BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: On Balance, Gay Marriage is Good

Observation THis debate is not about a gay marriage ban; it is if gay marriage is good or not relative to heterosexual marriage. According to studies by Mark Regnerus, http://www.markregnerus.com... "The data collection was conducted by Knowledge Networks (or KN), a research firm with a very strong record of generating high-quality data for academic projects. Knowledge Networks recruited the first online research panel, dubbed theKnowledgePanel, that is representative of the US population. Members of the KnowledgePanel are randomly recruited by telephone and mail surveys, and households are provided with access to the Internet and computer hardware if needed." Proving the study is unbiased. "The NFSS completed full surveys with 2988 Americans between the ages of 18 and 39."< Had a much larger test group than those previously done. Previous studies would have , say, 30 families. http://www.womenofgrace.com... This graph is the results. Children who have gay parents are much worse off, including worse education, employment, and were sexually harassed by an adult much more often. http://downloads.frc.org... "A 2008 "meta-analysis" reviewed over 13,000 papers on this subject and compiled the data from the 28 most rigorous studies. Their conclusion was: "LGB [lesbian, gay, bisexual] people are at higher risk of mental disorder, suicidal ideation, substance misuse and deliberate self harm than heterosexual people." This proves, that on balance, gay marriage is bad. "In 2009, a gay newspaper reported, "Gay and bisexual men account for half of new HIV infections in the U.S. and have AIDS at a rate more than 50 times greater than other groups, according to Centers for Disease Control & Prevention data ." "Although not as dramatic, similar problems are also found among lesbians. In 2007, a medical journal reported, "Women who identified as lesbians have a 2.5-fold increased likelihood of BV [bacterial vaginosis] compared with heterosexual women.Although not as dramatic, similar problems are also found among lesbians. In 2007, a medical journal reported, "Women who identified as lesbians have a 2.5-fold increased likelihood of BV [bacterial vaginosis] compared with heterosexual women." "In fact, a study of 229 convicted child molesters in Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual."63 Since almost thirty percent of child sexual abuse is committed by homosexual or bisexual men (onethird male-on-male abuse times 86% identifying as homosexual or bisexual), but less than 3% of American men identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual,64 we can infer that homosexual or bisexual men are approximately ten times more likely to molest children than heterosexual men." Gay marriages allow for gay couples to molest children more, which is a fact that is proven. http://www.cfcidaho.org... Children need both parents to do well. Conclusion Gay marriage, is on balance, worse off for the kids
Minors Should not be Charged with Felonies Due to Sexting

My opponent's argument flows as follows. A) No adult-induced child sexual abuse results in [images produced by sexting's] production. B) Since no adult-induced child sexual abuse occurs, it is not a violation of first amendment rights. Rebuttal: I think if we simply look at the definition of the two words in question we will see the answer. Child: a person between birth and full growth [1] Pornography: writings, pictures, films, etc, designed to stimulate sexual excitement [2] Sexting: the act of sending sexually explicit messages or photographs, primarily between mobile phones. [3] Sexting is the act of one person sending sexually explicit photographs or videos to another person with the hopes of stimulating them sexually. Often times these messages are designed to entice the receiver into participating in sexual acts later. By all definitions it fits the definition of Pornography. When a person under the age of 18 participates in this, they are by definition creating pornographic images of a child. While I do not disagree with the idea that perhaps the punishment for minors should be different than it is for adults, I do believe that they should be charged with a felony crime. Similar to how children who commit murder are still charged with a felony, but the punishment is different. Let me pose a question to the readers to consider. If a child rapes another child, is it not abuse simply because there was no adult-induced child sexual abuse? Of course not, the child is still abused and objectified. The same is true in the case of sexting. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] I apologize for the use of Wikipedia, Sexting is not a term that has been defined in dictionaries so my choice was between wiki and urban dictionary... between the two, Wiki wins. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Minors Should not be Charged with Felonies Due to Sexting

Prosecution of juvenile sexting has recently become a hot-button issue due to the harsh felonious penalties associated with the dissemination of sexually explicit images of minors. Minors throughout the nation have been prosecuted for producing, possessing, and/or distributing child pornography the penalty of which has been a combination of prolonged prison terms, fines up to $10,000, and/or registration as a sex offender under the jurisdictional Meghan's Laws While consensually-produced images may fall within the traditional notion of child pornography, no adult-induced child sexual abuse results in its production as to render it outside the protection of the First Amendment Protection. This, coupled with the degree of privacy rights enjoyed by minors in connection with intimate relationships, warrants treating self-produced material as something different than child pornography. In this debate, I will argue that sexted images fall outside the scope of child pornography laws and charging minors with child pornography penalties falls within protection of the First Amendment- freedom of expression.
Creationism should not be taught in science

Creationism, as some scientists embrace it, does involve scientific principles beyond its spiritual/philosophical core. While picking and choosing theories may be necessary by school policy and educational core, ideally a school wanting to teach students how to think would teach scientific thinking rather than one specific theory over another, making the evolution vs creationism a mute point. If supported scientific thinking, rather than evolution, creationism, or whatever in specifics, was taught, we'd likely have a stronger foundation in scientific thinking.
Creationism should not be taught in science

The idea of giving children a fair look is a valid point, but I believe that this can happen by teaching creationism in philosophy instead. This would keep the distinction between science and religion clear, as one uses evidence and one is completely faith-based. Teaching creationism in science would give children the wrong idea of what evidence is. Creationism is not a scientific theory, as it cannot be tested or proved in any (scientific) way. if we teach creationism in science, we may as well teach every creation story from every belief, as they have just as much scientific evidence as creationism. If we teach creationism in science, we will be bringing up a generation of scientists who have the completely wrong idea of proof and evidence. As such, many ludicrous false theories could be "proved" to be true based on the understanding of evidence we have taught these people. This is of course a bit extreme, but I think it proves how damaging teaching non-science in science could be.
Creationism should not be taught in science

According to your original debate challenge, this debate is in regards to whether or not creationism should not be taught in science. As Creationism is often considered in the popular sense, yes, it would make more sense in a philosophy class. But there are scientists who assume Creationism as true and continue to apply scientific principles about it--logically speaking, no miracle is magically assumed. Thus, creationism in a less spiritual sense could be taught as yet another theory, giving another option for students to consider and select. Though I myself am a happy believer of evolution, I feel we may possibly be doing students a disservice by being overly selective of what they are exposed to. You seem to propose that trust matters more than a fair look at all evidence, that students will be more likely to pick whatever they are taught. This is, in many sense, quite true, but it also puts evolution as just another story the teacher tells. Do students believe in evolution because they selected it after looking at evidence, or because a trusted teacher told them about it? A fair look at both evolution and creationism will provide opportunity for students to think for themselves rather than putting all trust in a teacher.
Creationism should not be taught in science

"In an educational setting that allows free thought (quite common) children can consider information presented and draw their conclusions--and continue to do so for the rest of their learning careers. In that regard, creationism is hardly a threat to the teaching of evolution (or vice versa)." This is the only bit I could find in your argument that makes a case for teaching creationism in Science. However, as you yourself said, this could also be taught in philosophy, not in Science. Teaching creationism as a valid scientific theory goes completely against the principles of science. Children would be learning that faith-based evidence is perfectly adequate for the formation of a scientific theory, when it clearly isn't. As to the idea that children would be able to draw their own conclusions, if you are continually told something is true by respected and trusted individuals such as your teachers, chances are that is what your are going to believe.
Creationism should not be taught in science

Though evolution is certainly a widely accepted theory that many if most not scientists consider standard, it still remains a theory that does have its missing parts. Creationism, while unable to compete properly in regards to scientific theory, does manage to fill in some gaps with its own theories. (As this debate was set up to discuss the lack of merits in teaching creationism rather than as a evolution vs creationism debate, I propose those theories be set aside in the discussion unless the Prop argument finds them crucial to the argument.) At this time, still some scientists state that some parts of life are better explained by theories other than evolution. Still remaining is the fact that a fairly significant portion of the population does believe in Creationism and these people are included in the school system. Should their requests for a certain subject be denied? It is, after all, their tax money or, in the case of private schools, their dollars. Of course, as stated in the Prop position, Creationism could still in this case be taught in school--just not in the science class. However, adding another theory to the mix taught in science classes will give students much to think about. Children are naturally curious and I would argue, not stupid. In an educational setting that allows free thought (quite common) children can consider information presented and draw their conclusions--and continue to do so for the rest of their learning careers. In that regard, creationism is hardly a threat to the teaching of evolution (or vice versa).
Creationism should not be taught in science

Science in schools is taught as a set of theories to help explain and predict actions in the world. These theories use empirical evidence to support their claims, and it is only when a hypothesis has been continually tested and proved to work that it becomes a scientific theory, and can be taught in schools. Note that all scientists would not say that a theory is necessarily true, it is only incredibly likely to be true, based on the empirical evidence. In contrast, creationism is a belief which is not backed up by empirical evidence, nor can it be repeatedly tested, so straight away falls short from being a scientific theory. If something is not a scientific theory then it cannot be taught in science. Imagine if the idea that the earth were hollow (or something equally ridiculous) was taught as a actual valid theory. There would be uproar, as such a belief has no base in the evidence required for a scientific theory. To conclude, although I have no problem with creationism being taught in religious studies, as it is a viewpoint from a position of faith as to why/how the Earth was made, it does not meet the requirements for a scientific theory, and as such, to teach it in science would to reject why science exists, which is to create rules based on testing, not faith.
Are blacks the most violent race

My opponent has once again shown an inability to distinguish between a correlation and causation. He has presented statistics yes, but has been unable to directly link an individuals race to his/her propensity to commit violence, As the Pro has yet again failed to directly link his contentions to his resolution I urge the judges to vote Con. Remember that because the burden of proof is the Pro's, he must that prove that race is the direct factor that causes blacks to commit violence more than other races, not that they are statistically more likely to commit violence crimes. He must prove that such things as education and economic class are not the underlying causes for individuals to commit crimes of violence, as I have argued, but that blacks commit acts of violence simply because they are black. The Con rejects this concept entirely on both pragmatic and philosophical grounds, as accepting that blacks are more violent than other races promotes racism, hate and violence in turn. One of the most famous and base concepts of US law and the US government is that "All men are created equal", and a vote for the Pro only denies this most base of concepts.
Are blacks the most violent race

For this round I would like to remind the judges that statistics are not always relevant, and to list some examples, even ones to do with crime does not necessarily mean they matter. Here are a few TRUE facts that are irrelevant: More than 98% of convicted felons are bread eaters. More than 90% of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread. In the 18th century when over half of all bread was made in the home, the average life expectancy was under 50 years, infant mortality rates were unacceptably high, and diseases such as typhoid yellow fever and influenza ravaged many nations. Fully half of all children who grow up in bread eating households score below average on standardized tests. --The Dangers of Bread, Cincinnati Enquirer, April 29, 2010 All of the above statistics are true, but they are completely meaningless. The pro must prove that being black causes an individual to have a predetermined, inherent violent attitude. All of the pro's statistics are meaningless, I could argue likewise that whites have killed more people through genocide that blacks, or that whites kill more whites than blacks do but that is also meaningless. None of these things prove that a black individual is automatically more inclined to commit violence than a white individual. The pro has the burden of proof and as such must show that an individual being black directly causes them to commit violent acts.
Are blacks the most violent race

Home > Opinions > Society > Are black people the most violent race? Add to My Favorites Report Topic Debate This Topic Create New Topic Are black people the most violent race? Asked by: Mherzer Related Topics: Race, United States, African American, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, Barack Obama Are black people the most violent race? 40% Say Yes 60% Say No Yes, just look at police studies... You tell me... Major Findings " Police and the justice system are not biased against minorities. Crime Rates " Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder and eight times more likely to commit robbery. " When blacks commit crimes of violence, they are nearly three times more likely than non-blacks to use a gun, and more than twice as likely to use a knife. " Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white rate, and Asians commit violent crimes at about one quarter the white rate. " The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic. Interracial Crime " Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involv- ing blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent. " Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty- five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black. " Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery. " Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa. Gangs " Only 10 percent of youth gang members are white. " Hispanics are 19 times more likely than whites to be members of youth gangs. Blacks are 15 times more likely, and Asians are nine times more likely. Incarceration " Between 1980 and 2003 the US incarceration rate more than tripled, from 139 to 482 per 100,000, and the number of prisoners increased from 320,000 to 1.39 million. " Blacks are seven times more likely to be in prison than whites. Hispanics are three times more likely. Source: http://www.Colorofcrime.Com...
Are blacks the most violent race

Before beginning I would like to remind the judges that the burden of proof rests in the hands of the pro, that the pro must prove that being black is a directly linked factor to wither or not you will commit a violent act. My first contention is that the factors of economic class, and education are the biggest factors in statistically determining wither or not an individual will commit an act of violence. Those who are poor, and uneducated are statistically more likely to commit violent crimes. The black community itself is disproportionately more likely to face poverty and a lack of education, but this is due to a history of disadvantage, not an inherent racial trait. My second contention is that the resolution is in itself, self defeating. It assumes that a trait which is applied to individuals can be broadly used to define an entire group of people. Even from a sociological perspective, you cannot use traits of large groups to define individuals when dealing with ascribed characteristics. Though crime statistics may show that a higher percentage of blacks commit a violent act than whites, this cannot be used to make direct statements about black people, because to do so is a fallacy of Argumentum ad Hominem and a false cause fallacy. You cannot definitively say that because an individual is black, they will commit a violent act. Both of the points above should provide amply evidence to support the con.
Premarital Sex

I would ask you to notice that this is in the health department. I am con to premarital sex because of the health problems that arise. Your rather feisty comments are based around personal experience and are not backed up by proper sources. Calling my views backwards and screwed up is a waste of characters. This has nothing to do with religion! So relax. There are many consequences caused from premarital sex. http://iosrjournals.org...... 1.Neurological Problems When having sex, both man and women produce hormones that affect the brain. Dopamine a chemical compared to heroin is released affecting the brains ability to remember. Another chemical that is released mainly in the women is Oxytocin. Known as a bonding hormone, this is linked to mothers ability to die for their child. So when having sex the bonding hormone is released making the women bonded to him or her emotionally. Men on the other hand produce vasopressin also known as the "monogamy hormone". It has the same affect on the male. He is bonded to her emotionally. http://www.charismanews.com...... 2. Higher risk of STDs Obviously when you have sex more than a few times with different people, you have a much higher risk of STDs. With premarital sex no one can be sure that your sweetheart hasn't been sweet with another. 3. Social Problems Regret is a finding for many people have had premarital sex. This may lead to loss of self respect, loss of others respect, poor academic performance, depression, corruption of character and a list of social problems for both men and women. http://iosrjournals.org...... I look forward to your response.
Premarital Sex

Pro has to prove why premarital sex is right while I prove the opposite. Definitions. Premarital: occurring or existing before marriage https://www.google.ca...... Sex: (chiefly with reference to people) sexual activity, including specifically sexual intercourse. https://www.google.ca...... Round Structure: R1 Make your arguments. R2 Arguments/Rebuttals R3 Closing Remarks. You can address previous arguments, but don't offer new ones.
R is a vowel

English evolves with time, yes. English (unlike Spanish and many languages) lacks a central authority.In no dictionary at all that is in any way official or reputable, will you find R listed as a vowel. I cannot supply evidence for a lack of something. Look at Oxford dictionary, Merriam-Webster... You name it? R is a vowel in this day and age of English's evolution.So, before you come preaching to me that English is a very flexible and evolving language, how abou tyou prove that in its current state of evolution, 'r/R' is a vowel.Sorry to tell you, but even Indians learn English respecting the dictionaries that I just mentioned. Oxford and Cmabridge dictionaries are well-reputed and Pro has yet to provide a shred of evidence that 'r' is a vowel.A non-American and non-Canadian, as well as non-Spanish (and other R-rolling mother-tongue speakers) are all going to ignore the R's in perturb and say 'pa-tuhb'. So where do they say the R? You also need to understand, the accent and pronounciation of a letter isn't how it's labelled as a consonant or a vowel:You actually will find that it's the American accent (and Candian, Spanish accents) where R is undeniably a consonant whereas the softer-r-speaking ones make it more ambiguous. You are using the wrong accents to back your case but even in English accents, if the R is at the end or start of the word or just before a vowel, then the consonant-nature of it is absolutely clear to hear"Consonants require more precise articulation than vowels, which is why children find them harder to learn, and often end up in speech therapy after having become so cross at not being understood that they’ve started hitting people." "Most syllables contain a vowel, though vowel-like consonants can occasionally be syllables. And to complicate matters, many English vowels are technically two or three vowels shmooshed together."- https://www.spelfabet.com.au..."How consonants are produced Saying consonant sounds involves constricting airflow in different locations in your mouth by: briefly stopping then releasing the air (“p”, “b”, “t”, “d”, “k”, “g”), diverting the airflow and associated resonance to your nose (“m”, “n”, “ng”), squeezing the air through a narrow space (“th” as in “thin”, “th” as in “then”, “f”, “v”, “s”, “z”, “sh”, “zh” as in “vision”, “h”, and in posh dialects, “wh”), combining stopping then squeezing (“ch”, “j”), or narrowing the vocal tract (“w”, “y”, “r”, “l”)." (same link https://www.spelfabet.com.au...)