BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United Socialist Dictatorship of America

First off id like to express my sorrow to my opponent for she clearly does not understand the definition of any form of Socialism other than Marxian Socialism. Id like to thank her though,for making quite the effort in trying to debate this controversial yet paramount issue at hand. I would also like to clarify that Barack Obama is not the ONLY president to act in a way that could be considered socialist. Con states Barack Obama is not a socialist, and that he is "(economically) liberal". Lets take a moment to see if this statement has any validity. Barack Obama Has repeatedly claimed that citizens have a "right" for health care. The USA socialist party also states that same "right". [1] The Socialist Party USA calls for unions to be recognized without a secret ballot, as does Obama. [1] Obama Trained ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) workers to allow unqualified people in large numbers to have secure mortgages which led to the collapse in housing and home financing industries.[1] Obama worked in Chicago for years along with Bill Ayers, to funnel more than $50 million to anti-capitalist education projects. Bill Ayers also traveled to Venezeula to speak at Huge Chavez's Education Forum where he praised the "Bolivarian Revoultion and the profound reforms in education made by Hugo Chavez." "The Socialist Party USA believes that "capitalism is fundamentally incompatible" with socialism." One could question, how does a Non-socialist end up agreeing and worki with someone who goes to socialist rallies in Venezeula?[1] Identical to The Socialist Party USA, Obama believes in open borders and has marched with illegal aliens in Chicago in support of "comprehensive" immigration reform. Con stated: "Barack Obama is not a socialist; he's simply very (economically) liberal." Obama has promised to increase taxes for the rich and "redistribute" wealth to the poor. (Read that twice if necessary). Heres Barack's exact words on this issue: "It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too. My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." There is a reason why 55% of Americans believe Barack is infact, socialist. We could take a quick look at where Obama comes from. Baracks dad, a communist. His mother a communist sympathizer, his mentor? His name was Frank Marshall Davis, a communist Poet. [2] "College & Church *Admittedly sought out ‘Marxist' professors *Admittedly attended ‘socialist conferences' *Began attending a Marxist church – led by pastor Jeremiah Wright (attended for 20 years)"[2] [1]http://www.wnd.com... [2]http://deanesmay.com...
The "indispensable means" argument is not a compelling objection to same-sex marriage

Before I begin I'd just like to say that I had to read Con's counter a few times before I could actually understand what he was saying and even then it wasn't always totally clear. "Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which......"(1) From what I can surmise from what Con wrote (forgive me if I get it wrong), he's arguing that even though homosexual couples can fulfill the same social role as heterosexual couples, they can only do it through "heterosexual" means (i.e., sperm and egg and all that jazz). It appears Con is arguing that homosexuals aren't using "natural" methods of reproduction since that would entail heterosexual union. While this is true, I fail to see the relevancy. Heterosexual couples use artificial methods to have children all the time. But that doesn't change the fact that they're fulfilling a certain social role, a social role which the argument itself puts so much importance on. The way that a couple conceives a child isn't relevant and Con has given no reason for us to think otherwise.(2) Con's counter here appears to be that heterosexuals are presumed capable of reproduction when marrying. While blatantly untrue (there are almost certainly contingencies in which either a heterosexual couple decided beforehand not to have kids or they knew that one or both of them were infertile), it's completely irrelevant to this debate. Furthermore, Con's attack on not allowing one to marry because of infertility, etc. is exactly the point of my argument. Marriage in practice doesn't revolve around procreation. Procreation is certainly one aspect of it but if it was the centerpiece of the reasoning for recognizing marriage, we *would* have ridiculous fertility tests and the like before marriage."What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction."Con's first mistake is his assertion that "the surrogate are based on heterosexual sex's objects". This is wrong in that heterosexuality doesn't simply refer to the genitalia/sexual components of males and females. Rather it's a certain type of sexual orientation/practice. Con's failure lies in equivocating heterosexuality union (as in, a man and a woman having sex) itself with the means by which procreation is brought. On the other hand, if Con means heterosexual union to signify the union of the sperm and egg and all the other steps that come along during pregnancy, he's changed the definition to allow for the inclusion of homosexuals having children since they go through the same process to have children, just through different means."To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust."Con's counter here is essentially "you're wrong, therefore you're wrong". He hasn't responded to my point arguing that civil recognition by the State isn't the sole means by which society legitimates procreation or my alternative (inter-subjective recognition on a social scale, which we already have). Since he dropped this argument completely, it counts as a concession as per rule 1 laid out in R1.
The "indispensable means" argument is not a compelling objection to same-sex marriage

The "indispensable means" argument was formulated by Jim Speigel (it has also been used more popularly by the user Contradiction on this site) and goes as follows: 1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society). 2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value. 3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction. 4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions. 5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust. 6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust.[1]In this debate, I plan to argue that one or more (or all) of the premises of the argument are unsound and that the argument, therefore, is not compelling. Con on the other hand will be charged with defending the argument against my objections. ===Rules===1. Drops will count as concessions.2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.3. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.4. R1 is for acceptance/clarification. Argumentation begins in R2.5. BoP is shared between Pro and Con.===Sources=== [1] http://wisdomandfollyblog.com...
Taxes on the top 1 percent of income earners should be increased

You should lose conduct at this point for being so rude. You're also wrong about Wikipedia. Where you go that interpretive vs. descriptive statistics crap I will never know. The comment section of the Krugman article is irrelevant. Regressive taxes in almost all states, as a matter of fact. But you are clearly evading. Here are examples of what you said earlier:All states? Prove this. You have not proved this. You have not proven that when you factor in all taxes the system is regressive. The rich still pay more in income taxes than the poor and middle class pay in all of their taxes combined. And now we agree it's regressive, right? Using your own source. No, you're full of it. Prove it. And you've been shown to be wrong, since your source clearly states these things. You are the one who isn't reading sources correctly. Ad hominem without evidence. And now you've been proven wrong in your claims that the current system is progressive. So it is your job now to go back and legitimately answer my arguments that depended on the fact of regressive taxation, since before you dismissed them in this way. You've responded legitimately to almost none of my initial arguments, since your claims of progressive taxation have been shown to be false. Prove to me that overall the system is regressive -- that regressive taxes in 10 states (not even a majority! !) -- make the system overall progressive. The CBO link, also, did not deal with just income taxes. The percentage from income taxes was lower. The 33.6% came from ALL taxes. Read the source more carefully, please. What do deficits have to do with this? The percentage you cited was for "LARGE federal deficits" first of all. Keynes advocated for running a consistently small deficit. Now you're misquoting Keynes. Keynes never differentiated between small and large. He said run a deficit until you reach full employment. Those tables are "based on income". That is, these tables are primarily income taxation. The income tax is progressive, true. But when you factor in all of the other taxes and the way by which the wealthy get most of their money, which is by capital investments, which only get taxed 15% long term, they end up being taxed very little. No, capital gains taxes rose to 20% after January 2013 and there is a 3.75% surcharge under ObamaCare, so you're wrong. Also, reread the chart. The first chart has to do with OVERALL FEDERAL TAXATION. The chwrt below is income taxes. Conclusion:Only 10 states have regressive tax systems. And the rich STILL pay more than the poor overall so the system is, in summary, progressive. Tax cuts kill jobs. My opponent is wrong on capital gainsWikiPedia is not a source.
Taxes on the top 1 percent of income earners should be increased

No evidence. In fact it wouldn't. Trickle down economics has been disproved so much I shouldn't even have to argue it.This is ridiculous. It's a concession. That's what this debate is on! You have to disprove trickle-down economics. At least my source is relevant. Quoting random PDF files is meaningless if they have nothing to do with the topic, as you are fond of doing. Not true. If we are appealing to authority, then look up Joseph E. Stiglitz, Nobel prize winning economist who wrote the brilliant Price of Inequality, and its plethora of negative effects.Paul Krugman disagrees with you and Stiglitz (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com...).And your sources have been proven ridiculous, while I did provide a source for regressive taxation, yours in fact. You pointed out that one of my sources speaks about regressive taxes in some states. So? That's not our debate. I want to cut taxes across the board. Keynes also supports economic stimuli, and so do the majority of modern economists, both Left and Right. Prove to me that a majority of economists believe this. 83% believe that deficits harm the economy (http://www.realclearmarkets.com...)Fair enough on the bailouts. You're wrong that it was off-topic, but we can let it go if you don't agree with bailouts. I suppose you don't agree with the Keynesian approach? I could get into that, but that would be a whole other debate. I have enough other arguments so that I don't think this specific point matters too much. That is the entire point of the debate. You have to prove Keynesian economics. Also, here are effective tax rates up until 2014 (http://www.cbo.gov...). It says the rich pay about 33.6% in taxes, or did in 2013. The other link says that state and local taxes add about 6%. What is enough?
Gay marriage should be legal

I sometimes try to ignore some of the things you say like "grow up" But we won't argue about that. I repeat "gay couples can be perfectly together without marriage." I clearly didn't state that gay people want multiple partners, I only asked my opponent to show evidence that they don't. she just stated It as if it was nationally accepted. I would start by defining marriage since my opponent failed to do so, implying that my opponent accepts whatever definition anyone including myself can offer. Marriage, also called matrimony or wedlock, is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws. my opponent wants to know how gay marriage affects children, well let me enlighten you. Studies find that homosexually parented children are more likely to experiment sexually, experience sexual confusion, and engage in homosexual and bisexual behavior themselves. And for those children who later engage in non-heterosexual behavior, extensive research reveals they are more likely to suffer from psychiatric disorders, abuse alcohol and drugs, attempt suicide, experience domestic violence and sexual assault, and are at increased risk for chronic diseases, AIDS, and shortened life spans. Same-sex marriage no doubt will increase sexual confusion and sexual experimentation by young people. I'm going to state my arguments once again Argument #1: That same-sex marriage would destroy the institution of marriage. Argument #2: That if same-sex marriage is legalized, polygamy will follow. Argument #3: That same-sex marriage would make heterosexual divorces too easy. Argument #4: That same-sex marriage would require schools to teach tolerance. And a few more I have listed in the first debate. Thank you.
Gay marriage should be legal

Well it has been proven by many university's that people are in fact born gay, as people can be born straight, bisexual, asexual, and so on. Two people of the same sex has no effect on people like you at all. It doesn't hurt children or anyone else. Let's look at couples such a Neil and David who have children who are loved and treated amazing and are happy. On the thing with the gays want more than one partner, again it's male mormans that have the 7 wives. None of your arguments are valid, there just opinions. I believe that gay marriage should be legal because people should be able to express there love and tie a bound of love together. We don't make you marriage illegal so stay off ours. I know you'll be like my marriage is right and the normal but in reality how do we even know this. Adam and Eve where never married nor have sexual relations. I can tell you just use stuff people always say and it's really easy to quote the bible even when you don't know about it. I love how you still ignore the crazy sins the bible states because you know they are crazy. Grow up and take a look at the world. You would be upset too if your marriage was illegal. Get your facts straight and learn marriage is between love and love not gender.
Gay marriage should be legal

First you say I'm uneducated and then you reverse. No problem, it's a debate I better advance and not take it personal. Cross examining you're the pro so you stress the points and I rebut. But you've only tried to make scenarios, show evidence which don't even link to the motion. so lets get something straight, you haven't refuted any of my points pointing out that you know I am right. I am not arguing against gay relationship neither do I hate them. My argument is based on gay marriage which I firmly stand against. I don't agree with your fact cause there's no guarantee that no gay says I want two partners. Don't wives and husbands cheat. Your scriptures don't link to the motion besides the fact that you choose to be gay and I choose to be straight makes no sense because it is your life. God didn't create humans and said "do only good" No, we have a choice to choose to do what is good or wrong, live our life the way we wish so that makes no sense. Gays can stay together but not married because marriage was instituted for heterosexual couples. of course God loves all regardless of sexual disorientation, whether you are a thief or a pastor, His Love remains the same for each new day. But how does that link to the motion. My opponent just makes assumptions without proper analysis and evidence. clearly stated " gay marriage should never be legalized because they are not in the best interests of children, they destroy social norms and threatens to weaken the law protecting us as citizens." Period.
Gay marriage should be legal

I love how they ignore the ridiculous sins that the bible states that I brought up. Also your thinking of the religions of Mormons. This proves your uneducated and stupid. No gay person said I want more than one partner. Comparing same sex relationships to anything but a same sex relation ship is stupid because we are not marring animals nor do we want to. Come on people grow up and realize that no matter what your opinion on this is I am still going to get married if I find a man I love regardless if we both are male. Its a sin to argue so it looks like your sinning right now. If your going to use the bible, know what and everything your taking about. I have many friends and even relatives that go to church and love god, but still say that god loves all regardless of sexual orientation. Also my opponent ignored the I chose to be gay when they chose to be straight because they know I have them there. I love how educated my opponent is. My opponent leaves out things because they cant defend them.
Gay marriage should be legal

First of all, give God a little respect by writing a capital "G" Ofcourse, I haven't physically talked to God and seen Him and heard HIm talk back like my opponent said. But I live by the words inspired hy Him "The Bible." Since my opponent quoted the bible, that means he agrees out debate can be on religious basis.Thank you. We do not neccesarily have to talk to God to know His wants and feelings, that is why the He inspired people to write His words and feelings. My opponent named it "The book of God."" It is quite obvious that my opponent has not been able to refute any of my points because what guarantee does he have that homosexual couples do not give up their children into foster homes like ""some"" heterosexual couples. Clearly my opponent stated "it is proved."" What or who actually proved. Do you mean the movie "The Fosters" or what? My opponent posed a question on how couples of the same sex that love eachother affects heterosexual couples. The real question then should be," is gay marriage good for the nation and for children." We already know that divorce and single parents raising children are not good (though not technically bad either and each case varies) for either. With no parents to guide children we have seen crime rates rise, suicide rise, confusion of identity arise, the decline of the public school system, increase cost in welfare, blended families where research has shown that abuse is higher. When two dads or two moms split, who gets custody of the children? If a pastor refuses to marry two gays, will he or she be accused of a hate crime and fired or placed in prison for following God's law not man's? Making gay marriage legal also opens up legalizing multiple partner marriages... I.E. Three women, two men, one woman... Five men, etc. Why stop at two? What makes a man and two women a bad thing and a man and a man a good thing? Legally it will open up marriage to anyone who cares to form a union with anyone or anything else, so in this since, it does weaken the institution of marriage the same way divorce and multiple individual marriages weaken it. so gay marriage is a threat in that it threatens to weaken the laws protecting us as citizens and forcing us to accept that which we are told is not acceptable, making us choose between God and man and ultimately we must choose God, as unpopular as that may be with those who do not believe in God. We lose sight of what's wrong and right It seems to be a timeline of allowing what people want, without putting limits. What's next? Bestiality? Polygamy? Child marriage? Underage sex? Allowing nudists to walk in public nude? All these things don't "affect" directly other people, but they destroy social norms. I look forward to my opponents argument.
Gay marriage should be legal

Where do I began, first of all it is better for a child to have 2 mothers or 2 fathers rather than none. Homosexual couple also don't give up there children into foster homes unlike some heterosexual couple. It is proven that a child will two parents of the same sex experiences way less physical and emotional abuse that the parents might put towards each other or there children. The biggest argument used against homosexual couples is religion, but the book of god also states sins that people just ignore such as it is a sin to shave. Leviticus 19:27 "Neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard." The main focus is always on homosexuality being a sin. People focus only on the sins that are suitable for them. It also states in the bible that it is a sin to eat any animal with the hoof such as rabbits, pigs, ect. Leviticus 11:4 "Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hood: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you." Also it is know that no one knows who wrote Leviticus. Who are we to tell what god thinks on things. The being gay is a choice things makes me laugh. I chose to be gay when you chose to be straight.......Never. No one truly knows what god wants or what god feels. People can only use the argument that the bible states that homosexuality is wrong. No one has went through life and never committed a sin before. Please tell me how two people that love each other getting married effects heterosexual couples. Oh wait it don't. People are just so stupid sometimes and it makes me feel bad for them because we live in a world where people are gay and straight people think they get to chose our destiny's. If you haven't physically talked to god and seen them and heard them talk back, don't go telling me that god said its wrong because god didn't, people did.
Gay marriage should be legal

Thank you for the opportunity to argue on this motion First of all, On religion basis. God created the first man and woman from the first man, his intention was for the union of male and female. My opponent stated that Jesus taught Love and acceptance which he clearly did. This shows that my opponent is religious so we can argue on religious basis.Resolved. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with great distaste for reasons solely like the motion. For God to wipe an entire race shows he wanted to make sure that their actions and legal behaviors were not nationally accepted. He wanted to put a stop it. gay marriage should not be made legal for the following reasons 1.it denies a child either a father or mother. Thereby ignoring the child's best interest 2.marriage itself is a property that belongs only to heterosexual couples.so gays can be and live together,forever but never be legally married 3.it turns moral wrong into civil right 4.it offends God 5.marriage equality directly harms straight people 6.granting same-sex marriage makes it cease to exist, causing existential linguistic crisis. 7.same sex couples, seeking marriage wants to validate their "choice" so they don't deserve it. looking forward to view my opponents arguement.