provided no evidence for why the taxpayer should subsidize children. He hasn't even attempted to address this request. The Burden of proof rests upon those who seek to ban words from our society, prohibit parties (that violate no ones rights) and grant unwarranted tax subsidies. My opponent has clearly failed to even attempt to meet that burden of proof. Please do not vote on this debate based on your own opinion of the issue but on whether Pro met the burden of proof of his R1 assertion.
Marriage is strictly religious and is between a man and a woman

I have provided sufficient evidence and a proper argument since the beginning. If you will recall, I stated evidence about government taxing, and religious freedoms, and definitions of words. Since then, I have not been given any reason to provide any more arguments because you have failed to rebute. So let me review and conclude. The word, term, and meaning of the word 'marriage' originated from Christianity, and is meant to be between a man and a woman. The government has no authority over the church to go and change this. If we want to talk about marriage without talking about to religion (which is next to impossible) then I'll tell you that the government provides tax breaks for married couples who are trying or who have conceived. Though some straight people are infertile, all gay people are, so they shouldn't be allowed to get tax breaks, or get married at all. That is the end of my debate. Thank you
Marriage is strictly religious and is between a man and a woman

I am unsure of what you're trying to get at, but I'd like to see your side of this debate. So far, all you've argued is that nomads used to sell woman for marriage, then you rebut by pointing out my flaws. Does this mean you have no actual argument? You're just going to stick through, pointing out small things until it closes and you can win because I dig myself deeper and deeper? Lets hear what you have to say this time
Marriage is strictly religious and is between a man and a woman

"There really isn't any other good ways to argue this subject" "Of course I'm using those fallacies; they're the only logical ones."" If there were any other better ways to support, I'd use them"I'll keep these as trophies."The purpose of the tax breaks is to help married couples raise a family."My opponent has offered no logical reasoning for why children benefit the taxpayer. it's not about rights (no, it is not a right)I would like my opponent to explain why he thinks the ability to use words to refer to yourself or others is not a right.I would also like my opponent to explain why the ability to throw a party for yourself is not a right."(it's not about) tax breaks"As far as the government is concerned, it's only about tax breaks. Saying "X doesn't matter" is not logical justification for X not mattering.
Marriage is strictly religious and is between a man and a woman

Opposite sex, married couples get tax breaks to help raise a family. Gays shouldn't have this because they can't raise families, yet they will get it because gay marriage is legal. The purpose of the tax breaks is to help married couples raise a family. Some might argue that infertile couples shouldn't be allowed to marry in this case, but most couples don't necessarily know they're infertile. Same sex couples can't even try, they obviously can't produce a child. Of course I'm using those fallacies; they're the only logical ones. 'Marriage' is a tradition, it is holy, and it only has one meaning, so why wouldn't I use those? There really isn't any other good ways to argue this subject, because it's not about rights (no, it is not a right), or tax breaks, but if you would like me to argue those, I can. Instead, it is about tradition, church, and definitions. If there were any other better ways to support, I'd use them, but all you need to do is look at those three things and know, marriage is between a man and a woman.
Marriage is strictly religious and is between a man and a woman

Definitions: Lexical Fallacy (Semantics) = The belief that the historical development of a term determines its current meaning Appeal to Heaven = Asserting the conclusion must be accepted because it is the "will of God" or "the will of the gods". In the mind of those committing the fallacy, and those allowing to pass as a valid reason, the will of God is not only knowable, but the person making the argument knows it, and no other reason is necessary. Appeal to tradition = (also known as argumentum ad antiquitatem, appeal to antiquity, or appeal to common practice) is a common fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way." Equivocation = ("to call by the same name") is classified as an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings). Argument My opponent has offered no compelling evidence for why the government should be able to interfere with private social ceremonies of relationship commitment. He has also offered no reasons for why tax benefits should be randomly given to married heterosexual individuals over single individuals or homosexual married individuals He has also offered no reasons for why the government should ban people from using certain words to describe themselves or to describe other people. I await his evidence and argument. As my opponent is attempting to use the government to take away rights, ban words, and grant tax bonuses to select groups of the population, the burden of proof rests solely upon him. Currently he has only used several logical fallacies to justify his ridiculous viewpoint (and it is worthy of ridicule). 1. "Marriage should stay between a man and a woman, because that's how it was intended" Fallacy = Appeal to Tradition 2. "Marriage comes from the church" Fallacy = Appeal to Heaven 3. "I've yet to look further into that early period marriage you mentioned, but I'm sure it wasn't actually marriage either. It sounds like it'd be like a civil union or something" Fallacy = Equivocation 4. "we shouldn't be allowed to change the definition" Fallacy = Lexical
Marriage is strictly religious and is between a man and a woman

I figured someone was going to bring up something about it's original use. But yes, drills aren't music. Just like 2 men getting 'married' isn't marriage. I've yet to look further into that early period marriage you mentioned, but I'm sure it wasn't actually marriage either. It sounds like it'd be like a civil union or something, which, yes, is different. Marriage did actually derive from the church, so this must be something else. I can't rebut against that faggot point, because I agree with it. It makes sense, and especially for words that are insulting, sacred, etc., we shouldn't be allowed to change the definition.