BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The marriage of Homosexuals should be legal

First, I would like to clarify a few terms: I'd like to define marriage for you as The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex. Thus meaning that God and religion really has nothing to do with this topic and is therefore an invalid point. Next, I ask that you know that I assumed it was common knowledge that we were speaking of the USA but if not then I apologize. I would also like to state that there weren't any specific states given intentionally. This is because this debate is simply stating that we, as a country should have legal rights to wed whomever we choose anywhere and not just in certain states. I will now move on to attack my opponents contention that the complete act of marriage cannot be fulfilled, even if legalized: My opponent has given his definitions based on a heterosexual prospective. This resolution clearly states that the topic is marriage among the HOMOSEXUALS which blows those definitions out of the water. My opponent also claims that he will not debate the fact of God's existence, however, if he is going to bring up arguments such as God he must be prepared to defend the fact that not everyone believes the same way religiously. Also, I would like to say that if we are arguing the Bible then while it says that homosexuals are an abomination, it also clearly states throughout the Bible that God Loves Everyone. I will now move onto my own argument: THE GOVERNMENT AND RELIGON ARE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS At no time did I claim that the government and religious groups had to be in agreence. People believe differently and they need not suffer on what makes them happy by another man's beliefs. It is very possible that the government can legalize marriage among homosexuals without having the full support from all religious groups. We must keep in mind that it is impossible to please every religious group out there with the same laws and regulations. For these reasons I strongly urge a PRO ballet.
The marriage of Homosexuals should be legal

Thanks for the debate, Pro! I hope that I can satisfactorily fufill the prerequisits that have been established (of maturity), in which I'm confident I will. First, I will define the key terms with an impartial and unbiased source: =DEFINITIONS= 1) Marriage- Marriage is a social, religious, spiritual and legal union of individuals 2) Matrimony- A sacrament in which woman and man enter a life-long union. , receiving the grace and blessing of God to help them fulfill their vows. 3) Homosexuals- Sexual desire within the same sex. 4) Legal- Established by or founded upon law or official or accepted rules 5) Should- Indicates a recommendation or that which is advised but not required Now with the technical terminology of this debate understood, I will now open with observations: =Observations= The resolution does not specify a specific region, but, for the sake of argument, I will assume that it the USA will be discussing. The resolution does not include the states in which homosexual marriage is legalized. This is a policy debate in which the term "should" is implemented, as nessicary in the resolution to be. I would like to direct that the basis of 'should' is relative, and if I can prove that they should not be, then I have won this debate. I will now formally open my argumentative forum with my contentions: =Contention 1= THE COMPLETE ACT OF MARRIAGE CANNOT BE FUFILLED, EVEN IF LEGALIZED. As stated above, to be joined in matrimony, they must have the blessing of God, and since this country is, for the most part, Christain, I will use this religion to form my basis. (Ordinarily, I would not implement relgion with a legal debate, but religion is used in this matter. Also, I will not partake in the cliche debate of God's existance. ) In the book of Leviticus 18:22, it states that the homosexual relation (defined as sexual desire for the same sex), is an abomination. In this, my case is proven. If the act of marriage cannot successfully be completed, then the act itself is unfufilled and void. "Do or do not. .. " -Yoda.
The marriage of Homosexuals should be legal

Alright now, I will first explain why I couldn't post, then move on to my conclusion. At first, I was just going to comment I couldn't post. Upon further reflection, I realized that I would still forfiet a round unless I requested arguements extended. I broke my keyboard. Thus, I had to copy and paste my entire login and password, then copy and paste "i cant post i will explain later. " This simple task was very time consuming and excrusiating. I hope you will all undestand, and now I move to my conclusion. *I won't post new arguments that my opponent can't defend, just rebuttals. I have proven traditional marrages are Christian. However, my opponent wishes to assert the small example of homosexual atheists. On the scale between the two, this is virtually insignificant. The classic atheist belief is that nothing but the current world exists and it goes nothing beyond that. I have very, very rarely heard of straight atheist getting married, let alone homosexuals. If they get married, I would suppose that they seek a tax break or formal recognition. Since they do not believe in the next life as many marraiges do, they seek attention from this world for it and nothing more. =Conclusion= The entire debate is heavily dependent upon this question: "Does marraige hold it's roots in religion? " I have asserted and proven with a reliable source that, yes, it does. My opponent has only refuted with his personal opinion and no sources. In this, I believe the answer to the question is clear.
The marriage of Homosexuals should be legal

I got all of my definitions off of dictionary. com for the record. Marriage does not have its roots in religion. What he still hasn't answered is my question that if marriage really does 'have its roots in religion' what happens when an atheist gets married, gay or not. No marriage is a legal union. To be considered married you have to get a marriage license, making it legal. My opponent states that a document cannot testify to the will of God and that's true until you consider the fact that not everyone that wants marriage believes in God and he fails to acknowledge that. Our Constitution states that every citizen of America has the right to life, liberity and the PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS. Saying that a man cannot marry a man BY LAW is against the Constitution and is therefore contridicting the Constitution. States do NOT possess the right to take away any persons right to happiness. It's that simple. As another example to my Constitution argument above, the legal drinking age nationwide is 21. That's not a state thing; it's a national thing. Therefore the state cannot control it. Like I said before, keeping gay marriage illegal is a bigger example of border like tyranny for the simple fact that it is the government reaching into our lives and telling us that no we can't marry who we want. Once again violating my right to hapiness. There should be nothing to prevent and I have more than given and explained my example of why and do not feel the need to do so again unless needed. Yes, half of the people of this generation do NOT agree with gay marriage, but in the same since, there's another half that do. Now we can sit here forever and go back and forth about how it's a half and half decision but that's assinine and will never reach a stopping point so lets move on shall we? As I have said before marriage does not always have a base in religion. Back to the example of the Atheist couple getting married, there is not religion involved there. It is simply a couple becoming a union in the eyes of the law which is all I'm saying for gay marriage. He claims that the reason he won't debate God is because it's an opinion. Well, this whole debate is opinion as is any other debate but ok. However, obviously the FACT that He is used in marriage is either a strong opinion or an invalid fact because I have proved it false. You can consider homosexuallity a sin until your heart is content but like you said this is not a matter of religion as you and I have both stated. I have proven to you that marriage is in fact legal and to clarify things. A vast majority of the country that believes in RELIGION is Christain. That does NOT include the Atheists, keep in mind. I don't really get the point trying to be made by the sandwitch thing but whatever. Finally, God does NOT matter in this debate.
Commuter trains should have segregated carriages for both ladies and homosexual gentlemen

Just to clarify, in Japan women don"t have to travel in the women-only carriages and I am not suggesting they should be forced to elsewhere. The same principle applies to homosexual men. It will be their choice. Therefore there will be no reason why families cannot travel together, although commuter trains are normally only used by workers. Regarding enforcement, society enforces the rules just as ladies use ladies public toilets and gentlemen use gentlemen"s public toilets. Please do not underestimate the influence of the Japanese, by the way. in the 1970's 'Made in Japan' stamped on a product indicated cheap and shoddy merchandise but these days most cars and electronic consumer devices sold worldwide are made in Japan, and they have a very good reputation. Furthermore, Japanese restaurants, takeaways and karaoke bars are now ubiquitous in many Western cities. So, although Western men are not currently as predisposed to feel up young women on trains as their Japanese counterparts, it is only a matter of time before they do. Also, trains are just as a crowded in cities such as London as they are in Tokyo, and with the increase in the cost of fuel, use of mass transit in the US, American cities will surely follow soon. Regarding my "disgusting, and insulting generalization" I accept that it is wrong to make sweeping generalizations when debating but I did so because I hadn"t done any research. That's because I thought it was common knowledge that gay men are promiscuous. Nevertheless, I now have the facts to hand to prove my point. According to the US Government: "Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are more severely affected by HIV than any other group in the United States," and "in the United States, HIV is most commonly transmitted through specific sexual behaviours". To spell it out, if gay men weren"t having unprotected sex with each other on an indiscriminate and wholesale basis the spread of AIDS would be most prevalent in intravenous drug users and prostitutes. [1,2] Finally, there should be no confusion getting on and off trains with different carriage types: on the London Underground there used to be four classes: First Class Smoking; Second Class Smoking; First Class Non-Smoking and Second Class Non- Smoking; and everyone managed just fine. Thank you. [1] . http://www.cdc.gov... [2] . http://www.cdc.gov...
Commuter trains should have segregated carriages for both ladies and homosexual gentlemen

According to a survey conducted in Tokyo last year, 64 percent of young Japanese women had been groped on the city's notoriously crowded trains. [1] That's why you will now find women-only carriages (passenger cars) on many commuter (mass transit) trains. This has resulted in a marked drop in number of cases of sexual molestation of women on trains. [2] Great news for the women and ladies-only carriages should be introduced in cities across the world, but what about the men? Because the women will have their own carriages the men will be squeezed together tighter than ever in the remaining carriages, thus giving gay perverts the opportunity to touch up male passengers for a cheap thrill. Obviously, straight men don't want to be fondled by a gay sex-pest any more than women want to be groped by a heterosexual sex-pest. So, what's the solution? Put the gays in with the women? No, this would't work because the straight sex-pests might pretend to be gay in order to get into the women's carriage to feel them up. No, the answer is to introduce both ladies-only and homosexual gentlemen-only carriages. The gay men would be as happy to travel in their own segregated carriage as the women would be in theirs because they would be in a carriage full of other gay men who would all be touching each other up (homosexual men are very promiscuous and like that sort of thing). So we can see it makes sense for rail companies to introduce segregation on commuter trains with ladies-only and homosexual gentlemen-only carriages. Thank you. [1] http://abcnews.go.com... [2] http://english.pravda.ru...
WODC: Voluntary Abortion should be legal

IntroductionThis debate is part of the larztheloser's World Online Debate Cup.ResolutionPro's contention is that Voluntary Abortion should be legal.DefinitionsVoluntary Abortion: The removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy (of a female human being). [1][2] Legal:permitted by law. [3]Rules• Round 1 is for establishing the debate, acceptance and pleasantries only.• 8k characters max. per round.• 4 rounds.• 48 hrs.• 7 point system.• 7 days voting period.Sources1. http://www.medterms.com...2. http://dictionary.reference.com...3. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Chocolate is the best candy.

I will argue that dried figs, not chocolate, are the best type of candy. I wish my opponent good luck. Constructive caseC1) Dried figs are vastly beneficial to healthThe fibre, vitamin B6, copper, potassium, manganese and pantothetic acid content of dried figs all put it in the 'good' category. It can lower blood pressure, help lose weight and protect the body against posmenopausal breast cancer. (1)However, chocolate contains comparatively less fibre if we look at milk chocolate, which is usually used to produce candy. It has 1.3 g (2), while figs have 1.45 g. (1)C2) Dried figs are naturalUnlike chocolate, dried figs have gone through much less processing before being sold as candy. This can be proven by the fact that dried figs used as candy resemble their natural form, while chocolate does not look like cacao beans at all. Although you may argue that this is an appeal is nature, one must remember that processed foods have less guarantee of health. (3)Rebuttals R1) The chemical wiring of the human brains to like chocolateMy opponent claims, based on the first paragraph of an article, that the chemical wiring of the human brain likes chocolate, but he fails to point out that 'The signature reads 'chocolate lovers' in some people and indifference to the popular sweet in others' - which indicates that the candy does not appeal to all. R2) Chocolate is made from a fascinating plant. The value of a candy has little relevance with whether the plant is fascinating. Rafflesia and venus fly-traps are both very fascinating plants, but few would be willing to consume a candy produced from them. My opponent also asserts that all fruits are healthy, and that this is completely indisputable. First, I would like to state that no fruits are healthy in excess. Coconut, for example, contains saturated fats, which may raise cholesterol levels. (4) Although chocolate does have health benefits, it also carries quite a bit of risk, including low bone density and headaches in migraine sufferers. Processed milk chocolate also has high sugar and fat content, which raises your calories. (5)R3) Obama likes chocolate, and he is the leader of the free world. This is an appeal to authority. Obama may have expertise in politics, but taste in candy is certainly not encompassed by the field of politics. (1) . http://www.whfoods.com...(2) . http://www.sofeminine.co.uk...(3) . https://www.insidetracker.com...(4) . http://www.quickanddirtytips.com...; (5) . http://cocoasymposium.com...;
Chocolate is the best candy.

I believe that chocolate is indeed the best form of sweet. It is delicious, and has a taste that no other food can ever equal. 1. The source below evaluates the chemical wiring of the human brains to like chocolate. I only read the first paragraph, but it looked fairly reliable. http://www.sciencedaily.com... 2. Chocolate is made from a fascinating plant. Apparently it is made of fruits, which are healthy in any situation, which is completely indisputable. http://www.chocolate.org... 3. Obama likes chocolate, and he is the leader of the free world. You can't disagree with his taste. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Fortnight is an example of gun violence

The game "Fortnite" has become possily the most popular game in the world over recent months, particularly due to it"s "battle royale" mode " so much so that mainstream shows such as Good Morning America are now picking up on the craze. After the recent comments from President Trump about violent video games, the media has been keen to analyse Trump"s and other politician"s claims about the affects of playing games, especially those that involve guns and fighting. Read this for more info: https://www.dexerto.com...
Fortnight is an example of gun violence

Now my opponent has started going off about...video games? This is clearly off-topic, because the name of the debate is clearly talking about the fortnight, which as we established, is a period of two weeks. Even if this debate were about video games causing violence, their evidence is suspect. They point out that 97% of teens aged 12-17 play video games, and yet how many of them engage in gun violence? A microscopic percentage, I'd imagine. They also say that the American Psychological Association takes a "firm stance" against children playing violent games. First of all, where's your source? Second, the APA isn't infallible. Until the 70s, they classified homosexuality as a "mental disorder", which is clearly based on archaic prejudices and has no evidence to support it. [1] This may be a case of the same.But none of that matters, because as I said, my opponent is off-topic and the win goes to me by default. I would advise my opponent that next time, they should be more careful about laying down rules and definitions in Round 1. And to watch their spelling.Sources:1. https://www.psychiatry.org...
Fortnight is an example of gun violence

President Donald Trump said Thursday during a White House meeting on school safety that the nation needs to address what young people are seeing. "I'm hearing more and more people saying the level of violence on video games is really shaping young people's thoughts," he said. "And then you go the further step, and that's the movies. You see these movies -- they're so violent, and yet a kid is able to see the movie if sex isn't involved." Killing, though, is involved, he said. His remarks were dismissed by Chris Grady, a survivor of the February 14 shootings at Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida: "I grew up playing video games ... first-person shooter games, and I would never, ever dream of taking the lives of any of my peers." In Munich, Germany, an 18-year-old gunman who killed nine people in July 2016 was a fan of first-person shooter video games, according to reports. This detail led many to worry that violent video games may be negatively affecting their own children. What is the truth? Both the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics take a firm stance against children and teens playing violent video games. The psychological group reports that more than 90% of children in the United States play video games. Among kids between the ages of 12 and 17, the number rises to 97%. More important, 85% or more of video games on the market contain some form of violence. The titles seem to say it all: "Manhunt," "Thrill Kill," "Gears of War" and "Mortal Kombat." However, even the seemingly benign "Pokemon Go" requires players to go to battle.
Fortnight is an example of gun violence

My opponent has chosen to argue that "fortnight" is an example of gun violence, which is an easily disprovable hypothesis. For you see, "fortnight" is a word that has little, if anything, to do with firearms or violence. Let three definitions speak for me:"A period of two weeks." -Oxford English Dictionary [1]"A period of fourteen days ; two weeks" -Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage [2]"a period of two weeks" -Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary [3]These well-respected dictionaries seem to be in absolute concordance. A fortnight is a period of time, fourteen days to be exact. What this has to do with killing for sport, I don't know, but it seems that my opponent engages in some pretty questionable activities every two weeks. They should probably be investigated.Sources:1. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...2. https://www.merriam-webster.com...3. https://dictionary.cambridge.org...
ivf debate

There will always be a possibility of something going wrong, but that doesn't mean you should take this special opportunity from a couple wanting a child. "Although this would be a disappointing outcome, it is useful to be able to uncover such problems so that solutions can be reached for future treatment with ICSI (Intra-Cytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI) is a specialized laboratory technique that has revolutionized treatment for fertilization problems, and in particular, male factor infertility, since its introduction in 1992.)" 1 in 6 couples will suffer infertility problems and sometimes these remain undiagnosed after investigation. These patients may benefit from intervention. "The Advantages and Disadvantages of IVF." The UK's Pioneering Fertility Clinics. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.
ivf debate

According to Create-fertility's article "the Advantages and Disadvantages of IVF" there is a high possibility of failure, with just 25% of cycles resulting in a live baby. There is a chance of side effect, such as severe ovarian hyper stimulation syndrome (OHSS) ("the Advantages and Disadvantages of IVF" April 27, 2016). Multiple pregnancies because of accidental placement of another embryo have been resulted as 25-30% of all IVF pregnancies ("the Advantages and Disadvantages of IVF" April 27, 2016). As stated in "the Advantages and Disadvantages of IVF", there's a higher risk of ectopic pregnancy, which is a pregnancy in which the fertilized egg implants outside the uterus.
ivf debate

"As people saw for themselves how happy and healthy Louise Brown and Elizabeth Carr were, their fears of "Frankenbabies" began to disappear. Many other social concerns failed to materialize; test tube babies were not shunned, and far from destroying the traditional family, the effects of IVF were often conservative. In the words of biologist Lee Silver, "here"s a technology which is almost always used to allow a married man and woman to have a child, to form a family. ... So IVF facilitates a very, very traditional outcome, which is a mother and a father and children." "American Experience: TV's Most-watched History Series." PBS. PBS. Web. 28 Apr. 2016. Everyone should be allowed to do IVF. It is their choice whether they want to take the risk or not.
ivf debate

IVF is especially important to women who want to have kids later on in life. "If you want to have more than one child via in vitro fertilization, your doctor can harvest several eggs and freeze them for a later procedure. This is an important aspect for women who want to harvest eggs to use when they are older. "Pros and Cons of In Vitro Fertilization: Costs, Success Rate, Multiple Births, Egg Storage." Mama's Health.com. Web. 28 Apr. 2016. Should a woman be punished for waiting to be stable and able to raise a child?