BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homosexuality is a perversion

I haven't debated this topic in quite a while. It will be interesting to try it with a 3000 character limit ... almost a Twitter debate. Pro makes two basic errors: (1) that "normal" is defined by an average rather than a distribution and (2) that it is logical to consider all departures from average equivalently as perversions. 1. "Normal" is a distribution In 1948, Kinsey documented that there is a continuum from strictly heterosexual to strictly homosexual, which he represented with a seven point scale from 0 to 6. http://www.kinseyinstitute.org... About 4.5% of the population is near the strictly-homosexual end of the scale. That necessarily implies that the average is something short of strict heterosexuality. If zeros are in the average, it has to be less than six. But Pro insists that departure from average is perversion, so therefore strict heterosexuals are, by that definition, perverts. 2. Some behavior is harmful, some not The population of asexuals is about half the size of the homosexual population, around 2% or so. http://en.wikipedia.org... Asexuals have no desire to have sex. Pro argues that all "perversions" ought to be treated the same, otherwise we cannot logically draw a line. That implies that asexuals should be shunned and morally condemned as vigorously as any other "abnormal" group, but there seems to be very little outrage expressed. Now that Pro knows about the abnormal asexual group, will he advocate legislation against them? The intensity of sexual desire is also a continuum, as so there are highly sexually active people in the population, who are "perverts" with respect to the average. Where society draws the line with "perversion" ought to be with respect to the harm it does to others. One can construct an argument against asexuality along the lines of "if it spread and everyone became asexual, the population would die out." But once the distribution of sexual expression is understood, it's clear that is not a problem. It isn't going to catch on, because the nature of humans is what it is. Homosexuality is not going to "catch on" either. Perhaps tolerance will result in somewhat more expression of homosexuality among those who are 1 or 2 on the seven point scale, but it's no threat to society as a whole. It is possible that homosexuality is a benefit to society as a whole by serving as a mechanism for population control, triggered by pre-natal stress. There is some evidence of that. http://www.viewzone.com... Pro pointed to the success of Proposition 8 in California as evidence that homosexuality was viewed as "morally unacceptable." Not at all, California provides civil unions for homosexuals and equal rights under the state constitution. Proposition 8 was solely about use of the word "marriage." People still prefer the traditional usage. The classification of homosexuality as "perversion" fails.
Homosexuality is a perversion

I would first like to say that this will be my first debate on debate.org and I am so grateful to have a forum such as this to express views and learn. I would like to keep this debate on the topic of the sexual relationship between two men and how it is or isn't against natural laws of reproduction and the human psych. In this debate I will propose that homosexual acts are acts of sexual perversion as well as a psychological disorder and have become an accepted perversion amongst the biased progressive liberal agenda who refrain from debating the issue and would rather attack someone as bigoted if they express views that are against homosexuality. First, I will define the word itself as noted from Dictionary.com perï¿½ï¿½verï¿½ï¿½sionï¿½€‚ ï¿½€‚[per-vur-zhuhn, -shuhn] Show IPA ï¿½€"noun 1. the act of perverting. 2. the state of being perverted. 3. a perverted form of something. 4. any of various means of obtaining sexual gratification that are generally regarded as being abnormal. 5. Pathology. a change to what is unnatural or abnormal: a perversion of function or structure. -- As from the definition of Perversion, we see that the act of Homosexuality is indeed a perversion- as the acts of sex are essentially to reproduce between male and female and the acts that the male and female do with one another are preordained by nature. Keep in mind, my argument is not what male and females do together to form perversions but rather what two men do together to form perversions. We see from other perversions such as incest, beastiality, and pedophilia and we as society deem those select forms of perversions to be unacceptable. When we look at the argument of the pro-gay movement we see that they will commonly say that homosexuals are born this way or maybe have a chemical imbalance that set them apart from the norm. I would like to ask the audience, is this not hypocrisy? Could we not as easily say the pedophile or person who finds animals sexually attractive was simply born this way or maybe themselves have a chemical balance which leads them inept to have a biological relationship that is needed for life and handed down by the laws of nature or God? It appears that we, as a nation of laws, pick and choose which perversions we seem fit. When we allow one perversion to be accepted, what is next to follow? In the current society we live in, we imprison pedophiles rather than sending them to seek psychological guidance or evaluation. We imprison pedophiles not because they were born that way, we do this because we as a society have deemed that molesting a child is morally wrong and against the normal human psych. It is evident in the current American social structure, as noted by previous elections and proposition 8 in California(one of the most liberal states in the union) that society as whole regards homosexual as abnormal and morally unacceptable, as we see with other sexual perversions such as pedophilia. I will now leave to the floor to m
i think women should get the same pay as men do

i agree with my opponent that if women do the "same" job as men then they should get the same pay. The problem is that women simply cannot do the exact same job as men the same way they do it. If she could then she wouldnt be a women. Men also can't do the exact same job as women the same way they do it. So it holds that women by her very definition shouldnt be paid the same as men. nor men the same as women.
(Resolved)On Balance:Middleclassandrichwomenwho get abortions past their first trimester are selfish

Let's remember the definition of selfish: (Of a person, action, or motive) "Lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one"s own personal profit or pleasure"So to prove that middle class and rich women who get abortions past their first trimester are selfish, I will have to prove that when they do this they are think not only in them selves but in the others.1- The not loved child.One of the worst thing that could happen to someone is having parents who don't love him. If a mother is conscious that she won't love that baby that will born nearly, It's nonsense to bring him to the world.I know that if those mothers can give their babies in adoption instead of killing them, because they will find someone that adopts them and loves them. However, we are not discussing the moral implications of abortion, just the selfish aspect.As you can see, when middle class and rich women get abortions they are thinking about that baby. They are thinking that they won't be able to love him, and that they will be unhappy. In conclusion, they are thinking in the others, they are not being selfish.2- Illegality problemsAnother plausible scenario is the next one. As abortion is illegal in some places, we have to take into account that. If abortion is illegal, getting an abortion is quite difficult. Then delaying the abortion could be a cause of the complications of the process, not being selfish.
(Resolved)On Balance:Middleclassandrichwomenwho get abortions past their first trimester are selfish

Note: I am going to use the same argument to the one I used in my last debate because it's why I believe in my resolution. This is important because I want to have my viewpoint challenged The reason I think rich or middle class women who get abortions past their first trimester are selfish is self explanatory. Anyone who lacks consideration for others and is concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure is selfish. This is certainly the case for women who get abortions past their first trimester, because by doing this they show a blatant disregard for the well being of the unborn baby they have in their womb. This is different from women who use birth control or get the abortion they may need in the first trimester. The reason that poor women who get abortions past their first trimester are not selfish is because they may not have the resources to get one before the second or (hopefully not) the third trimester. This is not the case for rich or middle class women who almost always have the ability to get the procedure done by the end of the first trimester. Also, rich and middle class women have more access to birth control such as condoms and pills than poor women do. Please understand that I recognize that abortion is necessary under certain circumstances, such as heath concerns. However, these are the VAST minority of abortions (only 12%). Source for heath related abortions: http://www.lifenews.com...
(Resolved)On Balance:Middleclassandrichwomenwho get abortions past their first trimester are selfish

Notes: 1. I take the stuff about Reformist back. I actually got to know the user better, and it turns out he/she isn't that bad of a guy/ girl. 2. I opened up this debate to everyone. 3. Sorry I couldn't put spaces in between certain words in my resolution. I meant to put "On balance" on my other debate too, but I didn't because there wasn't enough space to do so. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Provided that semantics are common on this site, I will provide a list of rules to prevent anyone from twisting this debate to their advantage. 1. Violation of rules 2-7 and rules 8-10 will result in forfeiture. 2. The resolution is this: "(On balance)Middle class and rich women who get abortions past their first trimester are selfish". Pro nor Con may not change or attempt to change this resolution. 3. This is the definition of selfish that me and my opponent will use for this debate. (Of a person, action, or motive) "Lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one"s own personal profit or pleasure". Pro nor Con may not change or attempt to change this definition. 4. NO SEMANTICS ALLOWED. (With the exception of rule 11). 5. No k's. 6. It is implied that women who get abortions during their first trimester or use birth control to prevent pregnancy are not selfish. Ignoring this will result in immediate forfeiture. 7. Grammar errors occurring in round 1 will not count (provided I can read your spelling of ("I accept"). 8. Contentions are optional. (This is because organizing debates takes time, and I'm busy.) 9. Colloquial language is allowed (to a point. Don't push it.) 10. This is a serious debate. No trolling is allowed, although some jokes are permitted. 11. IT IS ENTIRELY UP TO ME TO INTERPRET THESE RULES. 12. HAVE FUN XPDDDDDPPPPP:):):333333333
(Resolved)On Balance:Middleclassandrichwomenwho get abortions past their first trimester are selfish

1)"Not loved? Everyone has a place in this world."I've never argued that this reasoning was logical or morally correct. That is out of topic. If you want to debate the morality of Middle class and rich women who get abortions past their first trimester put up another debate. In this debate we are arguing about the selfishness related to this decision. As I showed, mothers do think in the baby when they get an abortion. They make a rather silly reasoning but they think in others,thus they are not being selfish.So, although It is an "extremely callous line of reasoning", it is not a selfish one. They are thinking about the baby.2)" In most first world countries, abortion is perfectly legal. See for yourself"If you look at the map provided by Pro, you will see that this claim is false. Only in the green countries mothers can have abortion, in the others abortion only happens if it is the only way to save a mother's life. Then, nearly a bit less than half of the globe rather than in most countries. " Middle class and rich women, by definition, have more than enough money to go to other countries to get the procedure done quickly if need be."So Pro here assumes that in countries where abortion is legal there exists an "abortion tourism". This is far from truth. In countries where abortion is legal the government does not allow tourists to get abortions. You must be a citizen, living in the countries and you also have to pass certain tests. So this is invalid argumentation.3)Reading the study which Pro quoted I found this interesting piece of information. Reasons why women get abortions. Let's examine them. Three-fourths of women cite concern for other individuals. three-fourths say they cannot afford a child half say they are having problems with their husband or partner As you can see all the reasons are not selfish. They are always thinking about the others. Then, they are not being selfish at all. 4)"Et viola"Is "et voilà", please don't pretend to know French when you don't.5)Lastly, I want to emphasise the generalising nature of the resolution. Pro is stating that all middle class and rich women who get abortions past their first trimester are selfish. However, He/She is just showing that the possibility of selfishness in this decision exists. I can deny that, for sure some women get abortions because they are selfish, but this does not mean that all of them are selfish. This is like saying, all black people are criminals. For sure some of them are criminals, but not all of them. Saying all black people are criminals is absurd. Then, the same happens with the resolution of this debate.Et voilà!The resolution is negated.
(Resolved)On Balance:Middleclassandrichwomenwho get abortions past their first trimester are selfish

1- Not loved? Everyone has a place in this world. Even if the mother of a child doesn't love them, this doesn't mean that the child can't live a rich and fulfilling life. Who knows, maybe the mother could have affection for the child when it he/she grows and develops. However, we will never know this if the child is killed before birth. Although this argument may seem like it contradicts my resolution, it actually supports it because the mother is really thinking about herself in this scenario. The reasoning the mother has is that if SHE doesn't care about the baby, it doesn't deserve to exist. In my opinion, not only is this line of reasoning INCREDIBLY selfish, but it is also extremely callous. 2- Most American women get abortions in the first trimester(1). Why is it that 90% of women are perfectly capable of getting an abortion before the end of the first trimester if the process is so difficult? Granted, getting an abortion may be difficult for poor women who may or may not have the resources to do so, but they are not included in my resolution. Regardless: 1. In most first world countries, abortion is perfectly legal. See for yourself(2)! 2. Middle class and rich women, by definition, have more than enough money to go to other countries to get the procedure done quickly if need be. Et viola. Sources: http://www.webmd.com... http://abortion.procon.org...
U.S. schools should teach comprehensive, sex-positive sex education instead of abstinence

I would love to have a friendly debate with someone on this issue. This is an issue, because currently, [1]-37 states require that sex education include abstinence, with 26 of those requiring that abstinence be stressed as the ideal.-Only 13 states require that sex education be medically accurate.-Eight states require that it be culturally appropriate and unbiased.-Only two states have laws against sex education promoting religion.-24 states' curriculums do not include contraception or condom use.-Only eight states have LGBT-inclusive curriculums. Out of the remaining states, three teach LGBT-negative information.-21 states skip information about avoiding sexual coercion, 22 avoid discussions about healthy-decision making, and 30 avoid discussing family communication.What do I believe should be ideally taught?An inclusive, positive curriculum that gives young people accurate information about how their bodies work; how to have sex safely, pleasurably, and consensually; or how to prevent pregnancy. Here's why this is needed:1) Many young people engage in sexual risk behaviors that can result in unintended health outcomes. For example, among U.S. high school students surveyed in 2011, 47.4% had ever had sexual intercourse. 39.8% did not use a condom the last time they had sex.What does this result in? An estimated 8,300 young people aged 13–24 years in the 40 states reporting to CDC had HIV infection in 2009, and early half of the 19 million new STDs each year are among young people aged 15–24 years. [2]With proper sex education, these infections could be safely prevented, or at least the rate will be significantly reduced, resulting in better sexual health.2) 76.7% of teens did not use birth control pills or Depo-Provera to prevent pregnancy the last time they had sex. In addition, more than half a million unplanned pregnancies occur to teens each year. This has unfortunate effects on the children and parents. Children born to adolescents face particular challenges—they are more likely to have poorer educational, behavioral, and health outcomes throughout their lives, compared with children born to older parents. Both mothers and fathers who have an unplanned birth report less happiness and more conflict in their relationship than those in similar men and women with a planned birth. [3]Surprisingly (or not), teenage pregnancy rates are highest in states with abstinence-only education! The reason is simple: they have less access to accurate information about making sexual choices. Teenagers are already having sex in sizable numbers (see point 1), and according to a 2007 federal report, abstinence-only programs had “no impacts on rates of sexual abstinence.”What we can conclude is that we can't control whether teenagers have sex, but we can control whether they are safe about it and know how to prevent STD's and unwanted pregnancies.~~~Can anyone refute this? I'd love to hear your views on this delicate subject.[1] http://www.guttmacher.org...;[2] http://www.cdc.gov...[3] http://www.thenationalcampaign.org...[4] http://thinkprogress.org...
Digimon is better than Pokemon

Since you accepted this debate challenge, I'm not going to let you get away with that copout. While what is "better" is subjective for the most part, in this case we have something that is clearly superior in terms of design, artistic style, plot and characters. I believe that that alone qualifies it as being "better" in the sense of being a superior creation. I believe that my opponent has already conceded defeat, judging from the way in which he attempts to use boredom to explain his lack of debate material.
Digimon is better than Pokemon

In regards to the opponent's first point, I would argue that Pokemon does have plot variation. There has been no evidence from his side to suggest otherwise, since no mention of Pokemon was made during the discussion of this point. Therefore, the opponent has not indicated this to be a point that makes Digimon BETTER. Pokemon characters are far more popular and loveable by members of all age groups. A young child may admire Pikachu for his sensitivity and cuteness, while an adult may admire him for his courage in battle and courage--as well as his cuteness. This kind of versatility and deep character trait development is VERY lacking in Digimon. Very little emphasis is put on Digimonsters and their livelihoods. Also, very few Digimonsters are cute, as opposed to Pokemon. Pokemon has a fair share of antagonists, as well. The best, of course, are Jessie and James (and Meowth, that's right.) Through integration of pure evil and humor, they are the most hated yet loveable duo in anime. Pokemon uses humor to engage audiences in a much more effective way than Digimon. Digimon is not as funny... And that's why it is not as loved by fans. --- Pokemon came out in 1995. Digimon came out in 1997. Digimon is just a stupid copy of Pokemon. It's sort of like Burger King and McDonalds; the general consensus is that the model rather than the mimicker, McDonalds, is the better of the two.
Trump is good for America

First off, I would like to say I live in California which, is the most Democratic state. As all of you know that Trump is Republican. I just want to say that my whole family voted for Hillary first in the Elections but, now we have realized that Trump is actually better than Barack Obama and other Presidents by far. I just want to open your guys' eyes so, you can understand that in my opinion, Trump is good so far. Good Luck to my opponent!
Trump is good for America

"We shouldn't allow people to come into America because then we will not have Americans". I don't know how to respond to that. I think we probably would. We also shouldn't base our border policies on other countries. Some of them are rather inhumane. I would love to give a more thorough response, but you haven't really talked about anything in any detail. It's not a productive debate to go back and forth with "nuh uh" and "yuh huh". I gave a number of topics to go into detail about, and an article that just lists 81 accomplishments doesn't do much for actual debate.
Trump is good for America

I would like to start off by saying that Trump is helping America get jobs because other countries get the jobs in America. If you want other people from other countries to come to America illegally then America will not have Americans and the people who came here legally. Why can't other people from other countries stay in their countries? His border wall is not a waste of money because he is saving the economy. If he builds the border wall then the Mexicans won't be able to come over illegally. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com...
Trump is good for America

So that's a lot of text with very few actual points, and no sources. I'm going to try and break it down. Firstly there were some blatant falsehoods. 75% of the country does not identify as Republican. There is no evidence to support that. Gallup keeps a pretty close tab on that, and here is what they've reported recently. https://news.gallup.com... You also mentioned the deficit. There were also some falsehoods here. Under Obama the deficit did shoot up in the first two years. There was some shared blame here, but I can't argue that it didn't. On the other hand, it went down for the next six, and didn't begin to rise against until after Trump was elected. To say Trump is handling the deficit better than Obama is simply not true. Maybe if he is in office for another six years his numbers will paint a different story, but for now they simply don't. https://www.usgovernmentspending.com... Also remember that he created some of that deficit trying to recover from the 2008 economic collapse. As for jobs, I'll reiterate on what I said in my first post. He's breathing life into the wrong industries. Take a look at the solar industry for example. https://www.reuters.com.... As the world moves towards cleaner energy, those are long term sustainable jobs he's taken away. On the other hand pushing for jobs in coal for instance, is short sighted. http://amp.timeinc.net... You said he was decreasing gun crime. Again this is false. Flat out by the numbers these last two years were the first two to show an INCREASE after 15 straight years of decline or little change. https://www.cbsnews.com... I don't really feel I need to elaborate on immigration, because nothing you've said really counters my initial response. It may be down, but the measures he is taking are widely disputed.