BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Clerical Celibacy

Hi, Firstly, I sincerely apologise for forfeiting the previous round.Due to certain personal reasons, i don't think i can come online next week.I am also sorry that i won't be able to give detailed arguments due to lack of time. Next, I would like to add that a significant number of Catholic priests are married.Upto 20% of them have wives, so the claim that the catholic church has banned marriage itself for priests is de-bunked.Even in the western Catholic tradition i would like to remind you that it is merely a disciplinary decision, *not* dogma. Rebuttal #1:Exclusive Clerical Order is Not part of the Catholic teaching This is not a part of catholic dogma, so i wonder why this was brought up.The catholic church also upholds the universal priesthood of all its members, and most of its members are laity and can get married. but, the church also maintains that there is a heirarchy to this.Even in the early churches, members used to elect elders to represent and guide them.Bishops and Elders are even mentioned in the bible, and it makes sense that some people will be more religiously inclined than others. Rebuttal #2:The letter to Titus bans polygamy If married life was an absolute necessity to lead the church, then St.Paul would be undermining his own authority to be a leader of the church as he himself was celibate. Thinking about it some more,Jesus would have no authority to lead the church as he had no experience about family life too.St.Augustine, St.Jerome(who translated the bible), and most of the early desert fathers and leaders of the church who played a seminal role in the development of Christianity, had no clue about family life as they were all celibate. Tradition has been one of the driving forces of the catholic church. A mere disciplinary action enforcing this long and rich tradition cannot be wrong. I am sorry that i could post a reasonable argument for this debate due to lack of time.I am just curious to see your response though. CynicalDiogenes
Clerical Celibacy

Hi,The discussuion we had about this in the last debate really made me introspect about my stand on this issue.I was shocked to learn that even Buddhist monks who i hold in high regard were accused of pedophilia.I really appreciate the logical arguments you make, and really enjoyed the debate last time.Nevertheless, i am still unconvinced and would like to debate this to further understand the reasons for your stand.Basic rules apply:1.1st round for acceptance,2nd round for openning statements, 3rd round for rebuttals.2.The 4th round can be for more rebuttals, or can be used for answering questions(you can raise them in the previous round for me), I want to experiment with the format if it's ok with you.3. 5th round for closing statements.I've set the max argument size to 10,000 charachters, and would like more detailed arguments.I hope i am not taking too much of your time.I wish i could give more time for posting arguments, but the max that is allowed is 72 hours.Looking forward to another interesting debate. Regards, CynicalDiogenes
Resolved: Gays should be put down

I would like to begin my part of this debate by outlining a few key points.; 1. Gays are so inferior to all organisms their mere prescence is harmful to both national and global security. If you think about it, whenever you are near a gay you just think OMFG ITS A GAY and you get distracted which can lead to harm. Now, if a gay were to be viewed on international television so many people would become distracted that the world would fall into chaos. 2. Gays are so inferior they do not deserve life. These 1/14th humans are not alive therefore they shoudl die. 3. Gays are so inferior that if they were to labor as you suggested, their work would cause more harm than good. When forced to work, they would merely refuse to work efficiently and safely which will lead to putting themselves in harmful situations and die anywaysm, so why not just put them down in the first place. Therefore i urge the voters to affrim the resolution.
Gun Control Is Bad (BROAD)

1.(No links or sources unless one of us asks for one) I want to have a logical and reasonable debate. Most pro-gun control people slap a few poorly made sources without understanding the concept of what they are arguing. I rather keep the argument towards logistics of why gun control is bad and what causes gun crime, and the specifics of why gun control won't largely change these factors. All in all you need to be able to defend your argument with your own words and not rely solely on "sources". 2.No trolls/idiots/source-whores. ------------------------------- I want the argument to be HOW gun control is bad and the reasons around it. I will go into further detail when I receive a rebuttal. ARGUMENT: Gun control is bad for the law abiding citizens. 1.Most anti-gun activists say banning guns will disarm gangs and criminals, but gangs and criminals obviously still get guns and it leaves the population under-armed or defenseless (Look at Mexico and Europe, strict gun laws only means the criminals have guns.. For example France has some of the highest gun control in the world) Need I say automatic weapons were banned in Paris but 200+ people still died. Look at how well the war on drugs is (not) working in America. The same also would apply to guns. 2.Less gun control doesn't necessarily mean more overt gun deaths. Of course there are more accidental deaths and suicides by guns, but other reasons anti-gun activists like to use are purely situational of social-economic and geographical regions .(I will go into more detail when I get a rebuttal as to not overwhelm the first round) 3.How does the (PRO) explain the very low gun (crime and death) rate in America/Canada (and in Europe) from inception until about the 1970s when gun control was almost non-existent? 4.Automatics are banned almost all over the world yet it is relatively easy for anyone to modify most semi-automatics into being automatic. Criminals will be the only ones "allowed" to have automatic weapons. 5.Large gun magazines are banned almost all over the world yet it is relatively easy for anyone to modify most magazines into holding more ammunition.Criminals will be the only ones "allowed" to have high capacity magazines. 6. Armor-piercing, incendiary, tracer and light-explosive round are banned almost all over the world yet it is relatively easy for anyone to make their own ammunition. Criminals will be the only ones "allowed" to have these ammunition types.
Gun Control Is Bad (BROAD)

Con has failed to show that Gun Control is bad, when I have stated Gun Control is NOT about taking away guns from everyone but instead making it more difficult for people with ill intent to receieve a gun, even if it's just by a few minutes. He refuted my Bundy source because he did not read that today's situation with those terrorist started from years ago. He believes video games and shooting at a gun range will help people in a terrorist situation when instead and does not show proof, because it will get more people harmed. When asked to show his OWN sources for his BOP on Germany he simply just tells you to google it, when he does not want to click on the cited sources that shows the decline of gun violence and suicide rates in Australia. In conclusion, the only negative side that con has proven is that gun control makes law abiding citizens wait for their guns. Which shows it's still beneficial for people trying to get guns normally especially those that are suicidal at the time. Because in Australia suicide rates by guns dropped 74% while suicide rates by other means did not rise. Showing that helps people out as well as their crime rate due to gun violence dropping. Therefore gun control is beneficial to everyone except those will ill-intent. The reason is simple, it makes it more difficult for criminals to get their hands on guns. When they have to learn to deconstruct and reconstruct how to get their guns it takes time, to learn that skill, as well importing which takes a while. In the time it takes them to learn it, they have a higher chance at getting caught. Even them just looking for someone that can already do it has an inherent risk. He also contradicts himself when he says most mass shooters are done by psychopaths yet before in the earlier rounds when confronted with most mass shooters are white males, he says they just have anger problems. Con is not consistent with his argument. In the comments we see first hand the experience of a combat medic who tells me, no matter how much training people have there are those when the battle began that sucks there thumb in fetal position and those that are ready to die for their cause as well as everyone in between. However the "shiniest as he say it" always have a different look in their eyes after the first bullet begans to fly.
Obama

Playing with the technicality again... Lets examine your definitions one by one. 1. A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. - I emphasize that those voting for Obama because of his race are simply doing it to advance the cause of their own race, not because they think his race in any way makes him in any way superior. This definition is void. 2. Someone who shows racial prejudice or discrimination - I addressed this definition in the last round, however, I will restate briefly. Those voting based on Obama's race are not doing so out of prejudice or discrimination. They are voting for him based on the reasons I listed above. 3. Belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. - Again, it is not about the achievements of Obama's race or any delusions of superiority. Its about paving the way for African Americans all across America to meet similar achievements. Its to finally prove what African Americans are capable of, as well as inspire blacks all over the country! Now on to society. You may well consider an act based solely on skin color racist, but by definition, that will not always be the case. As to the white man who provided benefit to another white man based on race, there are two differences. a. It is one individual to another. Its not about advancing an entire race. The same rule would apply if it was a black man providing benefit to another black man because of his race. It would still be racism. b. White people have in the history or our country, been the dominant race. Only within the last few decades has that started to fade away. A lot more cautiousness could be (though i believe shouldnt have to be) exercised by a man whose race traditional discriminated against others, than by a man who was discriminated against. In other words... our history as white people has created a scar of bias taintedness as to our tendency to be racist. Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians will always think the worst of our possibly "racist" intentions because of the way our grandfathers treated their grandfathers. Sadly, its just the way our society has developed, and it can be expected.
Obama

What an eloquent argument indeed. Although, you conveniently missed a few other definitions of the word, ‘racist'. This for instance; "A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." Or this; "Someone who shows racial prejudice or discrimination." And my final one; "A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others." But I agree with you, a technical difference, but in this case I think you can prove showing racial prejudice or discrimination. I believe that performing any act, good or bad, based solely on the color of one's skin clearly falls into the category of racist. If you are voting for Obama just because you are black and Obama is black, that is an act of racism, not hate. And I agree again, in bad taste. I think we can also dispense with the technical argument and discuss society. If a white man said he was going to provide some benefit to another, only because that other person was white, he would by our society standards be labeled a racist.
Obama

Though I agree that those voting for Obama based on the color of his skin is in poor taste... I would not agree that it is racism for two reasons. 1. Racism involves the hatred of a particular race. Racism - hatred or intolerance of another race or other races (dictionary.com) These people are not exhibiting hatred of the white people at all, and thusly, are not exhibiting racism. ...but that is just a technicality... 2. The biggest reason i feel that they are not being racist is because of their intention. They do not feel that a black candidate would be more qulaified. They simply are hoping to advance a traditionally suppressed race. Never before has a black american come this far in the political arena. They are hoping that an Obama victory, regardless of his stance on the issues, would set a precident that black people are just as capable of white people, as well as break the "glass barrier" (often reffered to in reference to women in politics) of african american limitations. Simply, they feel like the benefits to the advancement of their race that would come from electing a black president are worth ignoring other issues for. They do not hate nor do they think a black american would be more qualified, and so, they cannot be considered racist.
ban islam

You already said that give facts to support your argument. Some Muslims follow Koran and those are the ones who need to be stopped. They are the ones miss interpreting the words of Muhammad. Not all Muslims are bad they just have faith in someone else. Besides the Muslims who practice radical Islam should be stopped because they are not only killing everyone of the opposite faith, but other Muslims who don't terrorize. They attacked a group of Muslim women that were going to school. Muslims are attacking Muslims. Yeah, they need to be stopped, but don't kill all of them and don't ban their religion. Even if you did, they'd secretly practice Islam.
ban islam

You can't ban a religion that is controlling. What if someone banned your religion? Plus, all Muslims don't practice radical Islam. Yes, they believe in Muhammad, but they also believe in God. They believe there are 7 levels in heaven and God is on the penthouse level. They believe Muhammad was the last savior after Jesus. I'm friends with a couple Muslims and I'm christian. And back in the day Americans terrorized Africa and brought them back as slaves. They did the same thing to the natives. They followed the christian faith, no one thinks of them as terrorists. Again they don't all practice radical Islam.
The BSA Should Allow Homosexuals

Resolved: The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) should allow homosexuals to be Scouts and leaders. Definitions: The only word that I really think needs to be explicitly defined here is Should- a moral obligation or duty. In saying that the BSA should do something, I am not saying that they are legally required to do something. I am merely arguing that morally, they ought to do something. Rules and Such Things: Pro has the burden of proof in this debate, however Con must successfully refute Pro’s arguments to win the debate. Insufficient argumentation from Pro without Con pointing out any flaws does not grant Con a win. The first round is for acceptance. Clarifications regarding the resolution, definitions, or any other preliminary matters should be brought up in the comments before accepting the debate. No abusive and/or semantically abusive arguments. Drops shall count as concessions. No new arguments in the final round. Thank you.
The BSA Should Allow Homosexuals

Moral standards are standards that are decided upon by our society to enable us to choose between two options. In cases of determining whether discrimination is justified, our society has established the use of an evaluation of Justice. Merriam-Webster Online provides a definition for justice as: “the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments. ” [1] In Aristotle’s words, treating equals as equals and unequals as unequals. [2] A preliminary question: Would my opponent consider it morally acceptable for the BSA to exclude a black person because of his race? If the question is answered using Justice as our standard, the answer is clearly no. Black and white people are equally capable of being scouts and leaders, therefore treating them unequally is unjust. So then, I ask the question: Why does my opponent consider it acceptable for the BSA to discriminate against the inclusion of homosexuals? Homosexuals and heterosexuals are equally capable to function as scouts and leaders, therefore treating them unequally is unjust, and by extension, not morally acceptable. This is the basic reason why I consider the affirmation of the resolution to be superior to its negation. Now, the current reason given by the BSA for their discrimination is the part of the Scout Pledge that pertains to a scout being morally straight [3]. It is important to note that it says morally straight, not sexually straight. So what this justification is saying is that homosexuality is morally crooked. However, I see no reason to consider homosexuality, or more specifically homosexual acts, immoral. Additionally, if one wishes to claim that homosexual acts are immoral, it would be unjust to refrain from making the same claim about heterosexual acts of the same nature (i. e. oral sex, etc. ) That is all I really have to say at this point, so I’ll turn it over to my opponent. Sources: [1]- . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2]- . http://www.pages.drexel.edu... [3]- . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Operation Northwoods Proves That The US May Be Capable Of Endorsing Or Committing Terrorism

"It is my opinion the Operation Northwoods proves that the US may be capable of endorsing or committing terrorism." And yet Operation Northwoods (a terrorist proposal according to PRO) was ultimately rejected by civilian leadership through the Kennedy Administration (not endoresed by the US government). Also, PRO's original resolution was: "I believe that Operation Northwoods proves that our military intelligence agencies and our executive branch may be capable of endorsing or even committing terrorism on US soil against US citizens." So please do not try and shift anymore goal posts. "Does operation Northwoods fit the definition of terrorism? Does it fit your definition of terrorism? My opponent's definition of terrorism is fueled by denial, not reality." The definition I cited was from the Department of Defense, Operation Northwoods was a military operation that involved US forces, therefore the DoD definition should apply. "Terrorist acts, such as proposed in Operation Northwoods, have a profound impact on government and society. " As does any other lawful military operation which are conducted with the purpose to "intimidate" and "coerce" governments through the use of force. "[International Terrorism] Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;" ^^ Thank you for proving my "legal" point. "The proposals of Operation Northwoods were aimed at the hearts and minds of US and UN citizens." No. The purpose of Operation Northwoods was to provide political cover for preventative military action against the Soviets (in Cuba) who were encroaching on US interests in the Western Hemisphere. None of Operation Northwoods proposals involved actually harming US citizens on US soil. And there is no law that says US forces cannont stage a fake terroirst attack. "Posse Camitatus is not only irrelevant, but entirely wrong because it has nothing to do with the CIA proposals we are discussing." Not irrelevant, because the whole point of this debate is to prove your conspiracy theories that the US government is a terrorist entity that is capable of becoming a police-state (like ISIS). US law however, prevents this.Summary:--Operations Northwoods was rejected by the Kennedy Adminstration, and its proposals were ultimately not endoresed or committed to by elected officals in US government.--The US system makes it next to impossible for government officals in America to actually "endorse" unlwaful paramilitary activity.--Operations Northwoods objectives and methodologies were that same as any other lawful military opertation undertaken by US forces, there is no legal prescedence that says the DoD cannont stage a fake terrorist attack and use it as a military tactic.--The Posse Camitatus Act makes it next to impossible for the government to deploy US forces against US citizens on US soil.--None of Operations Northwoods proposals involved actually harming US citizens on US soil.The resolution is negated.
Operation Northwoods Proves That The US May Be Capable Of Endorsing Or Committing Terrorism

"I believe that Operation Northwoods proves that our military intelligence agencies and our executive branch may be capable of endorsing or even committing terrorism on US soil against US citizens." Okay, three major problems here. 1) Operation Northwoods was not actual terrorismThe DoD has -for the better half of the century- defined terrorism as "the calculated use of unlawful violence or the threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear and coerce or intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious or ideological." (http://people.duke.edu...). However, there was no legal precedence in US Code (1960s) or even UCMJ (Pre-War Powers Act) that suggests ordering US forces to stage fake acts of terrorism would be considered illegal. According to the Northwoods talking paper, its proposals included (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu...): -- Blowing up a pilotless drone near Cuban waters, and pretending the wreckage was of a military plane shot down by Castro's forces. -- Launching a pretend terror campaign in the Miami area and in Washington, even faking some woundings. -- Recruiting friendly Cubans to stage an attack on the U.S. naval base, riots near the base, and sabotage inside the base. None of which were illegal in the 1960s or would be considered actual terrorism by past and most current DoD definitions. If we are to believe Pro then, -that the US military is in fact capable of endorsing illegal orders- he must show where in US Code (1960s) that says that the U.S. President could not order a fake terrorist attack. 2) The US system is incapable of endorsing terrorism. The US government is a constitutional republic and a leading member state of the United Nations. Its leaders therefore, are subject to intense public inquiry and scrutiny, whereas any unlawful act committed by elected officials, in the face of international laws and constitutional limitations- is generally considered political suicide. In the event the United States must sponsor clandestine operations that borders on terrorism, it is usually common practice then for the US government to officially deny all involvement. 3) The Posse Comitatus Act limits the government's power to use US forces domestically. The Posse Comitatus Act reads: "it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress." (https://en.wikipedia.org...) As consequence, only by an overt and legal act of congress could US forces be used domestically on US soil against US citizens, and in such extreme cases it would still not be considered terrorism. For these reasons above we can thus believe that the US government is incapable of committing and endorsing terrorism on US soil against US citizens.