BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage

I'll organize my arguments in this round to fit Con's points1) Polygamy Con says that anyone in favour of Gay marriage should also be in favour of making polygamy and incest legal, however, we can make an argument that supports Gay marriage being legal but does not support polygamy. Our argument can be summarized as follows:(P1) If we have no reason not to give someone something, we should give them it.(P2) Homosexuals want Gay marriage to be legal, and there's no reason not to give it to them.(C) Therefore, Gay marriage should be legal.There's no reason to deny same-sex couples marriage, but on the other hand, there are reasons not to allow polygamy. The reason being that it leads to poverty and the oppression of females.2) InequalityCon claims that there is no inequality since marriage is not a right, but he's missing the point. There is inequality because one group of people cannot do X thing, whilst another can't. The X thing here is marrying without that marriage conflicting with your sexual orientation, and the two groups are heterosexuals and homosexuals.Con also claims that "it is perfectly legal for Gays to follow their sexual orientation. They can have relationships with persons of the same sex, and can happily spend the rest of their life together." Now, what I actually said was that Gays would not be able to marry with the marriage not conflicting their sexual orientation if Gay marriage was illegal, but let's put that to a side for a moment. I agree with Con's point, but even so, there is still inequality since with Gay marriage being illegal, Gays do not get the recognition, dignity, public approval and respect that the "married" label has.3) BlasphemyCon says that Gay marriage would cause people to blaspheme against their religion. Let's look at the examples he gives:" If it were legalized, businesses could be sued for not hiring gay couples for religious reasons, churches could also be sued for not marrying a gay couple."Businesses or churches not hiring any group of people for religious reasons is wrong, as it is discrimination. If I were to start a company that wouldn't hire black people for religious reasons, there would be outrage, and rightly so. The discrimination is no more and no less when it's a business not hiring gay people for religious reasons.4) I love my sister!Con responds to my point about Gays being second-rate citizens by responding with a point about him not being able to marry his sister. However, he misunderstands my point here. There is no inequality in you not being able to marry your sister because there is no group that is allowed to marry their sisters. My point about Gay marriage being illegal makes Gays second-rate citizens is that heterosexuals can marry without the marriage contradicting their sexual orientation, whilst homosexuals cannot. There is therefore, an inequality when there is no reason why there should be.
Gay Marriage

I will begin by refuting your points: 1st Premise: I assume here your argument is saying there is no reason to make gay marriage illegal. I disagree. Under Bill Clinton, the defense of marriage act was signed into law, clearly defining marriage as between a man and a woman. That can be changed, but it's s a legitimate, real law, that would have to be challenged by the Supreme Court to be overturned or ignored. 3rd Premise: In this premise you assert that anything that has no real legal basis to deny it as a right should be legalized. Again, I disagree, as morality plays a big role in our laws, stemming from tradition. Polygamy, marrying multiple spouses, is illegal in the United States, but if you think about it, there is no legal basis to ban polygamy. Like gay marriage, the Defense of Marriage Act is the only real legislation standing in the way. There is absolutely no reason that polygamy should be illegal. So why is it? Because its immoral. That is the only basis for why it is not allowed. Along with bestiality and pedofilia, morality is the only argument against it. Not only does that disprove your point, but it provides in itself an argument against gay marriage. If it is a "right" to marry who you want, why isn't polygamy legal? Part 2 I don't remember the specific premises, so I will just address your entire argument, which is homosexuals are second class citizens since they don't appear to have the same rights. Gays and straight people have the exact same rights. Gay citizens can marry too, just not eachother, and straight people can not marry gay, either. At face value, they have the exact same rights. Why the Jim Crow laws and laws repressing woman were wrong is because they stopped a minority from being able to do what a majority could. That is not the case. Straight people have the same rights and restrictions as homosexuals. So why should gay marriage be illegal? 1. Marriage isn't a "right". As I mentioned in my first rebuttal, polygamy, bestiality, and pedofilia are all illegal, as they should be. Excluding bestiality and pedofilia, as they violate other laws, polygamy is a marriage between a man and multiple woman, or a woman and multiple men. It requires legal age and consent, just like straight marriage. So if gay marriage is a right, why shouldn't polygamy be? I would even go as far as to say that if you support gay marriage, reasonably you also have to support legalizing polygamy. 2. Its legalization imposes its acceptance on society. By allowing it to be law, the state automatically becomes its primary promoter. Despite the United States being about half and half on the issue, if legalized, gay marriage would be taught in schools, have required acceptance by federal workers, and required acceptance by churches, despite the complaints of the parents, the disapproval of the federal workers, and the churches saying gay marriage goes against god's word.
Gay Marriage

Arguments i) Extreme lack of reason as to why it should be illegaly argument here can be summarized as follows: (P1) If there is not enough reason to make something illegal, it should be legal. (P2) There is not enough reason to make Gay Marriage illegal. (P3) When something is not illegal, it is legal. (C) Therefore, Gay Marriage should be legal. Justification of the first premiseThis is pretty self-explanatory. Justification of the second premise*I point at the absence of reasons to make Gay Marriage illegal* Justification of the third premiseSelf-explanatory, as there is no alternative. Justification of the conclusionThis is the logical conclusion following all three premises. ii) Gay Marriage being illegal would mean that homosexuals are second-rate citizensMy argument here can be summarized as follows: (P1) Heterosexual marriage is legal, and heterosexuals can marry whatever human being they like. (P2) One group not having the same rights as another makes the group with less rights second-rate citizens. (P3) If Gay Marriage was illegal, homosexuals would not be able marry whatever human being they liked. (C1) Therefore, homosexuals would be second-rate citizens. (P4) But there is no reason why homosexuals should be second-rate citizens. (C2) Therefore, Gay marriage should be legal. Justification of the first premiseSelf-explanatory. Justification of the second premiseSelf-explanatory Justification of the third premiseIn that they would not be able to marry other men/women, which are who they want to marry. Justification of the first conclusionThe logical conclusion following the previous premises. Justification of the fourth premise*I point at the lack of reasons why homosexuals should be second-rate citizens* Justification of the second conclusionThis is the logical conclusion following the previous premises. ConclusionIn order for Con to win, he must refute all of my arguments, and then make arguments that support his case, that Gay marriage should be illegal.
Gay Marriage

Resolution: Gay Marriage should be legal.I will be arguing that Gay marriage should be legal, whilst my opponent will be arguing the opposite, that Gay marriage should be illegal. The burden of proof will be shared.StructureRound 1 - AcceptanceRound 2/3/4 - Arguments and RebuttalsRound 5 - Rebuttals DefinitionsGay Marriage - The Marriage of two homosexual people of the same sex.Rules1. No arguments are to be made in the first round.2. No new arguments are to be made in the fifth round, with the exception of them being logically necessary to refute previously made arguments.3. No insults.4. No semantics or trolling.5. The burden of proof is shared.6. Failure to obide by the rules shall result in a 7-point loss.
If God Exists, Then God Exists In The Form Of The Light Only

Are you being intentionally dense? Let me make it even simpler. Can God create something so heavy he cannot lift it? It is a yes or no question. (A true dichotomy) "Now if you think your desk is a dog, i suggest you stop smokin drugs boy!, you nutter. " - I don't know if this is supposed to be a joke...But, I don't think you should be taken seriously anymore. You're a joke, you've not even got the most basic grasp of deductive logic. "I dont KNOW his plan, no one does, i never said i know the plan, i said its gods plan not mine." - You claimed suffering was part of his plan... "I did think carefully about your nect post my friend, Ra is not happy with you at the moment. Im mean everyone knows god is the source of true enlightenment, not endarkenment. " - Lol, so does santa claus. You say next, "the definitiion of evil is (preplanned) malice, whether supernatural or psychological, usually immoral." - Well, why is that evil? Also the image I posted was a picture of Aristotle with the phrase, "Do you even logic bro" Which at this point, I think it is clear you do not...
If God Exists, Then God Exists In The Form Of The Light Only

Mate im not gonna tell you again, nothing is too heavy for god, such is his power! Secondly, everyone knows light is omnipresent. As the sun will not dissappear anytime soon. And at night the Moon reflects the light so god can contniue doing his bidness. Now if you think your desk is a dog, i suggest you stop smokin drugs boy!, you nutter. I dont KNOW his plan, no one does, i never said i know the plan, i said its gods plan not mine. Pay attention lil man.I did think carefully about your nect post my friend, Ra is not happy with you at the moment. Im mean everyone knows god is the source of true enlightenment, not endarkenment. ps the definitiion of evil is (preplanned) malice, whether supernatural or psychological, usually immoral. God wants to eradicate this by spreading light. Why else do you think 3am is devils hour, theres not much light at that time bc god is too busy prioritising the australians down under. Speaking of the devil, everyone knows you need the darkside to keep the light maintained. Why else do you think god lets satan live, satan is gods earthly administrator. Dont believe me?, just read the book of job, satan n god are in cohoots with eachother i tell ya.
If God Exists, Then God Exists In The Form Of The Light Only

You've ran into another problem, what is evil? What determines what is evil? Next, is a big problem with your definition of omnipotence. Unlimited power, and very great power are very different, in fact, they are infinitely far apart. Moreover, if nothing can be too heavy for God, then he cannot create something too heavy for himself, therefor, his power is limited. P1. An omnipotent being can do absolutely anything, with unlimited power P2. An omnipotent being either create something too heavy, or he cannot. P3. There is nothing to heavy for God (the omnipotent being) (By your own words) C . Therefor, God is not omnipotent (as he cannot create the too heavy object) Your argument(s) in their syllogistic forms are as follows correct? P1. God is supposedly omnipresent P2. Light is omnipresent C . Therefor light is God/God is light First, premise two of your argument is not proven. You haven't prove than light is omnipresent. You've also committed an affirming the consequent logical fallacy. Allow me to demonstrate. God will be represent by the letter (A), and omnipresent will be represented by the letter (B), and light will be represented by (C). Your argument is now: P1. A is B P2. C is B C . Therefor C is A I can make the exact same argument but replace the subjects... P1. My dog is brown P2. My desk is brown C . Therefor, my desk is my dog You can read more on this particular logical fallacy here: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com... Your next "argument" is: "Next, people (usually bibically illiterate) will argue god allows for so much famine and disaster so he can not possibly exist. Allow me to further explain, you see its all in his divine vision of doing what he wants, he doesn't care if you dont like the plan, just go along with it and respect him, otherwise he will let satan have you. Understood." - This is not an argument. How do you know what God's divine vision is??? This image explains how I'm feeling about this debate: https://goo.gl...
If God Exists, Then God Exists In The Form Of The Light Only

So far your argument has just been a rambling mate. Allow me to expand, and enlighten you! Definitions Darkness:1)the partial or total absence of light.2)wickedness or evilOmnipotence: the quality of having unlimited or very great power. Highlight the word unlimited, nothing can ever be too heavy for god. Plus so what if free will doesn't exist, what does that have to do with him existing (as the light) or not.Anyways...People usually argue that god doesn't exist because we can't see him. On the other hand, believers will argue god is omnipresent beyond the physical and periphal capacities of man. But both parties are wrong, because did you know what else has the capability of omnipresence?, thats right - LIGHT. I mean apart from the material ventablack, light is everywhere at all times. And even ventablack absorbs some light. Put two and two together and the problem is solved. GOD=LIGHT. Next, people (usually bibically illiterate) will argue god allows for so much famine and disaster so he can not possibly exist. Allow me to further explain, you see its all in his divine vision of doing what he wants, he doesn't care if you dont like the plan, just go along with it and respect him, otherwise he will let satan have you. Understood.Speaking of vision, what natural agent can you not see without.., LIGHT. GOTCHA AGAINAnd in terms of omniscience, why else do you think light is one of the fatest moving entities in the world?!, everyone knows god needs to get there before you. I mean you could argue that the light comes from the sun. BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE LINK BELOW, YOU WILL KNOW THE TRUTH.https://en.wikipedia.org...Need I say more.
If God Exists, Then God Exists In The Form Of The Light Only

"We are not trying to (dis)prove God outright, but my opponent must counter my claim that God exists in the form of light ONLY. That way the position is open to either a nonbeliever and a believer. In a way depending on the opponent, we might end up debating about the existence of god, but the title remains focused atm." - That is not how logic works, you have made a claim so you have the burden of proof. (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...) You also define light as the opposite of darkness, but you've not defined darkness? Is darkness the absence of light? You've also defined God in a way that cannot exist. Omnipotence cannot exist, because the concept of omnipotence creates a game ending paradox. Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy, he cannot lift? If he can, then he is not omnipotent, but if he can't, then he is not omnipotent either, therefor omnipotent cannot, and does not exist. Moreover, if God is omniscient, then freewill does not exist either, as he would know what our actions, and his actions would be.
If God Exists, Then God Exists In The Form Of The Light Only

Definitions and rules We are not trying to (dis)prove God outright, but my opponent must counter my claim that God exists in the form of light ONLY. That way the position is open to either a nonbeliever and a believer. In a way depending on the opponent, we might end up debating about the existence of god, but the title remains focused atm. Light: -the natural agent that stimulates sight and makes things visible, comes in a variety (the electromagnetic spectrum). -The opposite of darkness God: -The supreme being, the one with: Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence. Lets go, r1 just acceptance and clarifications.
Coffee Cup Bid

This coffee cup will change your life. Go into your kitchen and look in your cupboard. Mugs. A ton of them. All different colours and shapes and sizes and patterns. What has happened to our society that something as innocent and plain as a mug should be abused, dressed up like a boy by his older sisters. You disgust me. All the children dying in Africa could do with just 50p for enough food for a week. You waste that extra 50p on stupid colours for your mug. You. Disgust. Me. Just look at the mug. Look at it. Imagine what potential this mug holds. You think: hmm...my white Americano will look cool in that. I say: you have no imagination. This mug could do ANYTHING. This mug could hold a double-strength mocha with whole-milk, whipped cream and chocolate sprinkles. MOTHERFUCKING SPRINKLES! This mug could be the first mug in space. This mug could save your life by knocking out any burglars late at night. This mug could be the perfect gift for your anniversary when you forgot.. :o This coffee cup will change your life. Buy it.
Coffee Cup Bid

Do you see this coffee cup? DO YOU SEE IT??? THIS, is the future of coffee cups, and your life. Our lives have just gotten purely out of control. They are just too damn complicated!!!!!!!!!!! What with smart-phones, computers, and *shudders* the Internet, we need to just get back to our roots. Simplify some things here and there, STARTING WITH YOUR COFFEE MUG!!!!!!!!!! Let's take a look at your current coffee mug shall we? It probably has a "lid" and "ergonomic handle" and it might even be, ugh, insulated. Do you really need all that? Does anybody remember the good old days of simple coffee mugs that when you moved to fast with it you spilled hot coffee all over yourself and burned your junk? Good times. Lets get back to basics and go back to glory days of the coffee mug. BUY THIS DAMN COFFEE MUG NOWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lol have fun with it :)
McCain is not fit to be president.

Thanks again to my opponent for this debate. Readers, please disregard the first two rounds. To the debate! I negate: McCain is not fit to be president. "VOTING FOR MCCAIN IS ASKING FOR ANOTHER FOUR YEARS OF BUSH" - This is a common talking point - you might as well say a campaign-driving catchphrase said as often as "Change! " and "Hope! " - of the Obama camp. Unfortunately, my opponent provides no support for this assertion in her argument, except a vague reference of how Bush and McCain have similar viewpoints on "the Surge" in Iraq and the military in general. Also unfortunate for her is that "the Surge" worked, at least ostensibly. . http://www.washingtonpost.com... . http://online.wsj.com... I hasten to bring out the contrast of the politics of the newspapers The Wall Street Journal, known in the mainstream corporate media to be generally "on the right," and The Washington Post, known to stand on the left of things. (Amazingly, both papers are able to have these slants and still be bastions of objectivity in the journalism world. ) "Nearly all of Senator McCain's ideas, plans, and morals are identical to those of President Bush. " -Really? I see one plan, about the direction the country should take in the Iraq War, and no ideas or morals of any kind to compare. Because they agree on military strategy does not make them identical, no matter how many times the Obama campaign says it. As far as the wonderful statistics that you go on to cite are concerned, none of this makes McCain unfit to be president. Bush *is* the president, and he is responsible for the things in the first place. So there is the precedent that none of these things disqualifies one from being president, as Bush is still president, even after the fact. (As a sidenote: Shame on the Huffington Post. They totally ripped off Harper's magazine with the format that they presented their statistics in. Harper's should sue. ) "My guess is this does not help the economy. You think McCain would learn from his friend's mistakes, but apparently not. Let's not go there again. The people of our country need help now more than ever. " - I assure you, Bush and McCain are not friends. Bush is simply a plain moron. McCain is actually an ok guy, in my opinion, that happened to get stuck with the legacy of Bush as the Republican nominee. "Graduated next to last in his class, and spent his school years partying. Hmm. .. Good role model for America? Maybe not. " - We are not electing a role-model, we are electing a president. Ergo, irrelevant. Funny pictures of Bush, vague statements with no factual backing, and irrelevant statistics do not make McCain unfit for office. Thanks to lenorenomore for posting, again. I wish time had been more readily available to you:) See you around the site.
Views as expressed in the profile....

Let me Clarify the terms of the debate. .. . Anything in the BIG issues section of the profile is fair game. However, anything listed as undecided or No opinion, etc cannot be debated. However, while you may argue a position you do not agree with, i request that you allow me to argue and defend the position I give in my profile. I will be taking Pro but that does not mean I am automatically required to take the PRO side of an issue, I will take whichever side I support in my Profile.
"The Bubba Scenario"

"An NDD is a nuclear detonation device, which obviously entails a lot of control over society. As far, the government has not used them as threats." I thank my opponent for clearing this up. "I concede every point mentioned, regarding weaponry technology." Thank you. "However, this does not mean that the government will use these technologies for population control." The following article sums up the constitutional violations of the Patriot Act. http://www.scn.org... With the knowledge that our Government does not keep its own constitution, perhaps we should question our faith in the Federal Government's goodwill. Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn"t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed down for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children"s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free. -Ronald Reagan- http://whowasronaldreagan.com...
"The Bubba Scenario"

1st: An NDD is a nuclear detonation device, which obviously entails a lot of control over society. As far, the government has not used them as threats. 2nd: I concede every point mentioned, regarding weaponry technology. However, this does not mean that the government will use these technologies for population control. Many dystopian stories or fiction detail some variation of the aforementioned scenario. Ergo, I believe that the Bubba Scenario was inspired by a far-fetched dystopian story that for whatever reason rooted itself in Bubba's brain.