BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homosexuality has Little to No Correlation to Pedophillia

Okay, so I realized that there are 5 rounds, instead of 4. Since resetting this is not an option, I have decided that we will keep the outline that was established, and we will both waive the final round, as this is the only fair solution. If my opponent does not waive the final round, I ask that you ignore his argument in the final round. Firstly, let's dissect his rebuttal. "Anyway homosexual and pedophile are among hatred group by most people.Saudi arabia,and iran permit public execution for homosexual and pedophile." (sic) This is irrelevant, as it does not show a reliable link between pedophilia and homosexuality, just that they are hated in certain countries. " Marriage and cohabiting suppose to be consist between adult male and adult female.Same-sex sexual intercourse is unnatural because your anus is not design for having sex,this could increase the change of sexual transmitted disease.Pedophile is unnatural as well because children are not physical mature for child bearing.Pregnancy complication death among adolescent girls are much more greater risk than older woman" (sic) Opinion. Irrelevant to the resolution. " According to one study by kolarsky and colleague 54 examined the relationship between 'sexual deviation' age of lesion onset and localisation of lesion.It has been shown that homosexual has been link to frontal lobe injury which would be one reason why to be classified homosexual as a mental disorder and sexual deviation.It is also included pedophile as well" (Sic) Okay, use Spell Check! Second, this is the third consecutive round he has committed an attack on homosexuals and broke the rules of the debate. Thus, this is rendered null and void by the rules regarding such insults. He attempts to connect separate things with a not so subtle forgery and connects pedophilia to homosexuality via "brain injury" which was banned in the first round. My argument stands, I have proved that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, which was not my intent using that source, but was necessary, as well as prove that pedophilia is not connected to homosexuality. My opponent twisted an already incorrect statistic by claiming that 80% of all homosexuals are pedophiles, when his statistic was the other way around, debunked in R2. My arguments stand, and are almost uncontested. Rules were violated in every round, and was insulted in the comments, my opponent resorted to ad hominim and straw mans, and poorly constructed ones at that. For all these reasons, vote Pro. Once again, my opponent and I MUST waive the last round. Any arguments made in that round are to be ignored in the interest of fairness.
Homosexuality has Little to No Correlation to Pedophillia

Anyway homosexual and pedophile are among hatred group by most people.Saudi arabia,and iran permit public execution for homosexual and pedophile. Marriage and cohabiting suppose to be consist between adult male and adult female.Same-sex sexual intercourse is unnatural because your anus is not design for having sex,this could increase the change of sexual transmitted disease.Pedophile is unnatural as well because children are not physical mature for child bearing.Pregnancy complication death among adolescent girls are much more greater risk than older woman, According to one study by kolarsky and colleague 54 examined the relationship between 'sexual deviation' age of lesion onset and localisation of lesion.It has been shown that homosexual has been link to frontal lobe injury which would be one reason why to be classified homosexual as a mental disorder and sexual deviation.It is also included pedophile as well.http://www.conservapedia.com...
Homosexuality has Little to No Correlation to Pedophillia

DSM-I first edition has been outdated for over 60 years. And, a defective document with no credible research created by biased doctors was the cause of the conclusion. And, I remember you saying in another debate, (http://www.debate.org...) that pedophilia is no longer considered a mental illness. You can't have it both ways. In fact, nervousness was seen as a disorder in those days. modern psychology has found multiple errors in DSM-I. This was before the pseudopatient experiments, which found many issues determining mental disorders and mentally ill from mentally stable, which took place under DSM-II. http://www.psychologyinaction.org... https://en.m.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... So, you want to have pedophilia declassified as a disorder and classified a sexuality, but homosexuality, declassified as a disorder almost 40 years prior, is not a sexuality, but a disease? And, you expect criminals to obey laws preventing them from sexually abusing someone because of laws? Correlation does not equal connection. If ice cream sales go up, and pizza sales go up, are they linked?
Homosexuality has Little to No Correlation to Pedophillia

Well homosexual is a mental illness and sexual deviation similar to pedophilia. Alongside the DSM-I (first edition) has classified them as a one type of paraphilia it has not been declassified until 1970s where homosexual group lobbying to accept their sexuality.Since the time of lawrence v.texas decision ,struck down sodomy law in 14 states in 2003,child sexual abuse has been more prevalent and rising.I am personally against LGBT social movement because legalizing homosexuality would lead to acceptance of pedophilia too.
Homosexuality has Little to No Correlation to Pedophillia

Well for some people might argue that homosexual and pedophile has nothing in Common but in my opinion there is a strong Association between two since both are unnatural and sick. According to recently study Archive Sexual behaviour publish by a sexologist Blanchard Point to the fact that 80% of homo/bi sexual men are pedophile. Anyway pedophile and homosexual are among the most Society hatred people. In Saudi arabia for example they could be executed or beheaded.
Homosexuality has Little to No Correlation to Pedophillia

Hello, all. I will be debating with stephannoi, an individual who believes that homosexuality and pedophilia are linked, possibly genetically. If this debate goes well, I may consider another debate with him, and I look forward to a lively debate. This debate is open voting, select winner. BoP is on me. R1- Acceptance/reason for acceptance, if desired R2- Arguments. To clairify, nothing can be refuted in this round. R3- Refutations. No arguments, just refutations. R4- Conclusions. No new arguments. Definitions- Homosexuality- being attracted to one's own sex Pedophilia- sexual desire in an adult for a child http://www.dictionary.com... http://www.dictionary.com... My reason for making this debate is fairly obvious, I am gay, and am adamantly opposed to pedophilia and am personally insulted by the accusation of homosexuals being tied to pedophilia. Clarifications This is not a debate on if homosexuality is good or bad, natural or unnatural, a mental disorder or not a mental disorder. I ask that any attempts to make it a debate on any one of these be ignored. Good luck to my opponent, and I look forward to a good, lively, complete debate.
" TV {prime time} tries to run head & head VS. cable and XXX movies".

Hey hi, I would love to gather other ppls insight. Do we really need or desire more lust in {prime time} just to keep it fresh and grab a younger deamagraphic? I feel we must{otherwise the marketing will fail..a.k.a. the TV shows they slap ads on}. I need more then the lust they put our there. I feel if CSI:CI along with many other topic TV..When did it become "okay we can say, laid, ball and so many other tacky words". Hey it is the real world, I'm tired of dealing with it each day & night..I have yet to seek solace and a few good jokes in a comedy. We should not sell our souls-- I'm well aware Hollywood has taken care of that. How many ppl feel we should keep going deeper and dirtier? Do we have anybody who feels as I do, save that for "making Love"..I have many places I can go for "passion" I don't need it shoved down my throat. Open to any ideas....
" TV {prime time} tries to run head & head VS. cable and XXX movies".

Ok, so first of all my opponent in essence gave up on the topic at hand, and wants to discuss other things, which is fine, but probably wasn't the best thing to do in a debate. My opponent says how it is now typical to say somewhat obscene words on TV, and how that is bad. However, I feel that in our constantly evolving society, a great deal of things change with each generation, and that what might be obscene twenty years ago is now perfectly acceptable. An example of this is with novels. During the eighteenth century, many people thought they were grotesque and atrocious. Now you hear high school student complain because that is what they are being forced to read. You can see that many things change throughout the years in society, and swear words on television is just one of them. Also, I would just like to say that the many things my opponent concerning our great nation disgusts me, and I am outraged that one can feel that way about America, even in it's current rough patch. Some of the only reasons you can say things against our government only shows the kind of freedom and liberty that the US has that other countries can only dream of. You say how we are the "land of the homeless" and that we are a "third world country", however we are one of the most wealthy and productive nations in the world, and the fact that less than one percent of America comes even close to being homeless (http://www.nypirg.org...)just shows how successful of a nation we are. In addition, you state how "most countries despise us", but what you fail to realize is that in fact we have more allies and business partners throughout the world than almost any other nation, so this could not be farther from the truth. Before you say acidic things against our nation, please do your research first. Thank you.
" TV {prime time} tries to run head & head VS. cable and XXX movies".

Hey hi, {pretty formal} I agree , I have flipped. My point was one of the language TV can slip by with now. When has it become "typical" to say "layed, hump, screw, just to name a few. I see that Two and 1 & half man, get away with a lot. I don't mind hearing it now{sons are grown}. So in the effort to play catch up, network TV {won't be around, that too will be phased out}. They right sexier lines and have each group of kids, struggle as we had. I feel if we have the answers, why not tell our children. So much of rap has taught them thee negatives, we must try and unsrew as much as possible. I feel there are far too many variables here. As far as America goes, it is the land of the free & homeless. Most countries despise us. When I think back on Hurricane Katrina & how Bush made the U.S. AGAIN look like a third world country. We have 9/11 and oh so much more. I ask for space as I have veered of couse again. Have a good one on me, Regards & Peace, Miss Ruth A.Marland
" TV {prime time} tries to run head & head VS. cable and XXX movies".

Ok, so I am a little confused we are arguing about now. I thought what we were talking about was about how the fact Prime Time TV is becoming more risquï¿½ was bad, but you pretty much agreed with me when you said that they should "Do it, don't waste their time on disclaimers." So if you could clear this up so we can continue to debate, I would appreciate it. In addition, I just want to disagree with what you said when you stated that "Like always, America will sink its own ship." I feel that time and time again, America has been a shining example for other nations of the world to imitate of the ideals of liberty, equality, freedom, and justice. We have had amazing success on a vast amount of ventures, and only in very recent past has America even had a slight trace of failure. And while our current leadership may not be up to scratch, this will only cause a change in the way our nation is run, and will only benefit our society as a whole. Thank you.
" TV {prime time} tries to run head & head VS. cable and XXX movies".

Oh thanks so much for that recap on America and media. As far as Janet Jackson goes, I could care less{it was a bad pr stunt}. I never felt it should have got all the media talking. Did they forget we have a war going on? I'm far from frigid, I have spent the better part of thee 1980's teaching my two sons about "skinamax" bc I felt they were getting as much sex and blood with "Die Hard"..If you are going to show then one I have to show then both{good, bad and thee ugly}. My sons are 24 & 26, and I'm pleased with thee outcome. I think if FOX is going to try & take on Showtime along with HBO...Do it, don't waste you're time on disclaimers..Let us pray that this group of parents will take the time out and discuss each Q you're child has. The world needs help..corp. America as always will sink its own ship. Thats a take{poor one}. Peace, Ruth
" TV {prime time} tries to run head & head VS. cable and XXX movies".

First of all, I would just like to say welcome to the site. No it will be slightly hard to disprove some of my opponents arguments, so I will mainly deal philosophically and politically, rather than analytically or statistically. Our great and amazing nation is based off of relatively simple principles, and the constitution, which was created in a somewhat libertarian fashion, clearly states that all Americans are guaranteed the rights of "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." In addition, the capitalistic economy we have currently is fed by competetion, competition our economy is highest and most productive when companies are allowed to do as they wish with less government regulation. Now, you feel that we have too much "lust" and "tacky words" in our current media, and that something should be done to prevent this. However, I feel that this would be violation of our liberties, and that the prime time networks are solely competing with other forms of media to attract that many more viewers, causing more advertisement sales, and therefore a better economy. So this on the whole is beneficial to America, and only helps us. In addition, we are having these things "forced down our throats", however, I feel that not only are they not that apparent, but that we are having too much regulation. The uproar that was caused by quote-unquote "Nipplegate" during the 2004 Superbowl with Janet Jackson was entirely uncalled for, as people became WAY too sensitive about this accidental slip. This caused far more governmental interference oin our media, and I feel that even more of this regulation will only snowball into more governmental control and an authoritarian state (which is happening right now). So, no, I feel that many media companies are A) only doing what they need to do to survive in this ever growing economy, B) Have too much governmental regulation already, C) Are not NEARLY as bad as other forms of televesion (television Porn), and D) Are just evolving in the everchanging society. Thank you. P.S. For next time, it may be easier to do a quick run through before posting it, as some of the things you said were hard to understand, and therefore hard to respond to. Thank you very much.
If the united states reinstated the draft, both men and women should be forced to serve.

Thank you to con, but I have to tear through your argument now. 1) Don't underestimate the Home-front! Doesn’t it seem sexist to assume that only women can take care of the home front. If women could be drafted, a substantial amount of men would not be drafted, and they could help take care of the so-called “home front”. 2) “Women worked in the factories manufacturing rifles, tanks, airplanes, bombs, explosives, and other supplies while the men fought” This is true, but personally, I would rather work in a bomb factory where I control my own fate. Rather than go storm the beach at Normandy, facing land mines, barbed wire, artillery, machine guns, the Luftwaffe, shrapnel, emotional trauma, tanks, rockets and drowning. Substantially more men died in combat than women in bomb factories did. 3) What about the children. If the government offers exemptions for being a “conscientious objector”, they would have to make exemptions that if one parent was drafted, the other could not be drafted. 4) Thus drafting women is irrational since they already contribute heavily to the war front Women contribute heavily to the war effort, but how is it fair that only men can be forced against their will to stand downrange of a bullet. I don’t feel like women should be able to stay home in a time of war to advance their careers, and avoid the horrors of war, while 18 year-old boys are dragged away from home with the very real possibility they may not return. I will finish by saying, that in a time where the country is desperate and a draft is needed, traditional gender roles need to be abandoned for the sake of defending the country. Any woman experiences the same benefits that America has to offer to men, and therefore they have the same duty to defend the United States as any man. So drafting women is rational because they can contribute to the war effort alongside the men, such as they do in Israel (A country that faces extermination at the hands of its neighbors on a regular basis). There is no reason women should not be drafted, and there is no reason that strong women cannot go into combat.
If the united states reinstated the draft, both men and women should be forced to serve.

I don't know why pro has ripped his own case with pre-emptive rebuttals about pregnancy, physique, and rape, but it does connote his limitations on the issue to the standard arguments. Rebuttal; 1. Don't underestimate the Home-front! My opponent does not realize that women contribute heavily in times of war in the Home-front. The argument "Feminists cannot argue for equality if females are not willing to die on the front lines along-side the men. If only men could be conscripted, that would not be equality, it would be a "have your cake and eat it too" situation for women." is nothing more than a straw man accusation. Now let me explain why. Women worked in the factories manufacturing rifles, tanks, airplanes, bombs, explosives, and other supplies while the men fought. While it is true that men risked their lives fighting, but women also risked their lives manufacturing explosive ordinance as one mistake would set back manufacturing for days or weeks and cost the lives of the women. 2. What about the children. My opponent tries to alleviate this issue with temporary exemptions for pregnant women, but my opponent does not take into account the possibility of both parents serving in the armed forces. If both parents are drafted simultaneously where do their kids go? My opponent may counter this contention with other relatives, but it should be noted that the other relatives may be drafted as well. Plus their may also be estrangement issues between grandparents and the parents. So then what? Thus drafting women is irrational since they already contribute heavily to the war front, and due to the issue of at least one legal guardian raising their kids.
If the united states reinstated the draft, both men and women should be forced to serve.

The femenist movement has argued for suffrage, equal pay, and a general equal footing with men. But in a time of war, how can they request this indiscriminate equality if they will not go to war amongst the men who are conscripted. Femenists cannot argue for equality if females are not willing to die on the front lines along-side the men. If only men could be conscripted, that would not be equality, it would be a "have your cake and eat it too" situation for women. Also women have the same duty as any man to defend their country. They cannot argue that they are second class citizens in an age of equality and equal pay, therefore they should have to register with the sss. Pre-emptive rebuttals There would have to be exemptions for pregnant women (maybe like deferrment until the child is one year old) just like there are exemptions for students. The ability of women to bear children is not an excuse to Dodge the draft. Second, women may be physically weaker per standard deviation, but this would not bar the strongest women from serving in combat, nor the weaker women from serving in support roles. This could free up men for combat roles in the military. Third, female soldiers may be susceptible to rape as a weapon of torture. But men are subject to equally horrific acts such as sodomy, burning alive or dragging as experienced in Mogadishu. So the threat of rape by the enemy should not keep women out of the draft.
Immaculate Conception: Bible & Patristics

Serious takers only. This debate is for Catholics or for Devil's advocate that is knowledgeable about the dogma of Roman Catholicism about Immaculate Conception. RULES: "Both the Protestant Bible and ECF ( sub-apostolic and pre-nicene church Fathers) can be used in this debate challange). Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Arguments Round 3: Rebuttal Round 4: Conclusion NOTES: http://www.ewtn.com... http://www.newadvent.org... http://www.philvaz.com...
Abortion

This argument Pitts a child's life v. consequences. This is what we did in our opening, which sounds more appealing. I will prove to you that a fetus is human. There are many definitions in this debate, whether you say brain or the heart or waking etc. A fetus is a human for various reasons. 1. Has human DNA so it's scientifically human. 2. can wake and sleep 3. has finger prints etc. so these are some human attributes a fetus has. Here's a site that has some more proof for this: http://collegian.csufresno.edu... SO that being said, it is against a Hippocratic oath that doctors take when becoming a doctor. Every American doctor must take this fundamental oath, which says "First, do no harm". It threatens the very fabric of the entire medical field if doctors start using their own personal philosophies on life to decide who should or shouldn't be harmed. Whether or not you think abortion should be allowed, it cannot be disputed that a doctor is harming a living organism. Killing a human being doesn't serve any higher medical purpose and is therefore a violation of the oath. Abortion exposes women to various health risks and the danger of losing fertility. Abortion exposes woman to a number of health risks including, but not limited to, infection, sterility, and in rare cases, death. A number of short-term symptoms such as bleeding, fever, nausea, and vomiting are also common.
Abortion

Abortion isn't all bad. Imagine a woman getting raped, and then getting pregnant. Wouldn't having to deliver the baby just bring back painstaking memories, and horrible misfortunes? Also, sometimes, as with everything, accidents happen. Sometimes, a person isn't ready for a child yet, and all they can do is abort it. Abortion also prevents a severely mal-formed baby from having to struggle through life. Sometimes, abortion is the safest way (for both mother and child) to get yourself out of a corner.