BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
911 inside job

Well if you read carefully the other debates noone refute the science of my arguments. The video above clearly shows incendiary devices, you are a military man you should have seen thermite grenades before. Why on earth is there molten steel flowing from the tower , the video clearly shows it. JET FUEL CANNOT MELT STEEL, it doesnt matter if you believe in conspiracys or whatever, science is science and there is no explanation for the temperatures seen .
911 inside job

Really dude? Another 1? This is getting to the point of ridiculousness and I only accept this as a means save others from dealing with you. But ill play your game. Ill bite. I'm of course an open minded person and if you can actually give me something that beyond the shadow of a doubt proves your theory then I will accept that. So far I have not been impressed. So bring it on mate. Lets see what you got.
911 inside job

I have debated debunkers before, each time they avoid the strongest parts of my argument and instead rely on argueing about other things which are not related , like heroin came into the last argument... :D . THIS TIME I WILL ARGUE ONE POINT. THIS ONE POINT PROVES 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB.http://www.youtube.com...FOOTAGE OF THE SOUTH TOWER SHOWS MOLTEN STEEL FLOWING FROM THE SOUTH TOWER BEFORE IT COLLAPSED.WITHOUT INCENDIARY DEVICES IT WOULD BE LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO MELT STEEL AS THE JET FUEL OFFICE FURNITURE FIRES COULD NOT IN A MILLION YEARS MELT STEEL.ANYONE WHO DOESNT THINK 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THIS IS POSSIBLE .
Evolution is how the universe and Earth began.

I'm just fighting in evolutions place, because the computer told me I was pro on it, it's confusing to me. I Have to call the store and have them tell me how to get back to the facebook. I thought maybe The Google would help me. I was just wrighting down what little I knew about evoluHeat the oil in a large skillet over medium heat, and saute the onion, green bell pepper, yellow bell pepper, and garlic until tender. Stir in the turkey, and cook until evenly brown. Drain, and mix in tomatoes and pumpkin. Season with chili powder, pepper, and salt. Reduce heat to low, cover, and simmer 20 minutes. Serve topped with Cheddar cheese and sour cream.tion because I don't know very much about it.
Evolution is how the universe and Earth began.

Firstly, evolution is not remotely anything to do with how the universe began so I win on that account alone. Secondly, you have full burden of proof ot prove that a species can turn into another species incapable of producing fertile offspring with the former. Last but not least, the attack on Creationism highlights how biased you Darwinist Fundamentalists are. You have dictated entire education syllabuses and are brainwashing the youth into not questioning the validity of your religion.
Evolution is how the universe and Earth began.

Evolution is the prime belief of America. The universe came about when massive amounts of energy spewed through time and space leaving traces known as planets, stars, comets, etc. When Earth was young, it was barren and desolate, but it needed to thrive to survive in the new born galaxy. The energy of the Big Bang combined with mass from the Earth started to form plants and small creatures. To survive young Earths nasty weather, these microscopic particles had to evolve. Over long periods of time, the particles (easiest way to describe them) bagan to adapt to the surrounding world. Suddenly these plants and creatures needed to consume energy to keep themselves alive. As the millions of years passed by, the creatures started to feed on eachother, splitting them into two separate groups. Hunters and hunted. The carnivores devoured the herbivores, while the herbivores consumed the plants. Soon the hunted started to develop defense mechanisms. And so, as this kept building upon itself, everything became more sophisticated, from the mud under our feet to the sky above to the creatures all around. This scientifically correct explanation makes magnificent sense but creation and Christianity teach that an eternal deity is the source of every thing you see today. Where did this 'God' come from? How could he have always been around? How is this theory logical?
Gay Marriage Ought To Be Permitted

Hello and thank you for your acceptance!My arguments in favor of permitting gay marriage will focus on both the economic benefits of legalization and the injustice of discrimination against the homosexual community. I will try to make them as compacted and as succint as possible.Now, we all know gay marriage has now been legalized nationwide, as of the Supreme Court's landmark decision on June 26, 2015 in Obergefell v. Hodges. [1] However, the question still remains of whether or not homosexual Americans should retain this right to marry. I hope to answer this question ardently and in the affirmative.-----------------------1) Allowing gay marriage reaffirms equality under the law.It is absolutely essential to understand that homosexuality is not a choice. Scientists have proven countless times that homosexuality is found in nature. It has been reported that over 1,500 animal species exhibit natural homosexuality, especially types of herding animals. [2] A wide selection of research has also shown that homosexuality is genetic. [3]Homosexuality is an inherent trait. I'm sure my opponent would agree that discriminating against a group of people based on an inherent characteristic is wholly unjust. It would be as if one was denied the right to go to school if they were physically or mentally disabled from birth, or one was refused service at a restaurant if they had green eyes. Simply, denying homosexuals the right to marry based on their inherent homosexuality is not only ludicrous, but it is an injustice, and constitutes an unjust society in which a group of people is not "given their due". [4] It follows that homosexuals should be given the right to marry in a civilized American society.2) Legalizing gay marriage is beneficial for the economy.University of Michigan professor Adam Stevenson has suggested that the legalization of gay marriage brings in additional tax revenues of between $20 million and $40 million. Within only a year of legalizing gay marriage, New York City made over $250 million in revenue from licenses and weddings. [5] The impact on the federal budget deficit may even total a $450 million reduction. [6] Sourced from wedding-related spending, license fees, profit from job creation and increased revenue from sales tax, this money, however one might scale its impact, helps the economy.The government has an obligation to its citizens. Benefiting the economy only goes to improve the lives of Americans and American prestige abroad.-----------------------It is obvious; legalizing gay marriage is the right thing to do, whether one wants to cast it as a social issue or an economic one. Let's support not only equality under the law for the homosexual community, but the health of our economy as well.I await my opponent's arguments.[1] http://www.cnn.com...[2] http://www.news-medical.net...[3] http://www.natureworldnews.com...[4] https://www.scu.edu...[5] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[6] http://www.bloomberg.com...-
Gay Marriage Ought To Be Permitted

Hello all!This debate will concern the merits of allowing gay marriage.Full Resolution: Gay marriage ought to be permitted in a civilized American society.This debate will concern, as the resolution suggests, policy limited to the United States.------------------FormatR1: Acceptance ONLYR2: Full ArgumentsR3: RebuttalR4: Final Rebuttal/ConclusionPlease note that both sides share the burden of proof; Con may not depend on refuting Pro's arguments.------------------DefinitionsGay Marriage: marriage between partners of the same sex (as recognized in some jurisdictions).------------------Good luck to my opponent, whoever he/she may be.
Thanks to the Jews, and Jesus too.

"You have not retorted, only dictated rules to me that you believe I should obey."I responded to your resolution and explained why it was not very clear or accurate. Without an explanation to my objections they have not been refuted and stand without objection. Arguments extended"Whatever the voters decide for this debate will be a lie if they side with the dictator, you."I don't know why I have been described as a dictator and this is basically an ad hominem attack. Pro is basically saying that my arguments are false because I have a personality flaw which is not a valid argument.Thanks to Pro for setting up the debate.
Thanks to the Jews, and Jesus too.

“You are of course defending Islam as a non tyrannical set of true believers?” No, there are a lot of problems with the wording of the resolution but even with a very generous interpretation I do not have a positive burden of proof. Since you have made a positive claim I only have to negate your arguments and you have not made any arguments so far. Issues with the Resolution The resolution should normally be stated in the debate title and clarified in round one. Alternately you can clearly state something along the lines of, “my resolution is” and then state your resolution so it is clear to Con what exactly you are claiming. The title here is, “Thanks to the Jews, and Jesus too.” This has nothing to do with tyranny or Islam and is not really a resolution. If, being generous, I take all of round one and the title as you resolution I am left with a vague resolution that gives credit to the Jews and Jesus for identifying Islam as tyrannical. In other words, we would not know that Islam is tyrannical if it were not for the Jews and Jesus. This is clearly not true and there are many features of tyranny that are easily recognizable. Google defines tyranny as, “cruel and oppressive government or rule or, “cruel, unreasonable or arbitrary use of power or control [1].” It is a simple thing to recognize cruelty or arbitrary power so we do not need to thank Jews or Jesus for any knowledge of tyrannical governments. All Islamic Governments are not Tyrannical First, Islam is a religion and not a form of government so Islam itself cannot be tyrannical. The Quran does not build a system of government. Giving Pro even more leeway on his resolution one could ask, does Islam cause tyranny? There are many examples of Islamic countries that are not tyrannical so Islam itself does not cause tyranny. There are obviously other factors. Cruelty or arbitrary governments are easy to spot and you do not need a Christian worldview or help from Jesus to identify them. According to the freedom in the world and democracy indexes roughly half of Islamic countries are rated as partly free or free [2]. More than 40% of countries identified as Islamic have secular state governments. Pro’s Position in Round two Seems to Confuse Correlation with CausationBy his logic we might say that Christianity creates feudalism (arguable very tyrannical) if we were in the Middle Ages [3]. We would have to change our mind and say that Christianity causes liberal democracies in the 20th century. Another explanation is that primitive governments are tyrannical and as we learn more governments are less prone/able to abuse power. This process is slower in many areas for various reasons. - Pro’s resolution is not clear and is most certainly false as it is written. He has not made any arguments to support any version of the resolution. Pro’s position in round 2 assumes that Islam is the cause of abusive governments without building any connection between the two. [1] https://www.google.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.thefinertimes.com...
Same-sex marriage

I feel no need to address the first two-thirds, as it bears no relevance to same-sex marriage."I said WISH to create another life." You also left out the part where I noted that plenty of people don't wish to create another life. "And WHY has marriage ALWAYS been between two people? Why NOT a person and an animal? And if it's two people you're ok with, then why not a 42 year old man and a 6 year old girl? Or boy? Why is THAT not ok? A gay couple cannot make a child. A human and an animal cannot make a child. An adult and a child do not make a happy, healthy child."Correction: Polygamy has existed, and same-sex marriage existed in the Roman Empire. In modern times, there is an economic stability aspect to marriage. Marrying a child or an animal would not contribute to financial stability at all."So, you're proving my point that being gay will inevitably attract ridicule and physical, emotional, and verbal abuse if it's openly displayed."And being gay is something that can't be changed. Our laws discriminate against gay couples, and removing those laws would help society lean more towards acceptance of homosexuality, meaning less bullying. More people would look down upon those who bully homosexuals than looking down upon homosexuals themselves."The people who take offense to gay marriage are probably the people who immediately think of the sexual acts they partake in, and much like the breast feeding or porn stores topics, sex has no "moral" place in public society, hetero in nature or otherwise."If someone has a problem with what happens in a private bedroom between consenting adults, that is their problem. If they don't like it, then they can ignore it. Or accept that not everyone likes the opposite sex.
Same-sex marriage

I was not expecting for someone to play devil's advocate for the Con side, but okay."The allowing of piercings, tattoos, public breastfeeding, illegal immigration, abortion, pornography stores, as well as a million-billion other things, has helped our nation's citizens to become weak to the idea of what actually IS, right and wrong."Piercings, tatoos, public breastfeeding, and pornography stores don't harm anyone. I wouldn't consider any of those things to be morally wrong. Illegal immigration is not 'allowed', it is just the result of weak enforcement. However, the morality of that depends on the situation - for example, I wouldn't complain if someone illegally immigrated from some place like North Korea where the people are extremely oppressed. Morality is whether you can justify something or not. When something doesn't do much harm, justifying something is very easy."So then by that rationale, I cannot condone same-sex marriage because it serves absolutely no purpose in society as a relationship between two people is used to form a bond strong enough to wish to create another life."I will bring up the common point of infertility and voluntary childlessness - marriages between couples with one infertile partner or between two people with no intention of having a child would have to be forbidden under this argument. As for the preceding argument about zoophiliac marriage, marriage has always been between people, not animals (and yes, gay marriage did exist in the Roman Empire until about 340 AD)."Any children who wear glasses, are overweight or too thin, or are abnormally short or even taller compared to the majority will be ridiculed. Consider what wrath a small child with two moms, or two dads might incur."Do you know of the high suicide rates among openly gay students? It's rather high. Kids will get bullied for the dumbest things, no matter what. Why should we bully gay adults by not allowing them to marry the person they love?I've also seen that some children fail to see why same-sex marriage is even an issue, so you have people on the other side of the coin as well."Homosexuality, regardless of what is supposedly mentioned or interpreted from the bible, is offensive to some people, bottom line." Lots of things are offensive to some people. Some people would find eating pork to be offensive. We aren't rushing to ban bacon, though. PDA is something that nobody likes, regardless of sexual orientation.
Same-sex marriage

This will be my second debate on this subject. Rules First round should contain Con's arguments. Dropped points are concessions. No semantics or lawyering. Avoid logical fallacies. Any requests for modification of rules or definitions are to be sorted out in the comments section before accepting the debate. RestrictionsArguments from Religion - The Establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits Congress from enacting any laws respecting an establishment of religion. Therefore, if the ONLY reason to ban same-sex marriage is because a certain religion frowns upon homosexuality, then Congress cannot pass a law on it, since its sole purpose is to respect an establishment of religion. Since religious arguments alone are insufficient to get a law passed in Congress (if they are following the Constitution, at least), any religious arguments are to be excluded from this debate. LGBT Parenting - This is a new rule since my last debate. Same-sex couples adopting children is a whole separate debate. Since any single person can adopt (including homosexuals), this argument does not hold water. You can, however, argue that an essential component of marriage is raising children, however, arguing about the effectiveness of LGBT parenting is hardly an argument that will stand when a single homosexual can already adopt. Like I said, it's for a separate debate. DefinitionsMarriage - A state-recognized union between two persons. Traditional marriage - Two persons of the opposite biological sex in a state-recognized union. Same-sex marriage - Two persons of the same biological sex in a state-recognized union that confers the same benefits as a traditional marriage. BurdensIt is reasonable to say that if there is no reason to implement a law, then it should not be implemented. Therefore, it is reasonable to put the full burden of proof on Con to provide good reasons why same-sex marriage should be illegal. The current legality of same-sex marriage bears no relevance. Pro has to refute arguments provided by Con, and can argue that same-sex marriage would be beneficial in order to outweigh arguments by Con.
International Intervention and Human Rights Abuse by State Actors

I thank YYW for challenging me to this debate. It should be fun. In this round, I shall simply say make a quick word regarding the BOP and sources. BOP YYW wrote: "PRO's Burden of proof is to argue as a general principle that whenever (1) international military intervention is likely to successfully reduce human rights abuses by state actors, and (2) international military intervention is in the interest of the state which is to intervene, that intervention as such is justified." He also stated that these are "two criteria which, if met would be sufficient to justify military intervention." YYW also confirmed in the comments that he must uphold BOTH of these criteria to achieve his BOP. This impact and relevance of this information is clear: if Pro only upholds one of these two criteria, or if Con can sufficiently undermine one of these two criteria, Pro has failed to meet his BOP. Pro must successfully uphold both points in order to meet his BOP. SOURCES While sourcing is not required and while voters may not assign points for sources, I submit that credible sources add weight to arguments. If an expert in the field is saying something, he is more apt to be correct or valid than are me or my opponent. We may both be smart people, but neither of us has the same expertise or knowledge base on intervention as does a UN or State Department official, for instance. Therefore, while sources themselves may not be scored, if faced with two competing arguments, one could factor in sources to determine which is more valid in this debate. This is the "ethos" component of the ethos-pathos-logos triad. OTHER I agree to the 10,000 number, for the purposes of this debate. I like semantics, and since no outright prohibition on them has been proffered, I hereby reserve my right to employ them (though I think it's VERY unlikely I will in this debate.) With that, I turn things over to Pro...
International Intervention and Human Rights Abuse by State Actors

Resolved: If international military intervention is a likely viable means to ameliorate human rights abuses by state actors, and intervention as such is in the intervening state's best interest, international military intervention is a justifiable. 4 rounds One Month Voting Period 72 hours to debate 10,000 characters/round Rd. 1) Introductions/stipulations/acceptance/analysis Rd. 2) Opening arguments Rd. 3) Rebuttals/Reconstruction Rd. 4) Concluding Remarks This debate establishes two criteria which, if met would be sufficient to justify military intervention. They are (1) international military intervention is likely to successfully reduce human rights abuses by state actors, and (2) international military intervention is in the interest of the state which is to intervene. While not all human rights abuses obviously merit an international response, it should be assumed that the degree and magnitude of human rights abuses impacts at least 10,000 people subject to the abusing state's power. Ten thousand is an arbitrary number, but one chosen so as to establish a minimum threshold for involvement. That is not to say that intervention as described by the resolution would be unjustified below that threshold, but rather to limit this debate's scope only to those conflicts which engage more than 10,000. While additional criteria may factor into consideration for specific cases of intervention, as this debate shall only consider the two criteria listed above. PRO's Burden of proof is to argue as a general principle that whenever (1) international military intervention is likely to successfully reduce human rights abuses by state actors, and (2) international military intervention is in the interest of the state which is to intervene, that intervention as such is justified. Neither PRO not CON are obliged to "prove" their side, but only tasked to argue, more or less compellingly, on behalf of their perspective. CON's Burden of proof is only to negate PRO's claim. It is stipulated that outside sources, while the may prove necessary, are not necessarily required here and no source points may be awarded for or against either side.