BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized!

This is a pretty controversial debate to start off with, but I'm not complaining as I believe my first debate here was on abortion. So this is my round for acceptance. Since Destinee introduced herself, I guess I'll do the same. My name is Clinton and I am a professional musician in California. I've attended six years of college as a music major but haven't finished. Truth be told I'm kind of impatient and I feel that I learn more by application than sitting in a classroom, though I may someday return to finish out my degree. Apologetics and theology are major hobbies of mine, although I do occasionally preach at churches so they come in handy now more than they used to. Science and philosophy are also hobbies of mine, though some aspects of science interest me more than others. I understand that Destinee is bisexual and I hope that my arguments are not offensive to her or anyone else reading this. I want to assure the readers that I do not hate homosexuals/bisexuals/any others in that increasingly cumbersome acronym. Although I don't think they should be able to marry, I believe that they should be able to enjoy the freedoms that we all enjoy as humans. However, marriage is not guaranteed in the Constitution and I haven't yet seen any arguments for legalizing gay marriage that can't also be used for legalizing other forms of (what is considered to be) perverse sexuality, such as incest, polygamy, etc. Also, I deplore violence against homosexuals. I think it's shameful the way they are treated and tormented. It was despicable when Westboro Baptist Church picketing the dead gay soldier's funeral, and it's horrible that they end up committing suicide over it. I see that Destinee indicates she was not born be bisexual. I haven't heard anyone say that since it's commonly believed that we are born with our sexuality. So once again, I don't think it's okay for homosexuals to be tormented based on their sexuality. I will argue that they should not be allowed to marry, however, which is not, actually, discriminatory. But I will say more on that in my opening argument next round. I look forward to debating this lovely young lady. Let's have a clean fight, no hitting below the belt. Just as a reminder as instigator, Destinee bears the burden of proof as to why gay marriage should be legalized, and I will, in return, give her reasonable explanations as to why it should not.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized!

I am looking for someone to give me a reasonable explanation(s) why a same-sex couple should not be allowed to participate in the beauty, sacredness, and holiness that marriage is. For the 1st round I am asking for acceptance, 2nd-4th round going deeper into the argument, and the 5th round should be the final conclusion. This is my first debate so I'm not quite sure what to expect. Also, absolutely NO copying and pasting. If you are going to speak on your opinion, let it be YOUR own. I have a lot to say so I look forward to this debate :) First off, my name is Destinee Bayona. I'm an 18 year old freshman attending William Paterson University in New Jersey and Public Relations chairperson for CHOSEN: The Gender & Sexuality Alliance, formerly known as CHOSEN: Gay-Straight Alliance at my college. I am a bisexual - I did not choose this sexuality, nor was I born with it. Over time I noticed I had an interest in the same sex, I struggled with it but I decided this is who I was. Though it was difficult, I learned to accept myself and others did as well. I am also Puerto Rican and Italian, but have been judged and ridiculed for being partially Hispanic. I am considered a minority for this already, and I feel as though I am a double-minority since I am a member of the L.G.B.T. community. Members of this community are judged for their sexual preference, ridiculed, bullied, and some have even been murdered or committed suicide. Anti-gay supporters are of all different races, not just Caucasian. So tell me why is it that minorities are still attacking minorities - have we not overcome this yet? Being from New Jersey, I have seen and heard a lot about this with the recent death of Tyler Clementi, a gay freshman student who was attending Rutgers University and committed suicide because his roommate, Dharun Ravi, humiliated him by setting him up; Clementi was unknowingly recorded by a webcam having sex with another man and Ravi posted the video on Twitter. Tyler Clementi was so devastated by this action that he committed suicide by jumping to his death from the George Washington Bridge on September 22, 2010. Recently, at Montclair State University also in New Jersey, towards the end of January into the beginning of this month, the university has dealt with a threat against the LGBT community. Someone wrote inside one of the women's bathroom that all gays will die on February 7th - and this was not the first time an incident occurred there. I have also seen my state's governor, Chris Christie, flat out discriminate and object gays' rights to marry. My club, CHOSEN, sent in letters with the help of Garden State Equality to the New Jersey Legislature before voting was about to begin. Even though the votes could even override Christie's veto, he still would not accept this under any circumstance. It's this type of discrimination and hate that makes the world we live in today such a scary place. Now someone explain to me what makes it okay for this to happen?
Political Science, the most evil science ther ever could be, using law like a flea, bloodsuckers

Below, please find how your claim concerning me allegedly having the burden of proof to be incorrect. "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the assertion, but is not valid reasoning."[2] Now, despite the fact that my opponent has offered ZERO evidence to support his claims, I will not be so brash. I will offer what I believe to be a worse kind of science than political science... Eugenics. "Adolf Hitler was a huge fan of eugenics and brought it to its natural conclusion: the Holocaust of World War II, where millions of the "genetically unfit" were exterminated in an effort to create a "master race." Those considered unfit were not just Jews, but also the criminal, weak, feeble-minded, insane and disabled (not to mention priests and nuns and those who helped try to hide the Jewish people)." [3] Sources: 2.http://en.m.wikipedia.org... 3.http://www.ncregister.com...
Political Science, the most evil science ther ever could be, using law like a flea, bloodsuckers

I would like to point out that as the instigator, and being the one who made the positive claim, my opponent has the burden of proof. Since he has not offered any evidence to support his claim yet, I will wait for my opponent to do so before making my first argument. I would also like to ask my opponent to keep a civil tone for the rest of our debate. Since he hasn't offered a definition of "political science", I will be happy to do so. The definition of "political science" will be as follows: Political Science: is a social science discipline concerned with the study of the state, nation, government, and politics and policies of government. Aristotle defined it as the study of the state. [1] Source: 1. . http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Political Science, the most evil science ther ever could be, using law like a flea, bloodsuckers

Bring your big fat Weiner mouth Political Scientist, controlling the humanity to attend your masses, while you fly on high and live above, in your skyscraper and the jet you love. Obama's trainers use the American dream, as their fuel for the PC machine, thate wishes to make all equal, except they that are better, thru self esteem, what a joke, Obama still tokes, smokes, and makes thos that also do pay more for the things they love, like what a bunch of hypocrisy. Snort your powder, those in power.
Marijuana should be legal

'Limiting the use of the drug intrudes on personal freedom. So is illegalizing murder.' the difference is you harm someone by killing them but you do not harm someone by smoking weed at the privacy of your own home 'Stoned driving (Not much better than drunk driving)' While alcohol causes you to drive faster and affects your judgement a lot , cannabis causes you to drive more slowly and cautiously . 'Child related drug abuse (Children shouldn't do drugs period)' I would like to see evidence for that . 'Counter-Culture (Some people don't want to see weed commercials)' although we never know if such commercials would be allowed , You choose to watch it you don't have to watch the advert . 'Encouraging irresponsibility (Its hard to take anything seriously while stoned)' Not putting people in prison for something is not the same as encouraging it , it is a neutral stance . My opponent hasn't given me any other issues to adress .
Marijuana should be legal

Because tobacco and alcohol are legal doesn't mean they should be legal. For instance, the prohibition of alcohol was a complete failure because it was already widely used. If we are to legalize weed, surely such extensive use will follow, making it impossible to ever effectively it ever again. Limiting the use of the drug intrudes on personal freedom. So is illegalizing murder. How marijuana effects the world for the worse: Stoned driving (Not much better than drunk driving) Child related drug abuse (Children shouldn't do drugs period) Counter-Culture (Some people don't want to see weed commercials) Encouraging irresponsibility (Its hard to take anything seriously while stoned)
Marijuana should be legal

'Legalization of marijuana will cause an immediate turf war among drug dealers and the cartels. In order to maintain their profits, with less drugs to sell, they will have to increase their violence. ' There are two things that might happen to illegal drug businesses they will either go bankrupt or they will try to become legal businesses in both cases its a win win situation I think the illegal black market will fall down and some cartels will try to sell drugs legally therefore they could be regulated , they won't fight against each other aggressively they will try to become legal businesses or they will simply go bankrupt in a matter of months ' because there are still more marijuana addicts in the United States than any other type of addict. The marijuana addiction is still treated more than alcohol or any other addiction in treatment centers in the United States. ' If someone does drugs he chooses to do so it is his body why do you think you can tell him what he can consume ? you might aswell ban junk food , yeah there are more marijuana 'addicts' treated , do you know why ? when a teenager or a young adult stands in front of the court for marijuana use he usually has two choices, either go to prison or go to rehab or a similar place most of them choose the second option . Cannabis is not more addictive than alcohol some studies show it's less addictive . http://en.wikipedia.org...(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence)_modified.svg .
Marijuana should be legal

Although you have a valid point, people who advocate for the legal use of marijuana do not consider the whole picture. Legalization of marijuana will cause an immediate turf war among drug dealers and the cartels. In order to maintain their profits, with less drugs to sell, they will have to increase their violence. This will lead to more violent crimes. Also, marijuana should not be legal for recreational use in the United States, because there are still more marijuana addicts in the United States than any other type of addict. The marijuana addiction is still treated more than alcohol or any other addiction in treatment centers in the United States. Marijuana should not be legalized, because people become addicted to it, and it is needless.
Atheism lowers morality

Let us begin by noting that Pro's ramble about eating primates in no way addresses the supposed correlation between atheism and morality, so it is not clear which proposition I am supposed to be opposing. Nevertheless I will proceed as best I can. The strongest point in favour of the cannibalism is not even addressed in Pro's opening statement"that primate flesh is delicious. Though most, presumably, have never tasted human flesh, those who have tend to agree that it tastes very much like pork. [1] [2] Pro wishes to be able to eat a goat boiled in its mother's milk (a practice that is referred to as "exotic" for some reason). This is explicitly forbidden by the Bible three times (Exodus 23:19, Exodus 34:26, Deuteronomy 14:21). Luckily a simple loophole exists: one can eat a young goat boiled in the milk of another mother; better still, one could eat a goat boiled in its own milk. The only question left now is how Andrew Zimmern is not already working on this. We might also note that this rule is only mentioned in relation to goats. Evidently cows, pigs, and African clawless otters can be boiled in their mother's milk. As for Pro's "modest proposal from long ago", this ostensibly refers to Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People From Being a Burthen to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick. As fantastic an idea as this may be it does run counter to our hope that the human flesh will be as succulent as the porcine flesh as mentioned above. I quote Swift: "my American acquaintance assured me from frequent experience, that their flesh was generally tough and lean, like that of our school-boys, by continual exercise, and their taste disagreeable, and to fatten them would not answer the charge. " [3] And so, alas, we must find some other productive use for the "literally thousands of primate fetus carcasses burned away each year". There is one further interesting point to be made. Pro's comments specifically refer to "young primate flesh". Not primates themselves"just the flesh. This, in fact, can be done. Though it does not seem to be a common practice among any culture, some individuals do choose to eat their placenta or the placenta of others. Several videos of such are available on YouTube; a mere sampling is provided here: So while we do not kill primates for the purpose of consuming them it is viable to eat flesh of a primate. The conclusion is therefore inescapable, theists and atheists alike can all come together and break bread over a hardy helping of human flesh (in the form of placenta) boiled in the milk of the mother that produced it. Andrew Zimmern? Thank you and please vote Con! 1) Hitchens, Christopher. God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 2008. Print. 2) . http://www.theguardian.com... 3) . http://www.gutenberg.org...
Atheism lowers morality

An Inconvenient Dining Proposal Why can't we eat young primate flesh? I remember reading a modest proposal from long ago about eating young animals that had passed away due to a famine in Ireland. I know we eat young animals as fine delicacies. One that sounds fantastically exotic is to boil a young goat in her mother's milk. Why can't we do that with primates? There are literally thousands of primate fetus carcasses burned away each year. If we just cool the incinerator a little, and reduce the cooking time, I'll bet you'll end up with the most exotic cuisine ever. Andrew Zimmern?
Kids should be allowed to wear butt plugs in school

Observation 1: Pro has the burden of proof. My opponent and I have the burden of assertions. Observation 2: Argument uncontested follow through the round conceded. Observation 3: For pro to win, they would have to argue a case with a significant benefit to the status quo. If con successfully argues that pro's benefit is not significant, or not a benefit, con wins. Observation 4: If the audience is not sure about which side wins, then con wins by default due to pro not proving their burden. I will not provide a case, but instead take the route of showing the plan provided by pro does not demonstrate a significant to the status quo. Rebuttal- "Obviously in order to insert the butt plug the child would have to go to the toilets, as inserting a butt plug during class would be disruptive." We seem to have 2 unwarranted assumptions. 1) Yes putting butt plugs is disruptive, this doesn't mean students won't do it. Talking in class is disruptive, but students do this constantly. Thus we can actually turn this argument against my opponent, seeing as disruption in class is a harm. 2) False dilemma, there are other options besides just the classroom and the restrooms. "The butt plugs would vary in size and the children would gradually increase the size of their butt plug" Why do we assume that they would increase the size of their butt plug? This assumption is unwarranted, thus disregard. Also disregard the rest of this butt plug trophy argument since it's based on this assumption. Now for my opponent's main contentions. "Male on male rape." Bruh, you can't just provide the tagline of your arguments without the warrants or support. How does butt plug prevent rape, and to what extent? Male on male rape isn't really common at my school, provide statistics. For these reasons, disregard the argument because of no substantiation. "Farting during class." Same thing, but unlike rape the impact of farting in class is not substantial to allow this plan to take place. Also, we aren't talking about everyone using butt plugs, only that they're allowed. Therefore people can choose not to wear butt plugs. This further mitigates your case. Onto these arguments. "Socialisation" This is not unique to this plan proposed by pro, there are other things to socialize about. The only argument pro could make is that some people have nothing to talk about, and this would be the anomaly. However, pro then has to show that the people who use butt plugs would actually want to talk about using butt plugs, and that it's impossible for them to socialize about anything else. "It will give the children something to work towards" Similar to my argument above, are people not working towards things in the status quo? Do people want to work for this? I haven't seen any warrant to say there is motivation for increasing their butt plugs, or that people want to be recognized for it. In conclusion, all arguments are either disregarded based off substantiation, or not substantial enough for a change. Con has gained an argument from pro which is that butt plugs will be disruptive to education and the environment.
Kids should be allowed to wear butt plugs in school

There are a number of reasons why kids should be allowed to use butt plugs in school, I will give a few reasons why in this round. Obviously in order to insert the butt plug the child would have to go to the toilets, as inserting a butt plug during class would be disruptive. The butt plugs would vary in size and the children would gradually increase the size of their butt plug in until they reached double digits which would be 10cm wide, then the child would be eligible for elite status where they are to give a speech in assembly and would be awarded a giant butt plug, which they'd keep on their desk as a trophy. This would help prevent things such as, -Male on male rape. -Farting during class. This would increase such things as, -Socialisation, as children will all have a common interest and something to trade and talk about. -It will give the children something to work towards, as each child will be fixated on increasing the size of their an.us in order to gain benefits/rewards.
Should anything in local government be "in camera" hidden from the public

In local government they say "Labor Land and Legal" MAY not must be "in camera" (hidden from public). Almost all local dealings are rife with Cronyism, Nepotism, Lobbying and bad bad shenanigans. For legal! They cite lawyer client privileges. The citizens are the clients so that one gets tossed. For land! If there is a developer or real estate agent involved; we should watch very closely with camcorders. For labor! If HR audits aren't done once and a while then that should be totally open as well. Any town that doesn't do procurement audits will suffer from corruption. I don't think you'd find a town that would say to WhistleBlowers or WatchDogs come on in with your camcorders we are clean. I'm even of the opinion that secret ballots leads to voter fraud almost every time.
Should anything in local government be "in camera" hidden from the public

Even open meetings don't want video. Why is that? Not really honest with their thoughts I'd say. ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "Arlene Arlow" To: "stonedan" Cc: "Alex Atamanenko" , "Alex Atamanenko-Lilly" Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 2:28:24 PM Subject: RE: Tuesdays meeting at the watermark Hi Doug I would prefer that you not video the Osoyoos event. We have people designated for that task. Your web presence is clandestine in that you do not post your contact details and as you state, you do not have a phone. Persons who might otherwise wish to "not" be part of your YouTube presence would have no way of contacting you to have the images removed. I appreciate your interest and hope that you attend the Osoyoos event. Kind regards Arlene Arlow For the Okanagan-Similkameen Farm Labour Society Ph/fax: 250-499-5121 Cell: 250-488-7567 -----Original Message----- From: stonedan Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 2:16 PM To: Arlene Arlow Subject: Re: Tuesdays meeting at the watermark Hi Arlene I don't have a phone. You can find me at Jojo's cafe just across the street from Watermark most any day. I can maybe have a friend at jojo's let me use their phone. I never ever edit anything and make many short clips in mpg format. The videos are usually 2 minutes long. If it's 2 hours long I may shoot 60. I would also hang around to video after. One way or other I will attend. Good luck with your event. Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "Arlene Arlow" To: "stonedan" Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 2:09:25 PM Subject: RE: Tuesdays meeting at the watermark Hi Doug Pls give me a buzz to discuss your request. Arlene Arlow For the Okanagan-Similkameen Farm Labour Society Ph/fax: 250-499-5121 Cell: 250-488-7567 -----Original Message----- From: stonedan Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 1:44 PM To: aarlow*telus.net Subject: Tuesdays meeting at the watermark Hi Arlow I'd like to shoot video of the event and post it unedited to my YouTube account. https://www.youtube.com... Food Sovereignty forum Oliver 20Mar2012 There is a core of people that will attend. Video will show everything... Stupid or otherwise. Thanks in advance. Doug Pederson AKA SpectateSwamp
Should anything in local government be "in camera" hidden from the public

Thanks oz123max you took such an impossible position. In a town near here they said they couldn't publish the budget info because it would "jeopardize the tendering process". What jeopardizes anything is secrecy. That is the only way their cronies can be guaranteed the contracts. The tendering process in most places if fixed from the get go. I was doing video of open council meetings in 2 towns here. Oliver and Osoyoos. Until they put through resolutions prohibiting citizen video. One mayor said that I was editorialising too much. All the videos were posted directly to YouTube where anybody could make comments. Most towns / cities are run like a family business. HR is not for Human Resources it's Hire Relatives. And corrupt ones.
Is using social media such as facebook or linkedin for marketing an invasion of privacy

Pro is no it is not invasion of privacy Con is yes it is an invasion of privacy Pro will speak first, I am Con Marketers are looking for new ways for gathering information about target markets and increase product sales. By using Facebook and LinkedIn, they can use a new form of behavioral targeting much like a conversational eavesdropping analysis format Pro will speak first Con will speak second Pro rebuttal and voting issues Con rebuttal and voting issues