BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage should be legalized soon but Straight Marriage should be illegalized immediately

Hello, My name is Imabench, AND THIS IS YOUR WEEKLY IMABENCH TROLL DEBATE :DThis weeks topic, Gay Marriage (man and man or woman and woman) should be illegalized sometime in the near future (like in a month), but straight marriage (man and a woman) should be ILLEGALIZED IMMEDIATELY. Any idiot can argue on whether or not gay marriage should be legal, but it takes a true dumba** like me to argue that straight marriage shouldnt be legal at all ;D. I will introduce arguments in later rounds though. There are only 2 parameters for this debate.
Racism is a hugely dramatized issue-change my mind

1. I never implied that they shouldn't have a right to express their dissatisfaction, I am just saying that having a militant attitude is not the way to do it Good job at misinterpreting what I said lol 2. Ok? Never hear anybody near me express concerns of racism in an anxious manner though and this is coming from a minority 3. That there is no coalition between minority communities AT ALL, On top of that they literally will hate on anyone not associating to their lifestyle 4. Ok? 5. I would at least like some citations, Because I can also point out white men get treated worse than white women by the prison system, Hmmm? And you can't always control people, If you are facing discrimination there is literally civil rights lawyers 6. What about Slavs? What about the Arabs? No? What about the ongoing slavery in Africa? How do you think Slavs got their name? And then 7. False, White women are, Please don't SJW-pander, I can read when that happens. And please don't bring up sexism when THIS debate is about RACE, I personally don't think women, Especially white and even black women are discriminated against at ALL. Gender quotas, Child custody, Assault shelters and so forth, But that's just my opinion I guess. Regardless, That's for another topic The more you dramatize racism, The more racists will keep going on to keep rustling jimmies, Just accept that unless you're being physically threatened, Discrimination will always be within us. Overcome what ever hardship or adversity you're facing, But don't use it to go against the entire world. I am learning this the hard way and if I can do it, I am sure you can do it too. Man I dealt with racial comments before, Sure I had a violent reaction at first, But learned to grew over them. Guess what? At the end of the day, That's what surviving in the real world is all about, You are on your own and especially as a male, You are out there to compete with other males, Especially with males of other marginalized classes such as men with disablity, Men converting to a religious minority such as Judaism or Islam and or other ethnic minority men 8. Why don't the Armenian and Rwandan Genocide get any attention then? Huh? 9. No MLK? No Michael Jordan? No Mike Tyson? No Ben Carson May as well say "majority of role models are male" while you're at it I am not saying ethnic minorities should have to live very boring and distressing lives to the point where they should just stay home and avoid going out and employment in the name of fear and their safety, Right? That would be very depressing to actually see happening At the same time, Try not to react, Racists at least in modern times, Just want to get a reaction out of you when they try to verbalize you In the past it was more physical and systemic, But now it has changed for the times.
Racism is a hugely dramatized issue-change my mind

You read the title, Now time to explain my position being an overhyped and hugely dramatized social issue 1. The reactionary mentality a lot of racial minorities 2. Most people near you who are ethnic minorities have probably never encountered racism in your life, Is really mainstream people and celebreties who usually try to expres that 3. Minority communities do not get along very well(try building unification of some king and see how good that leadership goes) 4. If you dare try assimilating into mainstream American culture, You will be called a race traitor Now I am not saying there aren't some people of color who legit do face racism and discrimination, BUT, Is hugely more dramatized than what really occurs in real life. Because racism is one of the most profitable issues out there(like most social issues) Also we tend to only speak on the racism from the whites which sounds very Eurocentric in possible, Never the racism from other racial groups, Therefore how could anyone take racism so serious if the entire blame has it onto the white man 24/7?
Pre Crisis Superman will win in a fight vs Goku

Good debating with you Broskey, but I will tell you that IT only keeps up with the KI in a person, it doesn't instantly go anywhere. Superman can not only fly past the speed of light but he could also use this power to travel through time. Superman can even fly through the core of a star. Goku has never shown that kind of durability in the series. So I hope this was a good debate. It was my first.
Pre Crisis Superman will win in a fight vs Goku

Excuse me mister butt. Goku has Instant Transmission. He could easily catch Superman. Yes it would take time but, he wouldn't need it. He could go hit for hit with Superman and be able to use Ki-based attacks. Superman can only blow him cold. Superman isn't on par with Goku at SSJ3 level. Goku doesn't need to be able to lift a planet when he's already as strong as he is. Also, he was never shown or put in the situation to do so. For all we know, he could. And his IT can keep up with Superman.
Pre Crisis Superman will win in a fight vs Goku

Well you mess up there a few times. First off it is not Spirit Ball. It is bomb not ball. Only Yamcha uses that move, and that move isn't exactly powerful. Also the Spirit Bomb takes time to charge up and Superman can fly well past the speed of light. No one in DBZ has ever been that fast. No one in DBZ has never lifted a planet. Goku is well out of his game here.
Pre Crisis Superman will win in a fight vs Goku

Well for one thing this is SSJ3 Goku from the Buu Saga. You have to use him in the debate. Second Superman has many feats compared to Goku. In base form Goku had trouble lifting 40 tons. Even if you used a multiplier by the SSJ Forms at SSJ3 Goku would still not be strong enough to lift a planet, like superman could during this time.
Pre Crisis Superman will win in a fight vs Goku

It was good but, like my previous statement, Goku was never shown doing it because he never had the need to. He might be able to. Who knows? It's obvious Saiyans power is immense. Like when Raidtz was able to grab a bullet when the farmer shot at him. Raidtz was weaker then all the humans. (joking) But, the power of a SSJ3, especially Goku, is enough to take down most opponents. You had very good points which were hard for me to debate but, this was good. Good luck bro.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized

The government is not investing in marriages at all. People do not get married because it's good for the government and the economy. When two people get married, they are joined together through marriage vows. I quote, "I, ____, take you, ____, for my lawful (husband/wife), to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part." If we are pledging such a vow to another person, how could marriage be something implemented to help out the government. It also assists the people being married by giving them additional support and gays couples should too be allowed to receive this emotional and financial support that is given to those who are married Yes, there is a legal significance to marriage. However, it is not the foundation of why one "pops the question" to another? Who are we to decide who "legally" should be together and not be. I am not pleading a case for those who want to have relationships with animals and cars. This is a matter between to human beings. Therefore, the example of these drastic cases like the article my opponent chooses to share is irrelevant. Homosexuals aren't dogs, cats, or cars. They are people too. In my defense, I also want to add that I validly included that gays do not receive any benefits through not being married. Through marriage in a heterosexual marriage, both people are entitled to have specific benefits. Therefore, if gays were given the right to get married, a question of whether they deserve the same marital rights isn't even in question because it comes with the package deal of being allowed to get married in the first place. Also, I'd like to point out that my opponent states that my statement isn't pertaining to the debate. However, he also remarks on the issue of economics and how marriage helps with the progression of the economy. This all relates to monetary benefits and money supply which comes out of marriage. Therefore, my remark cohesively relates to the discussion at hand. My opponents comment on stating "The government has no vested interest in a couple who cannot create future citizens for society, and therefore same-sex couples should not be included in the legal union of marriage," is one that lacks any evidence. It is but a mere biased opinion that he feels that the government has no interest in same-sex couples. Though gays have no procreative ability, they too pay taxes and adopt children that heterosexual couples leave on doorsteps of hospitals or don't care to raise. Just because they cannot procreate children on their own does not mean it is not in government's interest to instill the ability for gays to get married. It would actually gain more support in government if they did acknowledge and show support to the gay community since the population of them has increased drastically over time and many more of them are coming out of the closet as the days go by.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized

By two people marrying one another, whether straight or gay, it does not take away from the idea of marriage. Marriage is a celebration of the uniting of two people that are in love. We should not discriminate based on one's sexual orientation. Yes, I see where these drastic cases of people wanting to marry within their family or to animals may come about. However, these cases are very unlikely and the likelihood of them coming up isn't high. Yes, the idea of creating a law that defines marriage may have to be put into place. However, it's wrong to say that two people who are deeply in love and have been together for years should not be together. First off, people in gay relationships according to studies, stay together just as long if not more than straight couples. However, compared to straight couples, they are not treated as if they have any rights as their partner. If one of the persons in a homosexual relationship is in the hospital and needs medical attention, their partner isn't allowed to make any decisions for them despite that they have been together for ten years, for example. If they are in critical care, they can't even go upstairs to see them because they aren't family members. That is absolutely absurd! That is heart wrenching to these people because they are given no respect or recognition of being in a long-term stable relationship. This also applies to them when it comes to receiving their social security and pensions. It is highly unfair because they completely deserve it and it's unfair for them. Second, gay couples take away from a traditional pro-creative couple or family because many gay couples have adopted children and the children have grown up to be great individuals and not necessarily turn out to be homosexual themselves. It should not matter that they cannot procreate a child themselves physically. It is wrong to say that just because traditional families in the past were a certain way and that we should keep it the same. Our world is constantly evolving and I see no reason why gay marriage should not be universally allowed and accepted as a new traditional type of family as well. My opponent makes very valid points to validate their case. However, he attacks the issue in a manner that is more against gay marriage because of their lack of being able to produce their own offspring and marriage is a legal joining of two people, however, who are we to say that it must be between a man and a woman? Procreation does not have to only take place in a marriage. In society, many couples procreate out of wedlock. If gay marriage is legalized, it will in no way slow down the progression of our country economically.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized

I will argue that the purpose of marriage is not happiness. If that were the case, the government would legally and economically benefit people in happy friendships, as well. This is, of course, not the case. Why does the government legally and economically benefit parties engaged in a marital relationship? Well, the answer is unveiled when we delve into what the disparity is between marriage and friendship: procreational compatibility. The government has vested interest in procreative pairs who have signed a contract of marriage to affirm that they are in a procreative-type relationship, and therefore the government hands down benefits to them. Is the government right in doing this? Yes, because through procreation, the society is able to continue to progress (due to the creation of future productive citizens who would contribute to the government's functions.) As pleasant-sounding as it is to say that marriage is just about happiness, that is not the case. In reality, it plays a justifiable legal role in our society that should be upheld.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized

"And [marriage] is done by linking men and women into lifelong, exclusive and duty-bound domestic and sexual unions. No other social union does this." (from opponent's article) [1] Indeed, marriage is a sexual union that is upheld by the government and by the law. "And babies raised by stable, married parents become the tax-payers, inventors, health-care providers, educators, industry leaders, problem-solvers and community leaders that every society needs." [1] Indeed, marriage improves the quality of future citizens by procreation, serving as another reason why marriage is subsidized and casual sexual relationships are not. The opponent's source, all in all, supports my argument more than her's. Onto the opponent's next point: happiness is irrelevant to marriage. Marriage is government-recognized institution that is subsidized, while happy friendships and chocolate (which surely invokes happiness) are not subsidized. Why does the government have a vested interest in marriage rather than in friendships and chocolate? [2] Happiness surely isn't the core of the issue.And onto the next point (about marrying cars): My opponent describes a marriage between a human and a non-human as "highly irrational," while she maintains that her same-sex definition should stand. There is no underlying logic behind this claim. The opponent is not the arbitrator of what is "rational" and what is "irrational," so her acceptance of same-sex marriage but rejection of other types of marriages has no basis. "It is highly odd to me to assume or think that all of these people have been sitting around since 1990 as being gay and just didn't report the matter."Actually, due to societal stigmas, many people chose to repress their homosexuality or hide it from formal surveys. The study the opponent used only indicates a larger number of reports, not an actual increase in population. [3] And in response to the opponent's final argument: People can support each other fiscally whether they are married or not. A girlfriend and a boyfriend (or two boyfriends/two girlfriends) can support each other without being married, and this is often the case. What the opponent fails to recognize is that marriage is a subsidized institution, meaning that it is supported and incentivized by the government, which provides exclusive rights and benefits to married couples. In theory, two friends/roommates who live together can support each other; the government does not subsidize this sort of relationship, however. ---In conclusion, since marriage is a legal institution that is driven by government interest and contractual law, instating the institution of same-sex marriage would not be in the best interest in the United States government and, hence, it would not be the interest of the US public (whom the government works for.) Therefore, the resolution stands: Same-sex marriage should not be legalized in the United States. [1] http://www.boundlessline.org...[2] http://tech.mit.edu...[3] http://igfculturewatch.com...
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized

The government issues this "invisible" contract that my opponent chooses to use as the only basis of his argument. Yes, there is such a contract. However, my point is not to say that there is no contract or that they have no involvement in a marriage. However, I am stating that there is much more to a marriage then it just being a contract in which people are handed benefits. It is not the sole reason as to why the government allows marriages. Through issuing marriages, the government loses money by having to give out such benefits to the widowed partner if one of them should pass away during their marriage. My opponent needs to give more than his one simple, repetitive response as to why gay couples should not be allowed to get married. I never said that the government provides emotional support. I said that in a marriage you will gain emotional and financial support from your partner. That is guaranteed through this union. Also, my opponent fails to realize that marriage is not meant for procreation. Sex is meant for procreation. Marriage is simply meant for kinship. You can have a family of two with just a couple of married people. There is no need for children. Some people adopt. Many gay couples have adopted children and made loving, nurturing families. Therefore, to say that just because they cannot physically procreate they shouldn't't get married is unethical. Also, I opened this debate questioning why people feel gay marriage should not be legalized. Therefore, that can be argued from any stand point I choose. The government is only but a mere portion of this matter. For the reasons that people do not want gay marriage to be legal in this country is not because it is a "contract" as my opponent continues to exhaust upon. They argue that it is not traditional and that it is simply unethical. Yes, the man who wanted to marry his car is a man. However, his car is not. Therefore, it is not a human with human relationship. So, there is no need to further question the matter because it does not fall under what I previously stated. If a man wants to marry his car, that is not a man with man or man with woman relationship, therefore, even if he brought up his case, it would not be heard. I'd like to point out that such situations are not common. Therefore, it holds no equal value to the debate at hand over gay couples because this is a humane problem. There absolutely is concrete evidence that the population of homosexuals has increased over time. On page 4 of the following link, you will find a chart of the United States and it shows the increase from 1990 to now. Part of this increase is because now over 50% of the U.S. is in support of the gay community. http://www.urban.org... CONCLUSION My opponent should give further evidence or supporting research regarding his position.
Parents Should be Blamed for Their Child's Obesity

YEAH IM KNEW TO THIS WHOLE DEBATE THING..... OKAY MY OPPONENT SAID that diseases were out of the debate but the fact that obesity IS a DISEASE so how can we leave disease out of the entire thing?!?!?!?! My opponent killed the main factor of why kids are obese in the first place. Dude in case you didn't know Obesity is a disease!!!!!!!! My opponents argument should be completely thrown out because as I have previously stated OBESITY IS A DISEASE MY OPPONENT FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THAT SO THE CASE IS MINE!!!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU TO MY OPPONENT AND ALL VOTERS!!!!!!!!!
Parents Should be Blamed for Their Child's Obesity

"And I know you said we aren't debating with diseases and stuff" Then why bring it up? I clearly stated in my opening statement that we are not debating about diseases and such, but food consumption. Therefore, for everything mentioned about diseases, I will call it out as invalid. "And how can kids play outside when they have homework!?!?!?!?!" How do people do extra curricular activites? Homework, on average, takes up thirty minutes to two hours for an elementary school, and perhaps one hour to two hours for gifted. Most schools release children from school around 3:00. This leaves them with four hours at the LEAST with the maximum amount of homework. "And how can parents urge their kids to play outside or whatever when their busy buying food thats not good for their kids as you previously stated!!!!" Parents do not spend their lives in grocery stores; they could at least mention excersize OR allow them to do extracurricular activities after school. However, when parents notice that their child is obese, they should at least try to change their lifestyle a bit, because a family's lifestyle really does make a difference for a child's weight. Who directs the family's way of life? The parents. "Where I go to school there is alot to be tackled" Based on your profile, it says that you are in highschool. Highschool is VERY different than elementary school in the amount of work and such people get. Parents are at fault for their child's obesity because they buy the food. They are in charge of what their children do, and they lead the lifestyle of their children. Children need excerize and healthy food. Parents are responsible for both areas. Lack of these things will cause obesity. Parents have control over this, and can stop it. Children's schools are not guilty, because the majority are changing their menu to stop the rapid growth rate of obesity. Fast food places do hold a bit of the blame, but like my opponent has said before, "its not like they're shoving food down the kid's throats". My opponent has failed to prove any clear points as to why parents should NOT be blamed for obesity; he has only provided counter-arguments. Hopefully he will state many points in the final round.
Parents Should be Blamed for Their Child's Obesity

Okay many countries are opting for healthy food but that hasn't happened yet so as of now it's not there. And how can parents urge their kids to play outside or whatever when their busy buying food thats not good for their kids as you previously stated!!!! And I know you said we aren't debating with diseases and stuff but it is an inevitable fact that obesity is in the gene pool. So like it's already in the genes and the parent has no controll over that. So how is it the parents fault?!?!?!?!? And this is off the subject but do you have any idea where i can find decent Values and Value Criterion for school debate cases!?!?!?!?! And how can kids play outside when they have homework!?!?!?!?! Where I go to school there is alot to be tackled; like the debate case I have to have done by 4th period tommorow for instance..........
Parents Should be Blamed for Their Child's Obesity

"not every parent buys their kids Fruit by the Foot, Tootsie Pops, and all that other junk that causes childhood obesity." Then again, not every child is obese. The parents who carelessly buy fattening foods and leave it in the house already influence what their children will eat, because why choose to eat vegetables when junk food is lying there? Children do not understand this, and therefore will eat the food that is bought by their parents. The majority of children do not eat their food outside of home except for at school, and at school, I know that many countries are opting for a change in food, and this will probably happen. Also, once again, parents could urge their children to excersize or play outside instead of sitting around all day.