BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage is morally wrong.

Glen Lavy, JD, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, argued in a May 21, 2008 Los Angeles Times Op-Ed, "The movement for polygamy and polyamory is poised to use the successes of same-sex couples as a springboard for further de-institutionalizing marriage." [11] In April 2013, Slate published a plea for legal polygamy by writer Jillian Keenan: "Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less 'correct' than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults."Gay marriage would entitle gay couples to typical marriage benefits including claiming a tax exemption for a spouse, receiving social security payments from a deceased spouse, and coverage by a spouse"s health insurance policy. On Dec. 17, 2009, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost to the federal government of extending employment benefits to same-sex domestic partners of certain federal employees (making no mention of additional costs such as Social Security and inheritance taxes) would be $596 million in mandatory spending and $302 million in discretionary spending between 2010 and 2019. Matthew D. Staver, JD, Dean of the Liberty University School of Law, explained: "The unifying characteristics of the protected classes within the Civil Rights Act of 1964 include (1) a history of longstanding, widespread discrimination, (2) economic disadvantage, and (3) immutable characteristics... 'Sexual orientation' does not meet any of the three objective criteria shared by the historically protected civil rights categories." [62]
Gay Marriage is morally wrong.

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses. The promoters of same-sex "marriage" propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children. Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law. Natural law"s most elementary precept is that "good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided." By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act"s purpose. Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality. Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always.
There should be two permanent locations for the Summer and Winter Olympics

The Olympics are about creating international fellowship and for a country to show itself off. A permanent location for the Games is a terrible idea. 1. The one country (or two, if Winter/Summer are in different countries) are automatically at an advantage. The athletes can train full time at the competition venues. For this example I will use Vancouver, Canada for the Winter Olympics. For example, take bobsledding. It is difficult for an ice track to be changed, so Canadian bobsledders can train, memorize the turns, and will dominate at the Games. Yes, some sports are essentially the same everywhere (wrestling in summer and hockey in winter), but there are more that differ (anything cross country, boating, cycling, equestrian, skiing, sliding sports, snowboarding). 2. If the Olympics are restrained to one city, the Games will eventually get boring. Not just for the athletes, but viewers as well. Athletes will see the same city every 4 years. Part of the Olympics is about spreading fellowship and exploring new places. The athletes should be able to see the world. For example, take Abbey Weitzeil. She's an American Olympic swimmer from my hometown. At the Rio Games, she was having the time of her life seeing everything (check her Instagram). Precious experiences like these are part of the Games, traveling across the world to compete with the best. If the permanent locations are started, viewers won't marvel at the beauty of the world. They'll marvel the beauty of Paris, or London, or Beijing, or Sydney or wherever else the Games are held for one or two Olympic cycles. Viewers will quickly see everything there is to see about a city, and will eventually get bored. I will continue with these points next round, good luck to my opponent! I'm not trying to attack anyone just debate around :) Sources: https://www.olympic.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... https://www.olympic.org... Weitzeil's Instagram
There should be two permanent locations for the Summer and Winter Olympics

The Olympic Games have long been held in rotating cities around the world. I believe that there should be two permanent locations, one for the summer and one for the winter. There are many advantages to this decision: cities will not be physically destroyed by the construction of the buildings, socially collapsed because of dislocation of its citizens, nor economically destroyed by the colossal cost of 19 billion dollars (1) that go into the financial aspect of building the housing and the actual stadiums. Twice, Greece has offered to dedicate a permanent residence of 1,250 acres to the Olympics (2), the Summer Olympics could once again return to its home country after over 800 years. The Winter Olympics could be held in a more snowy country such as Norway or Sweden (these are just examples, I am not suggesting that one of these be the actual residence). The Olympics could still be hosted by one country while actually being held in another. The chosen country for each Olympics would be the one to perform the Olympic opening ceremony and pay at least for some of the facilities. This would allow third-world countries that could never possibly hold the Olympics in their own country to host it. These two facilities could provide many jobs both while being used and while not in use. Since they will be used again, they'll need to be kept in shape all year round. They could be used as year-round sporting arenas, where players can come to practice. So to me, it is clear that we need to have two permanent residences for the Summer and Winter Olympics. 1. www.businessinsider.com/summer-winter-olympics-sports-cost-2016-8 2. http://www.nytimes.com...
The Concept of Omnipotence Causes Logical Contradictions

GOD'S EXISTENCEI've said it twice already, and my opponent has not disputed it: this little side argument is not pertinent to this debate. Talking about whether god is more likely than another thing is not a necessary question to settle when one is discussing the bounds of omnipotence. One might assume that what the bounds of omnipotence are would indicate the answer to this question, so really all we need to do is determine the bounds of omnipotence.I hope my opponent does not use the last round to which I cannot respond to suddenly shift his stance on the importance of the answer to this question and try to use that to get the win. I think that would be a bit cheap.BOUNDS OF OMNIPOTENCEIt would appear we're at the point of repeating our arguments. I say that omnipotence means power over all things, meaning an omnipotent being could be limited to nothing, my opponent says that there are things that are logically contradictory non-things which an omnipotent being cannot do, and I say that an omnipotent being could make those non-things things if it so pleased.My opponent has sourced some philosophers who agree with him, and that's very nice. But I would just like to remind voters that just because famous philosophers think it, does not necessarily mean it's right. It may seem a daunting proposition to defy these authorities and say they're wrong, but.. they are; and it's not at all hard to see why they are. Omnipotence literally denotes power over everything. This includes the ability to make logically incoherent non-things such as married bachelors real things with its unlimited powers if it so chooses.Speaking of married bachelors, isn't this a contradiction if you don't accept that an omnipotent being could create these? After all, if you think there is something an omnipotent being could not do, but you're simultaneously calling it omnipotent, that is in itself a contradiction. You're saying, "This being that can do anything cannot do this one thing." This kind of contradiction is generally referred to as the Stone Paradox. In response to this, many will say that omnipotence has limits. They will try to change the definition of omnipotence to avoid creating a contradictory situation. But if they are doing this, then they're no longer really talking about omnipotence, they're talking about some kind of nerfed version.But anyways, I'm mostly repeating myself at this point. As I conclude, I would like to note that my opponent did condescendingly acknowledge that if omnipotence has no bounds, my progression of ideas is logical. This means that if you agree with me on the fact that omnipotence denotes having no limits whatsoever, in terms of debate my conclusion based upon that idea is valid. Obviously I can't really do anything about the possibility that my opponent might reverse his position on this, except to say that it would be cheap if he did.Thanks for reading. Credo, thanks for the debate.
The Concept of Omnipotence Causes Logical Contradictions

Resolution: The concept of omnipotence causes logical contradictions. logical "of or according to the rules of logic or formal argument." "characterized by or capable of clear, sound reasoning." "(of an action, development, decision, etc.) natural or sensible given the circumstances." contradiction "combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." "a person, thing, or situation in which inconsistent elements are present." "the statement of a position opposite to one already made." First round will be for acceptance. If a potential opponent has any questions, he/she should ask before accepting. Any blame for confusion that arises which could've been resolved with the asking and answering of a simple question should fall on my opponent. 10,000 character limit, 72 hour response times.
God does not exist.

I hope I will be able to convince my opponent and everyone else that it is SO obvious that God exists. God's NameGod's name is Yahweh. Yahweh means "he exists". Therefore, it is a contradiction to say that Yahweh doesn't exist. It makes no sense. Therefore God exists. NatureNature can't cause nature so therefore since God is supernatural He created nature. Big BangBefore the Big Bang was the Big Foreplay. You need a foreplay before a bang, it only logically follows. Obviously God was the foreplay and we are His orgasm. That is our reality. That is why an orgasm creates life. The bigger the orgasm, the better the creation. This is basically how evolution works, with natural selection, mutations, and awesome orgasms. Creation out of NothingMatter cannot be created or destroyed (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). Obviously God created matter out of nothing which is a loophole that allows matter to be created. Because God is so intelligent to use a loophole He must be the Creator. The BibleIf God doesn't exist then who wrote the Bible? The Year 0Jesus was born in the year 0. How much more obvious can it be that He's God? Its so impossible for it to be just a "mere coincidence" like I'm sure my opponent will try to argue. ConclusionI have just stated absolute proof beyond a preponderence of doubt that God exists. There is no way my opponent can win. He should just give up now. So we can get lunch now cuz i'm hungry and i'm buying.
God does not exist.

Just so everybody knows, I am a very sexy man. That being said, nature and evolution alone could not have created the sexy beast that is me, therefore God created me.As already stated, nobody can stop the Jews from taking over the world. Jesus will come for the Jews and forget about the Christians because all they do is fight over who Jesus loves the most, just like his disciples did. Jews win every time. Now they have Israel back and they're just waiting. Planning. We should believe in their God because of this.The world is a stage so everything is in context and everything means anything and the Bible says God exists.Christian's aren't against gay people. Jesus had two fathers and he turned out alright. Jesus understands. and loves everyone. How can you say no to Jesus? Like seriously? And there is so much proof that he existed, like the Bible, and as already affirmed the Bible is perfect truth and so it verifies that Jesus was real. The lunch was great and my opponent fared well but you shouldn't vote for either me or my opponent. Vote Jesus.
God does not exist.

Hitler thought the Jews were going to take over the world as well, therefore all of your arguments are WRONG. So you're saying that we don't exist? LOL, that's a dumb argument even for a fundamentalist Christian (which you must be, because you believe in God and want all gay people to drown in a pool of chocolate milk). You quoted that verse out of context! It only applies when talking about yo mama. Not true. Last night my girlfriend had an orgasm so strong it destroyed God, so now he doesn't exist. And because he doesn't exist, he must have never existed. This is supported by the entirety of the Song of Solomon. I once wrote a letter to Chuck Norris asking, "Is the answer to this question 'No'?" I never got a reply, therefore Chuck Norris is wrong. And he has AIDS. Jesus smoked too much pot to be God. He's also a wuss. If God existed, he would be a real man like Richard Dawkins. If Richard Dawkins and Chuck Norris got into a fight, Dawkins would pin Chuck down in an instant. And because Chuck Norris > God, and Richard Dawkins > Chuck Norris, it logically follows Mary gives good head. I'd like to thank my opponent for participating in this debate, and for buying me sushi. Also, if you knuckleheads don't vote for me, Darwin will condemn you to eternal extinction.
God does not exist.

If the Jews invented Yahweh then that means the Jews invented the Creator of the universe thus meaning that Jews are a powerful alien race. Even if they are scamming us it doesn't matter, they will take over the earth and rule it again. We must obey the Jews.If nothing supernatural created the universe, then that must mean God is natural and he naturally created the universe. So then we are supernatural and God is not. But he still exists.Ezekiel 23:20 "There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses." The bible is not dry at all, it is very wet and dripping. God exists because when women are about to orgasm they scream "OH GOD" thus proving that he naturally exists.If Chuck Norris wrote the bible then it's infallible because Chuck Norris is never wrong. Ever.If Joseph banged Mary so hard that they broke the calendar and she called him a god, then since i already argued that the better the orgasm the more evolved the next generation becomes, then Jesus most definitely was an evolved being- a godAll my opponent did was prove all of my arguments. Because I am so grateful for this, I will buy him all of the sushi he wants.
God does not exist.

My opponent is intellectually impaired, don't believe him! The name "Yahweh" was invented by Jews, so religion is obviously an excuse to scam people. Supernatural is a TV show, and the universe is far older than TV. Therefore, nothing supernatural can have created the universe. If God did foreplay, why is the Bible such dry reading? God should have left that book wet and dripping. Besides, you forget that life is rough and budgets are tight, a good banging should make budgets loose. If I was the world and somebody banged me, I wouldn't be calling them God. Therefore, God doesn't exist. God didn't make matter out of nothing. It says so here ( http://tinyurl.com... ). Who wrote the Bible? Chuck Norris. Somebody on 4Chan said it, so it must be right. It's absolutely a coincidence. Joseph just happened to be in Israel, brewing some "holy spirits". He used it to get Mary drunk and then banged her so hard that he broke the calendar, forcing them to start counting from zero again. Meanwhile she cried, "YOU'RE A GOD!" So when Jesus was born, he was the "Son of God". They just made up the "virgin birth" part because Israel was a patriarchal society and they had to cover up that Mary was a S-L-U-T. Also, because they were Jewish. Now here's some proof that God doesn't exist: 1. The Moon is not made of cheese. 2. Pigs cannot fly. 3. I have not won the lottery. 4a. Men are superior to women. 4b. So one of you ladies had better make me a sandwich. 5. Europe has not been smited by fire and brimstone. 6. There is video footage of Thor a big green monster on a flying airship thingy, so obviously the Norse religion is the correct one. You can view it here ( http://tinyurl.com... ). In conclusion, my opponent has no chance of proving that God is real. I'd like sushi for lunch, thanks.
Bullies and victim both should get aid.

Bullies and their victims should both get help. The bullies may have problems at home, or may be pressured by their friends to bully other people. It may be the case that the bully may have an internal problem that he or she does not want to share. In order to solve the problem, we need to understand the cause of the problem. In this case, the problem is coming from the bullies. We need to understand them before we can solve our building issue. When we see their problem, counselers can give them some advise that will help them stop bullying or to find ways to solve their problems outside school or with friends that will in turn cause them to stop bullying. For the person who is being or was bullied, they need to be given support from friends and family. They can also seek advise from counselers on how to step up for themselves and how to counter the bully effectively. The person bring bullied can also talk to people that they trust who can give them some good advise as well. In conclusion, to stop bullying, the bullies and the victims need to have adequate help. Stamping out bullying will make everyone happier.
Instagram is better than Snapchat

It is true that Instagram has more user's but it is also more than four years older. If snapchat overcomes Instagram copying it it might just overrun all of it`s competition. Also, I think we must admit: a lot of people use both, Instagram and Snapchat. Most of the people I know which use both applications spend way more time with snapchat. Also Mark Zuckerberg tried buying Snapchat, after this failing, he copied the stories from it. Snapchchat provides more advantages, plus not needing a second app. This is, in my opinion, what makes it better.
Instagram is better than Snapchat

correct me if i am wrong -i dont know much of snapchat- but you can only add friends but not follow them. in instagram you can follow as many people you can. and you can get as many followers as people follow you. i am not the only one who thinks instaghram is better: Instagram users outnumber snapchat users five to one. That"s 500 million monthly active users versus 100 million. Instagram was about curating great content, and Snapchat was about capturing the moments in your life. when instagram updated stories people think it was copying snapchat. in reality no. instagram has updated this (FOR ME) to make it fair.
Instagram is better than Snapchat

Snapchat also has usernames, so you can decide wether you add someone with the picture or the username.Also social media make people depressive because everyone only posts pictures of the nice part of life. When others see these pictures they compare their bad memories with the best parts of life from other people. This makes them feel bad and get depressed, believing others are living a way better life. On snapchat, this too might happen but way less because snapchat gives the chance of showing emotions but not letting yourself be to vulnerable through having this on the Internet the rest of your life. I think this makes snapchat a next-level social network dealing with a humongeos problem of their kind.
Instagram is better than Snapchat

i suppose that it is true to instagram needs an extra app. but... instagram will only let pictures and stories you post be seen to only your followers. also... No more of the hold your code picture up to the screen so we call can take a picture to find you. Then not everyone was ready and it would be 6 or 7 people doing this. Soon it was 5 to 7 minutes of broadcast time when you are doing a video show getting people connected to snapchat.
Instagram is better than Snapchat

RebuttalsInstagram does make it easier to draw, I agree, but Snapchat makes it easier to insert texts to the picture. Also, as far as I know, Instagram requires an extra app for editing pictures.ArgumentSocial media destroys our privacy. If you have a dinner party over at you house it is very likely that some of your friends post pictures on instagram, maybe even snapchat. On instagram, possibly thousands of people see the picture but on Snapchat only a few people see the picture and only for up to ten seconds. Logically, Instagram often brings information to people that you don't want it to reach. Snapchat does this way less.