BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage and GODS love for his Children

Broken???They're not broken (some of the people might be confused....but not broken). Being broken would mean that have no clue what they want or what no clue what they are doing. And that's not always the case, I think the ones who are completely in control of their senses, and in control of their choices know EXACTLY what they are doing. I know plenty of homosexuals who EXTREMELY religious, and to say "he has made a to reconcile you to him..." is just a little bit much. They don't have to be forgiven in anyway! Nothing of what they are doing is wrong. I hate to bring this up but GOD or Jesus didn't write the bible...according to the court of Rome's emperor Constantine, the Apostles of Christ wrote the gospel. So, if that's the case, then we don't REALLY know what Jesus or GOD thought of homosexuality. The bible then was basically all an opinion, not fact.If you can PROVE to me that it is fact then I forfeit, but I don't think anyone has HARD evidence of this at all. Its based on FAITH, you posting quotes from the bible is nothing but quotes to me....I can post quotes too. If you give me anything off from the Internet I wont acknowledge it....cause the Internet is full S**t that I wont even look at for a Debate like this. A "sin of adultery"? If you're referring to the fact its a way of cheating on GOD I just don't know how to respond to this. I understand that people have a relationship with GOD....but a ROMANTIC one???? Come on....that's like someone saying GOD is my boyfriend. I cant take that seriously....do you kiss GOD does he take you on dates??? If anyone says yes to this I recommend HIGE THERAPY. I have a boyfriend a PHYSICAL boyfriend....I see him. GOD is simply a figment, and that's absolutely true...do we see him?? Hes as visible as AIR....there is no PHYSICAL BODY of GOD on earth right now. So saying it should be viewed as a sin of adultery.....is a bit much. "God has designed it this way...." So they are supposed to give up all individual choices because GOD said so?? Do you see what you are saying?!? You are saying that even though we have individual choices that we are just supposed to give those up for GOD....what happens to our freedom??? GOES OUT THE WINDOW!!!I believe in freedom, and this isn't freedom what you are showing me.
Gay Marriage and GODS love for his Children

There was a debate on here supporting gay marriage. And I offered a side debate (if GOD really does love all his children.....I believe he does.) Everyone in my opinion deserves love, I cant imagine life without it. But thats exactly what is happening with the that certain group of people. They are literally being punished for being loved, being in love, and just being human. And its wrong. As I read what I'm typing I cant help but question what Im saying; In the bible yea its very clear that love and/or marriage is between man and woman......so its true then GOD doesnt love all his children.Everyone (well mostly everyone) say that they are all for equal rights......well you all are liars. Cause if you were this wouldnt be a debate. Please, give me ONE GOOD (not just some cliche response) as to why Gay Marriage is wrong....something with substance.
Naturalistic Evolution is more probable than Biblical Creationism

Resolution: Naturalistic Evolution is more probable than Biblical CreationismRules: (1) Debater must have typing experience and internet access.(2) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate(3) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.(4) No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.(5) Must insert one witty quote per round.Rounds: (1) Acceptance + Internet High Five(2) Main Argument (3) Rebuttal to opponent's main argument (4) Response to rebuttal + closing arguments + voting issues (one paragraph)"It is surely harmful to souls to make it a heresy to believe what is proved." -Galileo Galilei Definitions:Naturalistic Evolution: unguided biological evolution, which is genetic change in populations that are inherited over several generations in response to purely natural forces and processes -- i.e. without the intervention of a deityBiblical Creationism: the religious belief that God created life in the Genesis account of creationProbable: supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption but not proofBurden of Proof: The burden of proof will be shared. I, as Pro, must demonstrate Naturalistic Evolution to be more probable; my opponent, as Con, must demonstrate Biblical Creationism to be more probable. For the sake of this debate, we should stick exclusively with the biodiversity of life, not the formation of planets/stars/etc.By accepting this debate you accept the rules, definitions, and BOP. I accept this debate which I have thusly created and challenge those of rhetorical wizardry to a verbal duel. With my hand elevated and ready for forearm pronation, I slap yours in a ritualistic manner. Good luck to whomever accepts, and may the Gods smile upon you during this debate.Kittens!
communism is bad

"communist are greedy no matter what. They always want a little more. They aren't happy with what they have and this is 100% true. This is the main reason why communism will never work." Which communists are you referring to? If you are referring to the proclaimed communists of the Soviet Union then all you are showing is that some communists were bad. This is not to say that communism itself is bad. And at the end you say communism will never work. The resolution says that communism is bad, not that it can or can't work. And if you have drawn your conclusion because you believe that there have communist states that have failed, you're line of reasoning is fallacious. According to Marxist theory, communism is "a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labour and private property in the means of production and real estate." http://en.wikipedia.org... Since by this definition there has never been a truly communist society as all self proclaimed communist societies kept intact the existence of the state, whatever you are trying to use as an example of a failed communist system never actually existed. You have not and cannot use an example as I have shown that there has never been a truly communist society. You also tried to show that communists were bad without actually providing any examples. Even if you had this would not show that communism itself is bad.
Public Masturbation should be accepted

Sometimes you're really horny. But you can't masturbate anywhere because people might get offended. Well, they souldn't. If you fap, you can get back to what were you thinking about because you are no longer horny. Also, rape would be eliminated because men would be allowed to fap instead of rape for horniness. Plus its our body I mean they allowed junk food and smoking why not allowed fapping?
Public Masturbation should be accepted

Opponent is a brainwashed conformist sheep. He says: "And you was shopping in the city with your child,you noticed someone masturbating in public, so did your child. Is that OK for a minor to see someone masturbating?" The arugement that we should censor our children because they have a perceived innocence is illogical. There is no more innocence left in the world. "In the US, a woman is raped every 6 minutes; a woman is battered every 15 seconds." "Two gay men were killed in Baghdad's Sadr City slum, and police confirmed they found the bodies of four more men, all killed during a 10-day period after an unknown Shiite militia group urged a crackdown on homosexuals in the country. " Children will find out the truth eventually. Remember how pissed of they were when you told them santa claus wasn't real? This is a whole new truth to piss them off. 2nd reason oppponent sucks penis: "If you were to make it legal, you would have to amend the Sexual Offences 2003" This has no weight whatsoever has laws are able to be amended. Public masturbation should be legal because it is an attempt to controll the human body in the same vein as smoking or eating junk food. You say yourself, "Masturbation refers to sexual stimulation of a person's genitals, usually to the point of orgasm." Just as we should have power of our own lungs and stomachs, we should also have power of our own genitals.
Public Masturbation should be accepted

In this round, I will attempt to discuss further, the points that I made in round one. Please note that my opponent has changed his stance on rape by saying"Also, rape would be eliminated" to "Also even though it would not eliminate rape, it would eliminate some rape because some rape is caused by sexual desire. "My opponent is making wild claims to validate his/her debate. The severity of Public Masturbating and the effects it would have in society. Severity1. The state or quality of being severe.2. The act or an instance of severe behavior, especially punishment. (1)Lets just say that Public Masturbation was made legal tomorrow. And you was shopping in the city with your child,you noticed someone masturbating in public, so did your child. Is that OK for a minor to see someone masturbating? For a child to see a sexual act at such a young age? Don't you think this slightly disgusting? How would you tell your child what he/she is doing? Would you like someone to masturbate near your child? If you were to make it legal, you would have to amend the Sexual Offences 2003 (2)In law, defining what is “indecent” is difficult. Sometimes the law gets around the difficulties by being very specific. For example, the offence known as “indecent exposure” (under the Sexual Offences Act 2003) makes its a crime for a man to expose his genitals. Not only is the crime that precise but - for a conviction - the exposure must be intentional and the culprit must intend that some one will see “and be caused alarm or distress”. (3)No one can debate that making it legal in light of the above would not have a negative effect on Society. If you was to lift some parts of the "Sexual Offences Act 2003" it would have so many grey areas, I cannot even comprehend the effects it would have. It would be an open ground for pedophiles! No your telling me THAT wouldn't have an effect on society. Of course one having an orgasm doesn't bring harm to anyone but that's its if behind closed doors. Legalising masturbating in public would NOT eliminate rapeI will not attempt to debate about the motivation for rape, this is a debate in itself as motivations can range from anger, power, sadism, sexual pleasure, psychopathic, ethical standards, attitudes toward women and evolutionary pressures. If masturbation was to be made legal, rape would still take place as people rape for other reasons rather than just sexual desire. I would urge my opponent to discuss some valid reasons why Public Masturbation should be made legal. Vote Con(1) . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...(2) . http://en.wikipedia.org...(3) . http://business.timesonline.co.uk...
Public Masturbation should be accepted

Indecent exposure is the deliberate exposure in public or in view of the general public by a person of a portion or portions of their body, in circumstances where the exposure is contrary to local moral or other standards of appropriate behavior. Masturbation refers to sexual stimulation of a person's genitals, usually to the point of orgasm. Fap the sound one makes when masturbating himself to ecstasyRape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consentBeing that my opponent hasn't defined where the "masturbation" or "fapping" would take place, I will assume he/she means anywhere in the world. In order to focus this debate, I will debate the issue as if it were to take place in the United Kingdom. In my second round I will talk about the the severity of Public Masturbating and the effects it would have in society. I will also debate in my second round that being legalising masturbating in public would NOT eliminate rape.
the US should change its law regarding sentencing juveniles to life in prison

Thanks for a quick response. Glad this debate has actually moved quickly! As this is the final round, and to make things clear for all readers and voters, I would like I once again clarify things. The US Supreme Court has deemed it a violation of the 8th amendment to sentence juveniles to life in prison without parole. The title of this debate is "the US should change its laws regarding sentencing juveniles to life in prison." That being said, and being Con, I need to argue that the laws should not change. As of right now, with the current law actually protecting these juveniles, my opponent supports my side. Changing the law would in fact be a disadvantage to these children, allowing it to be legal to sentence them to life in prison without parole. To address my opponent, I am I no way having trouble establishing my ground. I am simply stating facts as Con, or would be, yet you stated a majority of them. When looking at the current standing, my opponent is actually arguing to back to the previous protocol, allowing the US Supreme Court to sentence these juveniles to life. Pros arguments, in fact, support my claim, because in the argument he is stating, he strives to change the law. This would be contradicting his attempts to protect these individuals from life sentences without parole. I have not needed to rebut any of my opponents arguments because they support my side. There are several reasons the law should stay the same, and in turn protect these children. - children are not always as developed as mature individuals (most likely not) - subjecting these individuals to life in prison is unjust and cruel - this would not give these individuals an opportunity to redeem themselves in later life - there are better ways to deter these individuals from committing further crimes than life in prison - being under 18 years of age, these children are most likely going to make stupid decisions at some point This debate may be slightly confusing for readers, seeing as the arguments posted by Pro support Con. If you have had no trouble following my case, vote con. If you did have trouble, I would advise you look at the current standing of the US Supreme Court and understand what a change would call for. Keeping the current standing is the best case for protecting these Children.
the US should change its law regarding sentencing juveniles to life in prison

Hi back, I think you have trouble determining your ground. you are supposed to be against me not supporting me! I said that the united states should change its policy about sentencing the juvenile to life in prison without parole. but you say that it should remain the same in order for this problem to end.if the current court system works than why are we having so many children some of whome as young as 12.14) sentenced to life in prison? also the 8th amendment doesn't apply in this case because it prohibits "unusual and cruel punishment" unfortunately, the US doesn't think that sentencing children to life in prison is unusual and cruel, that's why, they don't practice 8th amendment other wise, we wouldn't have been seeing this problem. which brings us to the conclusion that this cruel system should be changed either through amendments to constitutions or modifications to the judiciary system ,namely supreme court. There are at least 2,500 people in the US serving life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for crimes committed when they were under 18 years old. The United States is believed to stand alone in sentencing children to life without parole.Children can and do commit terrible crimes. When they do, they should be held accountable, but in a manner that reflects their special capacity for rehabilitation. However, in the United States the punishment is all too often no different from that given to adults.
the US should change its law regarding sentencing juveniles to life in prison

I appreciate my opponents arguments, yet I believe his arguments may support my claim. Seeing as things were not defined previous to the start of the debate, I proceeded to define certain phrases for the sake of clarification. This being said, we must look at the US Supreme Court's standing on sentencing juveniles to life in prison without parole (this is the argument as stated by my opponent, along with the definitions I presented.) As of 2012, the US Supreme Court ruled that "mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles under 18 violate the 8th Amendment." It was deemed so following the Miller vs. Alabama, where the Supreme Court came to the resolution that it was violating the 8th amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. (This decision of course contained exceptions depending on the severity of the case). Now it is clear that as of today, the US Supreme Court is against sentencing juveniles to life in prison without parole. Therefore, being Con, I believe that the US Supreme Court should not change this, partially for reasons spoken by my opponent, and also for reasons such as juveniles not being fully developed mentally, therefore not being subjected to the same judgment as a full grown adult. Allowing juveniles to be imprisoned indefinitely would simply be cruel and unjust, and I agree with pro that it would be unlawful to subject them to this punishment. In this agreement, I support my case that the current standing should not be changed. P1: Not changing the laws would protect juveniles from life in prison without parole P2: The US Supreme Court should protect juveniles from life in prison without parole C1: The US Supreme Court should not change laws Sources: http://www.youthlaw.org... http://www.law.cornell.edu...
the US should change its law regarding sentencing juveniles to life in prison

We as human are all prone to mistake. We are always making mistake and correcting ourselves. So mistake is natural part of every body's life. Mistakes only becomes problem, when they are repeated knowingly over and over again.in case of our social life , a mistake that ultimately harms the society should be prevented with varying degree of punishment. A severe punishment like life in prison is only justifiable when the social mistake, (in this case crime )is repeated over and over again despite repeated warnings and punishment.so for the first time offenders especially juvenile, however the intensity of crimes, exceptions should be considered, and circumstances surrounding the crime should be taken into account. The idea of treating young first time offenders like adult criminals, not only solves the societies problems, but it also takes away the chance for desperate ,regretful people with a whole life ahead of them, to have a second chance of living a peaceful and fruitful life in the society having learnt from their mistakes. rather than being condemned to a cramped inhumaniterian place for the rest of their lives because of some careless,irrational stupide decisions made by the power to be.
the US should change its law regarding sentencing juveniles to life in prison

To keep things fair, this round will only be used for acceptance and additional clarification of terms, giving us each two rounds to debate. Definitions: US - Seeing as this is not completely clarified, I will take this to mean the US Supreme Court, being the main judicial system in the country. Juvenile - Any individual under the age of 18 Life in Prison - I will take this to mean Life in Prison without parole In short, I will be arguing that the US Supreme Court should NOT change their current standing on sentencing juveniles to a life in prison without parole. Looking forward to a great debate. I will let my opponent begin with his opening arguments.
the US should change its law regarding sentencing juveniles to life in prison

life sentence punishment should only be reserved for adult offenders who are mature enough to understand what is bad and what is good . especially for those group who have committed the same crime over and over despite previous punishment. when we are talking about juvenile offenders. we are talking about kids (some of whom as young as 12) who have done something out of child fullness and ignorance and are experiencing for the first time that there is a punishment for every thing they do wrong in society. for the first time offenders of this age a simple punishment like being detained at home for a couple of days and being deprived of all sorts fun activity would be a great deterrent and lesson for them to stay away from crimes. but the idea of treating them like adult and punishing them like a fully grown individual by giving them life sentence some times as long as forty six years In prison ,in my opinion is not fair and logical
Is human cloning wrong? (Pro is for human cloning, con is against it)

Your main argument is that it is inefficient, expensive, and painful for the clone. I refute this statement by saying that technologies get better and more efficient as time goes on. However, if we do not pursue a technology at all, this will never happen. I feel that it is better, then, to pursue this technology casually, and to find applications for it (mind transplant, etc.) when we have those technologies ready. This way, we can immediately apply those new technologies, as we will have a viable medium with all the kinks worked out.I have never heard of spontaneous combustion in clones. Could you cite this claim?
Is human cloning wrong? (Pro is for human cloning, con is against it)

Well, I don't see why we need it. It's inefficient, expensive, and it is painful for the clone later on. Clones aren't really anything special, they are about the same as identical twins, same bodies, different minds, it's just with cloning, you can have an "identical twin" that is much younger than you are. There is of course cloning embryos to create stem cells, but it is again a very inefficient and expensive thing to do, the success rate is 0.1%-3%, and it is just simpler, if not as safe, to use a regular organ for organ transplants. There are also same sex couples that want to create children through cloning, but along with it being really inefficient and expensive, clones tend to deteriorate. The child may suffer from Large Offspring Syndrome, where the clones have abnormally large organs, and clones tend to spontaneously combust later in life, so your child may make it to the age of 20 and then suddenly die of unknown causes. I say it's simpler just for same sex couples to just adopt, there are plenty children out there who want a home.
Is human cloning wrong? (Pro is for human cloning, con is against it)

This still doesn't mean that understanding cloning won't help us in some other way. The thing that causes all of these early deaths of clones is the fact that their telomeres are too short. Telomeres, by the way, are excess bits of DNA on the ends of a chromatid that allow for some to be lost without anything essential being lost. This also imposes a hard limit on how long non-clones can live - if we figure out how to extend telomeres, we could extend our OWN lives. Technology isn't in the form of just researching one thing - it's finding bits of knowledge that can be used for many things, and piecing them together towards one application. Cloning's bits of knowledge allow us to make our own form more durable, putting us one step closer to the dream of immortality.