BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Supreme Court's decision to uphold gay marriage was correct

I would ask that my opponent bye the second round and let their opening argument stand in the spirit of fairness, as I have yet to put forth an argument. Correctness is, quoting my opponent, "a property of something applied to certain rules. " However, in this situation, the Supreme Court is bound to a very specific and laid-out set of rules, The Constitution. The Supreme Court, referred to throughout as SCOTUS, is the body of power in the United States tasked with being the ultimate authority on the constitutionality of a piece of legislation, or whether it is within the bounds set in the Constitution. In the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, SCOTUS decided to strike down state bans on same-sex marriage. The decision to strike down these bans was, in fact, the correct one. The justices decided that, as marriage is a legal right, it must be offered to everyone. There is no denying that, in the US, marriage is a legal contract. A married couple is able to: file joint bankruptcy and taxes, assume greater benefits from programs including Medicare, jointly own or freely transfer property, have joint adoption and custody, make medical decisions for spouse and children, and obtain 'survivor benefits' from a spouse who has passed away. (. https://en.wikipedia.org...) To say that marriage is a strictly religious bond is clearly untrue. In order to say that the Court's decision was correct, the Constitution, specifically the Fourteenth Amendment, must be studied. The 14th amendment states "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. " (. https://www.law.cornell.edu...)The most important part of this phrase is "nor deny. .. the equal protection under the law. " This means that, in the eyes of the law, everyone must be offered the same opportunities and treated equally. Having said that marriage is a legal contract, it quickly becomes clear that a State ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. Just as SCOTUS determined, denying same-sex couples the right to a legal marriage is a direct violation of the 14th amendment. While the decision to strike down bans on same-sex marriage seems like a 'popular' decision, or the 'obvious moral choice,' it is clearly the correct decision based on the law of the land, The United States Constitution.
The Supreme Court's decision to uphold gay marriage was correct

Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Opening ArgumentRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Closing StatementsRules1. BoP is shared2. All numbers, facts, and quotes must be cited, but citations are not necessary3. No new arguments may be introduced beyond Round 24. Debate structure and rules are finalResolutionThe decision made by the Supreme Court (Obergefell v. Hodges) to strike down the ban on same-sex marriage was correct.
Should we be breaking the bias against women in science

Why should we be breaking the bias against women? Well, because women aren't any less qualified then men! There are many people today that think certain human beings should have more privileges than others because they are not the same gender. Jennifer Harper states, "Professors should be trained to omit bias when they evaluate a candidate so that they are only looking at the candidates qualifications and skill set." she also says, "That it would be beneficial to have a diverse work place." If professors and people who hire men and women in science careers only had there qualifications to look at. Not there name or gender then it would be more fair for everyone in the science fields and stop the bias of women in science.
The word weenis is innapropriate

This debate is borderline insane 1. Weenis is not a bad word 2. Other words are worse 3. Making fun is not a good reason to ban something 4. Can't strike a word 1. Weenis is not a bad word Weenis is not derogatory, is not racially discriminatory, and has nothing wrong with it except it sounds funny. "Weenis is showing" means your elbow is showing. 2. Ship is close to S() Itch is close to B() And besides, some words are considered vulgar, like a p() cat, however, that is simply because someone has interpreted the word in a different manner 3. Stupid, Jerk, Retard, Loser, Nerd, Fool are all words that are used to make fun of someone. Weenis is not an insult. So with your logic, all the above words should be banned. Also short, fat, ugly, dumb should also be banned. 4. You cannot just strike a word. Words are added to the English language because people speak them. I could make a new word like "Gumesh" and if enough people used it, it would be added to the English language. Example, Muggle. It is now officially in the English language. And words are just stricken from the English language. N() is still in the English language and it is a very derogatory word. Capitulate is a very uncommon and rarely used word, but it is still in the English language. Since these two words are still considered words, what merits the removal of Weenis.
The Cosmological Argument Is Sound

The debate is about the Cosmological Argument.Rules No swearing. No insult to character. No insulting God. No forfeiting. No special pleading. (An argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view) Arguments must be organized, and grammar must be good. Breaking any rule would result in either loss of points or a forfeit, depending upon the severity of the rule broken. The Cosmological Argument Premise One: An infinite regression of instances of change in reality is impossible. Premise Two: Following premise one, there must be a First Principle in reality before any instances of change in reality occurred. Premise Three: Following premise two, the First Principle of reality must be either be sentient or non-sentient. Premise Four: The non-sentient First Principle must have been at one point, not causing instances of change in reality, otherwise the fallacy of infinity occurs. A non-sentient First Principle is incapable of willing itself to activation, to causing instances of change in reality. All examples of non-sentient mechanisms in nature show that they simply exist, or are caused to activate, and do not merely activate on their own. Premise Five: The sentient First Principle is capable of willing instances of change in reality. Only a sentient, self-aware being can imagine a reality outside of the reality that already exists. Conclusion: Therefore the notion that the First Principle is sentient is more plausible than it being non-sentient. First Principle: The first initial point in reality before any instances of change in reality occurred.Change: The instance of becoming different.Time: The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.Quantum Mechanics, An AnalogyImagine if you will, a string that constantly vibrates. The vibrations can not have always been happening, there must have been a point in time that the string was completely still. The only thing that can cause a string to vibrate is something outside of itself.String: Quantum mechanics, or the non-sentient First Principle.ConclusionAs I have argued, there cannot be an infinite regression of instances of change in reality. This means we come to the First Principle, the point in time before any change occurred, the moment before time itself began. I have argued that this First Principle must be sentient, it is Con's duty to show me why this First Principle can be non-sentient, and go from being not active, to active, all on it's own without a sentient, self-aware being to will it. He has to give reasoning as to why the natural mechanism went into motion in the first place. Or he must show me as to how it is logical for the non-sentient First Principle to have simply always existed, producing instances of change in reality for an infinite amount of time.Good luck.
There is a logial argument for the existence of God.

Pro says: “There is a logical argument for the existence of God”, “Logical as in a sound argument, one that makes sense from common sense and acceptable theories”, “...anything that is obvious knowledge (e.g. gravity exists, etc...). But, the focus will be on reasoning combined with theory”, “...to show that the existence of God is a far, far more powerful argument than the opposite statement...”Make of that what you will, readers. To me it seems that Pro wants to debate whether the existence of God is more likely than not. I will debate on this assumption.My main argument is: an explanation for a universe not created by God is simpler and requires fewer assumptions than an explanation for a universe created by God. To add God into the equation is to add an additional, unnecessary step that requires a more complex explanation. As such, the existence of God is unlikely.It can be contended, correctly, that science has not yet provided a complete explanation as to why there is a universe. However, this does not mean that science cannot or will not provide such an explanation (as has been proven time and time again with other unsolved questions). Indeed, there are a number of scientific theories as to why there is a universe. For example, it is possible in nature to get a physical something from “nothing”, as in quantum fluctuations. Given that the universe is physical something, it is possible to get a universe from “nothing” [1].An argument for the existence of God is an argument for the supernatural. That is, an argument for the existence of something (an “aware creator of the universe”) that is external to, and independent of, all things that exist in nature. Pro must provide a potential explanation for God existing, as I have done for the universe. That is, Pro must state a potential cause for God existing, or else explain why God is exempt from being caused. Importantly, any explanation Pro gives must not be equally applicable to the universe alone. If the explanation could logically be used to explain the universe alone, then to add God into the equation is to add an unnecessary step, thereby violating Occam's razor, and showing that the existance of God is not likely. [1] http://www.youtube.com...
There is a logial argument for the existence of God.

Pro Stance: There is a logical argument for the existence of God. Con Stance: There is no logical argument for the existence of God. Round 1: Accept Round 2: Opening statements Round 3: Rebuttals to Opening statements Round 4: Rebuttals to rebuttals in round 3 Round 5: Summarize Out of fairness and to keep things organized, it's requested that both parties respond to the previous rounds unless absolutely necessary (as opposed to trying to get 'the last word' within the current).
twilight fans and Bieber fans are not a cult

know that when I said cult i ment the evil kind. Lots of so people these days say twilight fans and Bieber fans are violent, bias and demand that other people to love twilight and Bieber as well. Con you must prove this is true. for my proof watch the first video. you will see that twilight fans are just hyperactive and are very passionate about the series they love. they are not violent or bias at all. http://www.youtube.com... now watch the second video and you will see that Justin Bieber fans too are not violent and bias. just hyperactive and are very passionate about him. http://www.youtube.com... con must now prove that the fans are violent, bias and demand that other people to love twilight and Bieber as well. That is the kind of cult people are saying they are becoming.
twilight fans and Bieber fans are not a cult

I thank justice_plate for the opportunity to debate this very important topic. Before his opening round 2 argument, I shall be clearing up some ideas surrounding this debate before the debate even begins.The Burden of ProofReaders, in the case of voting on this debate, it will be important to look at who has the burden of proof (hereafter referred to as the BoP). In this debate, Pro is affirming a negative statement. He is positively affirming the claim that Twilight fans and Justin Beiber fans (hereafter referred to as JB fans) are not cults or cultist in nature. Thus Pro shoulders a greater load of the BoP, largely in that he has to affirm his resolution in both the cases of JB fans as well as Twilight fans to win this debate--whereas I merely need to negate his claims about Twilight and JB fans not being cultist. Note that I only need to show that one group is not not cultist in nature (in other words, prove one is cultist in nature) to win this debate. Now, on to some definitions.Definitionscult (n) - a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fadb : the object of such devotion c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion [1]fanatic (adj. describing n) - marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion [2]Therefore, a Twilight fan is hereafter defined as a person who has a excessive enthusiasm/intense uncritical devotion for the Twilight saga, written by Stephanie Meyer. Similarly, a JB fan is hereafter defined as a person who has an excessive enthusiasm/intense uncritical devotion of the popular music artist Justin Beiber.Thank you, and I await my opponent's opening argument.Sources[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
twilight fans and Bieber fans are not a cult

i am sick of hearing people calling twilight fans and Justin Bieber fans a cult. I think they are just people that love them so much and their is nothing wrong with that. i also hear that twilight fans and Justin Bieber fans are rigging award ceremonies so they win which i know is simply not true. in this debate The Contender will argue and provide evidence that both twilight fans and Justin Bieber fans are becoming or already are a cult. I will argue that they just loving fans and provide evidence for that as well.
TROLL DEBATE: cats are better than dogs.

1. cats have better tonguesA cat's tongue can look cute and silly... Or it can look tough! There's no better kid-friendly way to say "don't mess with me!" than covering your three-inch tongue in spikes and showing it to someone!As for dog tongues... UGGGHH look at that tongue! No wait don't look at it! It flails too much at the sides and drapes nearly to the floor and it's too thin! 2. Cats drive better than dogs Look at how badly these dogs are driving! He's sticking his head out the window and he only has one paw on the steering wheel. You can tell he's looking himself in the mirror and cannot possibly be focused on what's going on around him. He could easily get into a car crash. Cool Driving Dog here is making the exact same driving mistakes. Car-driving cats don't make those mistakes. This cat is focusing solely on the road. His paws are both on the wheel. They not at 10 and 2, but given the steps you may notice in the top-right corner he may have just turned from a pool's parking lot. You see steps before pool gates most of the time. This cat also has his eyes firmly on the road and his paws are on the wheel at 10 and 2. so from these photos, we can tell that cats are definitely better than dogs at driving. 3. Cats are smarter Cats know how to... play poker better than dogs There is actually a mix between luck and strategy required to win at poker (http://en.wikipedia.org...). If cats can beat dogs at a game of both luck and strategy, they must be the luckier and smarter of the two. You can't get eight cats to pull a sled through the snow. Cats have a good preperation for when you say they their rivals are smarter than them. Dogs, not so much. *googles "so you think cats are smarter than dogs," finds nothing desmonstrating the superior intelligence of dogs* Some cats dont follow red dots. followiing red dots is from their weak will power, not from low intelligence Cats and dogs both read books, but cats read strategy books and dogs don't. note: you may have to zoom in on the book. It says "military strategy." This means that cats are better military strategists than dogs, which just about definitively proves them to be much smarter. Conclusion: Cats are smarter, more strategic, better at driving, and have better tongues then dogs and therefore are better.
pie = 8.54 (approximately)

Hopefully, he will have numerous more in the future. Firstly, my opponent continues to put forward the notion that 2.22 is approxomately 8.54, while conceding that sig figs are the most unbiased method of deciding the answer. For the dollar example, $39.95 IS approxomately $40.00, even with sig figs. For the accounting example, companies must deal with very large sums. When approxomating, they do not approxomate to the nearest dollar, but to perhaps the nearest ten thousand dollars. The more sig figs used in the approxomation, the harder it is to be accurate. Therefore, companies estimate broadly. To a large, multi-million dollar company, $23,987 may be approxomately $20,000. However, when my opponent already predicts pie to equal 8.54, not even 8 would be an appropriate answer, because too many sig figs have already been predicted. My opponent makes a rather elaborate explanation as to why I cannot bring up iPhones. However, my opponent does not continue to hold the only idea that keeps pie from being an imaginary number, the theory that pie must be a real number. I have already explained that imaginary numbers are imaginary, and pie, having i, could easily be an imaginary number. My opponent dropped this point. Finally, my opponent claims that in the equation X = 9^(1/2), X equals both 3 and -3. However, this is rather false. X can equal either 3 or -3, and still fulfill the equation to be true, but it cannot be both, because -3 =/= 3. To continue this, let's say I have a parabolic application in which I threw a ball into the air with a velocity of eight feet per second. Therefore, the altitude of the ball is graphed by: a = -16t^2 + 8t + 6 Now, I am given that the ball is currently 6.64 feet into the air. This means that t is either equal to 0.1 seconds or 0.4 seconds. However, t cannot equal both 0.1 seconds and 0.4 seconds at the same time, because 0.1 =/= 0.4. I would be unable to affirm a resolution that t is 0.1 seconds, becase it could be 0.4 seconds instead. To bring that idea to this example, my opponent continues to claim that pie can equal 8.54. However, I have already attacked the idea of pie being used as a substitute for pi * e, due to the large ambiguousness. My opponent actually dropped most of his contentions in Round 4, leaving only the arguments for vague approxomation and against an imaginary value of pie. I have already countered both of these. However, even if I were to give to my opponent the POSSIBILITY of pie being equal to 8.54, this in no way guarantees pie to be equal to 8.54. Remember, pie would only possibly be 8.54, but it could even more likely be 2.72iE-12. My opponent, being both PRO and the Instigator, would have to prove that pie cannot be 2.22 or 2.72iE-12 or 1187760, but only 8.54. In conclusion, pie is much more likely to be 2.22 (double declared in Java), 1187760 (product of ASCII values of 'p', 'i', and 'e'), or 2.72iE-12 (product of Euler's number e, the imaginary number i, and the magnitude pico), than it is to be 8.54 (pi * e). My opponent cannot prove his own interpretation of pie to be the correct one, and therefore cannot win this debate.
pie = 8.54 (approximately)

And as this is my final post in this debate and there were no official rules or format established, my opponent will be allowed to post new material in his final post and I won't get an opportunity to respond. So I will attempt to predict what he will say and try to refute those predictions. But I will start by continuing the current arguments and adding my last one. As I predicted, my opponent chose to say that significant figures is the best, most unbiased method of determining approximations. To this, I agree, that it is the most "unbiased" method, but it still is not the only method. People often say that $39.95 is approximately $40.00 to make the math easier for personal budget calculations. While this approximation is not in accordance with sig figs, it is still a common and accepted use of approximations. In actual accounting, companies are required to calculate depreciation (they usually use a straight line method, though there are others). Companies MUST APPROXIMATE how long an item will be used (lets say a truck) and what the resale value will be[1]. Even if they are wrong about the approximate resale value, they have to make an estimate (which is a synonym for approximation[2]). In an attempt to refute any evidence that my opponent presents in his final post, I believe he will say that "i" (imaginary things) can exist in the real world. And to "prove" this, he will show you all this, . http://images.google.com.... This seems like quite solid evidence that "i" can and does exist in the real world. However, I would like to point that this unnatural forcing of the imagination into the real world, results in disaster. There is an imaginary fusor inside that forces the imaginary world to exist in the real world. This is why the iphones have poor battery life, and why you cannot open them up to change the battery. And this technology is still really dangerous, these fusors have a history of blowing up [3], proof that they are not meant to exist in our realm and can only exist temporarily with massive assistance. On to my final argument. What is X = 9^(1/2)? Traditional math says X=3, but also, X=(-3). X has MORE THEN ONE SOLUTION (forgive the all caps, I don't know the code for bold here). Math equations are free to have multiple solutions, ergo, X does = 3 and it does = -3. And so pie can equal 8.54 (approx) and it can equal other things as well. And since my opponent has done nothing to show that pie =/= 8.54 (approximately), he has only provided other things that pie equals, which it is free to have more then one. [1] . http://accountinginfo.com... [2] . http://thesaurus.reference.com... [3] . http://news.cnet.com...
pie = 8.54 (approximately)

My opponent puts forth the idea that 2.22 is nearly 8.54. As he predicted, I am going to point to sig figs [1], in which numbers are approxomated in a very systematic way. If a value is said to be approxomately 8.54, that is basically saying that its value is somewhere between 8.535 and 8.545. My opponent makes no argument this round as to why this must be so. My opponent claims that he has his own subjective interpretation of "nearly." However, what I provide is an objective, unbiased, standard method of determine whether or not a number is "near" another number. My own method should be held above my opponents, as it is objective and unbiased, free of the subjectivity and bias of my opponent's intentions. Any unstated intentions would be abusive to the concept of fair debate. My opponent claims that pie cannot be objective, because it exists in the real world. However, it exists as a food [2]. Types of food have no numerical values to be equivelant to. Pie does not equal 8.54. It only equals pie, or ingredients plus crust, or something along those lines. As my opponent claims that pie is not a number, he concedes this debate. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...