BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Same-Sex Marriage

Not the catholic church, tradition is the proud foundation, and so it should be. They shouldn't just change there whole beliefs just because people want to re-define a word, that's ludicrous. I have gave plenty of reasons in my previous argument on why we can't have gay 'marriage' there is no need to repeat. "You have no right trying to tell people what is not a marriage" I am not doing this nor is the church, the word marriage is telling them that, you have it the wrong way around , people have no right to re-define such a sacred tradition and then force the church to 'marry' homosexuals. I agree with you, you get crazy people in all walks of life, Religious, Atheist, Agnostic or otherwise, but it is important not to condemn the teaching, the teaching doesn't change or act in a crazy way, the sinful individual does. So you would allow own family marriage as long as the courts say its ok? Do the courts have more authority than God? Also when does it stop? What if a farmer turns round one day and says he is in love with his prize cow and wants to marry it? Who are we to deny his 'love'? We have an obligation with our free will to choose to live by the natural law or it could lead to caos. Ah Genesis 19, thank you for providing this. There are several ways to go here but here are a couple, first off the old testament has been fulfilled with the death of Christ on the cross, that's why we have the new testament. Also we can't judge people in the past for their way of living just because we don't live that way now, the way you lived your life thousands of years ago is obviously going to be different from today, just like in thousands of years to come they will be talking about ways we lived our life today. Secondly, incest would have been inevitable back in the day or else we could not have reproduced so God could have allowed it to populate the earth until a certain point, we now know we shouldn't live that way today because God told us to stop living that way, but doesn't give us the right to judge the past just because we don't do it today. This also highlights why members of the same family can't marry. Could you elaborate on the 'stupid morals'? And why they are stupid? I agree, I wish we all lived peacefully and lovingly and I don't know why you think I don't want that?? You are seriously misinterpreting what I am saying, this is what the bible teaches us to do and this is how I am trying to live my life, but because of original sin it makes it hard for each of us in our own personal way, that is why God gave us morals and natural law and free will, guidelines on how to achieve love and peace but we have to choose it and not reject him and because we don't fully choose Gods will that is why we don't have world peace. He knows we will fall because of original sin but that is the whole point, not to give up just because we sin but to pick ourselves up and keep trying harder to choose God and not just give in to sin. The problem is, people want an easy ride where they can do what they want and answer to no-one which puts them into denial by rejecting God, this is the problem.
Same-Sex Marriage

First off I wasn't trying to judge you, just trying to get the debate started. A church can still be church if it is open to marrying same-sex marriage. Two people of the same sex getting married makes just as much sense as a man and a woman getting married. Traditional marriage is a man and a woman, but why stop there? Why can't we have "Gay Marriage", if we had that you agree with it. You have no right trying to tell people what is not a "marriage." Believe me, I know some people can try to shove gay stuff down your throat (quite literally sometimes if you get the joke), but it is like Christians, there are some that are crazy and some that are not. While I don't agree with incest, it is looked down upon because it can cause serious birth problems and if they want to legalize it, they are free to do the same thing same-sex couples did. We can deny marriage for someone until they can make it to the supreme court and prove that what they want is moral. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. Genesis 19:32-36 We do have morals, but we have some stupid ones. Why can't we just learn to love one another and let everyone be at peace. I certainly believe the bible is about loving and caring about one another, but you don't seem to want that. If God put moral laws in our hearts then we wouldn't have the things that he disagreed with. Who knows whether got supports same-sex marriage.
Same-Sex Marriage

I fully support same-sex marriage. How can you not? I know many say that being gay is a choice, if that is true, when did you chose to become straight. See it doesn't make any sense. Many homophobes say that they were gay and became straight, so that basically means you are bi-sexual. How can homophobes hate another human being? How much provincial thinking does it take for you to hate another HUMAN being with feelings? Homophobes also try to pull out the bible card. The bible also says that we shouldn't judge, but we do that everyday. The bible also says that we should lay with out fathers. Incest? No thank you. There is proof that your sexuality is determined at birth, so being gay isn't a choice. Homophobes need to wake up and learn to accept everyone. Why is it anyone else's business what two independent adults do in their home? Hundreds of species have homosexuality in it, but we are the only species that has homophobia; that sure does tell you that being gay is certainly natural. Someone please explain why being gay is "unnatural." Homophobes keep changing why they don't like homophobes, in the 1960's it was because they thought they were pedophiles, now it is because they are gross and unnatural? Make up your mind homophones.I hope that if you are homophobic, you learn to accept everyone. Remember, being gay isn't a choice, but being ignorant is.
Is the US Healthcare Corrupted

It's unfortunate that my opponent never offered an original argument. Because of this, I have nothing to refute. Normally, I'm supposed to refute what my opponent says, not the author of a plagiarized work. This is debate.org, not copy/paste.org. Having said that, I'm not without options. I can make my own arguments. A1: The Healthcare System is Corrupt The healthcare industry is corrupt in a number of ways. They engage in selective reporting, targeted ducational efforts, and incentivizing prescriber behavior. They also engage in fear mongering by spending billions of dollars on exaggerating the dangers of certain ailments, along with exaggerating the benefits of certain drugs. [1] Sources: 1. http://tdi.dartmouth.edu...
Abortion should stay legal

I agree with you on the fact that many religions are against abortion, I know for a fact that the three biggest religions (Judaism, Christianity, And Islam are against it). However, I also believe that religion and state are separate. Many things that happen on a state level would offend many religions. For example, In Hinduism, The Hindus believe that killing cows are immoral and view cows as Gods. But, Every time Independence day or new years rolls around, There are huge celebrations with burgers, Hot dogs, Corn dogs, Etc. I would also like to respond to your "consent" argument. Many times, When a woman is on birth control, There are times where the pill fails or the woman becomes pregnant. However, That is only a small proportion of case. The major issue is that over 75% of woman that do get abortions are of lower income families. Moreover, There is a direct link with crime and having lower income. There have been some countries that have tried to ban abortions and they saw that as a result the crime rate went up. Further, Think about it like this. If an individual were of lower income and their mom or dad did not have the money to give that person a proper childhood, With all the movies and toys you wanted, Would it have in impact on that person? The stats show it would. And also, Why should a child be born if the parents would not love and care for it? To respond to your "conditions" argument: You are in fact correct that there are occasions when the tests show the wrong results or a false negative/ false positive. But again, Those rare cases are really rare. The stats show that if the mother were to get screened when she was 10-13 weeks pregnant there is a 95% chance that the test would come out accurate and between 15-20 weeks it would be 93% chance of being accurate. Also, If a fetus were to have down syndrome, Wouldn't the parent want to abort it? The down syndrome child would have a terrible life and never get to experience things that a normal adult would such as going to college, Dating, Vacations, And a long happy life. And i am not saying that down syndrome individuals don't experience those things, But life is so much harder and different for those individuals.
Abortion should stay legal

Greetings. Let's pose the question: "Should abortion be (il)legal? "This is a very difficult question to answer without bias and it comes down to your fundamental beliefs, But it is clear that the right to abortions in the U. S is being challenged and debate of the topic has been fired up for the longest. My side: I am against abortion. Access to abortion whether it's legal or not varies from state to state and it also varies from country to country. In Ireland for example, Abortion is illegal unless there are circumstances where the health of the mother is at risk due to the pregnancy. A fetus is a person from the moment of conception. A baby's heart begins to beat at about 3 weeks old, Therefore a baby is a real living person and killing it is immoral. Religions. Many religions are also against abortions. In the bible it states "Man shall not kill". Hindus and Buddhists believe the act of abortion is one of the greatest possible sins. Consent. If a woman willingly has sexual intercourse then she should not abort as that is her responsibility because she consented. For every action there's a reaction. In that case, It would be immoral to abort and that isn't right. If you do not wish to get pregnant you should either abstain or use some sort of contraception be it a type of birth control or condoms. Rape. Some women become pregnant as the result of sexual assault. No woman should be forced to conceive a baby that was a result of a rape. I believe a woman can abort if they were raped, Because it was forced and it wasn't consensual. Conditions. Other reasons are that abortion allows the parent to discriminate against the child. One of the most common conditions that it's screened for it down syndrome. There are some instances in pregnancies where the baby is diagnosed with down syndrome are aborted. The trouble with these tests is that they are not always accurate, Meaning the baby is aborted on the chance that the child might have down syndrome, Not because the baby does have it indefinitely. Pro-choice angle. At the end of the day, Women do have the right to choose whatever they want to do as it is their body. I'm not saying otherwise, But I'm just saying I am more against abortion than for it. Abortions should be only done if rape was involved or if the health of the mother is at risk (Ireland example) as I said before. The unfortunate problem is that abortion is also done for the wrong reasons, Such as consensual sex.
Die Hard is a Christmas movie

Once again, this is not something that would happen in any other holiday - Christmas parties might be the only company-wide party the whole year. It is a perfect chance to strike. Most companies have holiday parties and not Christmas parties. Calling it a holiday party changes nothing in the plot of the movie. Companies generally don't hold corporate holidays on any other day besides Christmas, and people generally don't fly in from the other side of the country on other holidays. Many people fly in for Christmas and stay until the New Year. In fact January 2 and 3 are one of the worst days to fly due to traffic. http://www.independenttraveler.com... Moreover, the potential success of the burglary plan crafted by the antagonists of the movie relies on Christmas - in particular, a small group of people (including executives) being in a single floor, while the rest of the building is empty. The plan crafted by the criminals (the central conflict of the movie) would not work outside the Christmas season. The entire plot, therefore, relies on the Christmas season. What you are missing is the Christmas season includes New Years. You could say New Years and not Christmas and the movie make since. Here is a list of notices for business stating they will be closed until at least January 2 for the holidays. http://www.ecmstockroom.com... http://www.imakenews.com... http://www.laminatorsinc.com... http://store.scent-works.com... http://www.royalplatinumprogram.com... In conclustion I have shown that if Die Hard was about New Years it would in no way change the plot of the movie. That means it is not a Christmas movie. Christmas is not critical to the plot of the movie. Only the generic winter holiday season is. Christmas is not the only winter holiday.
Die Hard is a Christmas movie

I disagree with my opponent’s definition of what makes a Christmas movie. Christmas movie- The movie must feature Christmas in the plot in such a way that you cannot remove Christmas from the movie and the movie make any sense. When viewed this way Die Hard is not a Christmas movie. If you change the dialog to say Holiday party and not Christmas party, and change every other time Christmas is said to New Years it still the same movie. You cannot this this with any other Christmas movie. I cannot change The Stata Clause movies, staring Tim Allen, to New Years. The movie would not make any sense. As far as my opponent’s claim that, “The fourth and final criteria is whether or not people watch it on Christmas.” I remind my opponent that Die Hard came out in July of 1988. http://www.imdb.com... When my opponent makes this statement, “an easy example of an 'alternative Christmas movie',” they forgot a word, to. Yes Die Hard is a great example of an alternative to a Christmas movie. I personally hate Christmas movies. I watch the Shawshank Redemption every year on Christmas. As a college student I had more than one Christmas for bachelors’ events were we watched Die Hard. Just because it is enjoyable around Christmas does not mean it should be a part of the Christmas genre of movies.
Die Hard is a Christmas movie

This is a fairly simple debate. The resolution is on whether or not the 1988 movie Die Hard is a Christmas movie. I will be arguing in favor of the resolution, while my opponent will be arguing in opposition of it. Rules1. Burden of proof is shared, which means Pro must establish Die Hard is a Christmas movie while Con must establish that it is not a Christmas movie.2. Forfeiture of any round by either side results in a victory for the other side. 3. First round is for acceptance.4. Round 2 is for opening arguments only.5. Round 3 is for rebuttals and closing arguments. Good luck!
Live Theater is the greatest form of the performing arts.

Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited his rebuttal round. To conclude my arguments for this debate, I would like to restate a few previous points It is possible to determine greatness. That greatness can be rejected by individuals, but if society considers something great, then that thing is defined as "great". (as in the majority of individual cases, it will be considered great. ) Comparing forms of art is possible, just as comparing codes of sport is. Again, it comes down to society's opinion. Keeping this in mind, remember that live theater is the most interactive version of the performing arts, where crowd involvement is common, and where the most opportunity for learning occurs. This makes it the greatest form of the performing arts. The addition of techniques that are impossible in screen arts, such as "Breaking the fourth wall" and "Call lines" creates a bond of emotion that is impossible to recreate, outside of live theater.
Live Theater is the greatest form of the performing arts.

Thank you, Con, for the points to address. Indeed, it is possible for an individual to determine greatness. However, for something to be considered "the greatest" by the majority of people (or society), is also a legitimate definition, and in fact, is the definition that is most proper. Should an individual determine greatness, than we would both win this argument, and it would be pointless, as it would be entirely subjective, and impossible to refute. However, with society being the determiner of greatness, your argument errs in suggesting that it is impossible to compare forms of art. For instance, society commonly compares sports, where different groups decide which sport or game is the "greatest" based on the features of that sport or game. For instance, the majority of the Australian society, where I live, considers the "greatest" sport to be cricket, as it is the oldest sport that Australians have played, and is part of the country's identity. Therefore, I propose it is possible to determine whether one thing is greater than another, based on public opinion, and the features of that "thing" compared to other "things" in the same category (in this case, Live theater being greater than other types of Performing arts in the Performing arts category, in the case of my previous metaphor, Cricket being greater than other sports in the Sports category.) Objectifying taste is a key aspect of our society, where taste is determined by influential figures, such as celebrities, or family members, or educators. These people tell you what society expects you to enjoy, and you make your own decision as to whether that meets your individual taste. Bushiness like advertisers then use this approximate taste gathered from society to aim products and advertising toward specialist audiences. So, in summary, it is possible to determine greatness, based on society. Whether you accept that greatness us a personal matter, and objectifying taste is common practice nowadays.
Live Theater is the greatest form of the performing arts.

I will be arguing that there is no way to quantify the greatness of any form of art, the performing arts included. If the premise was that seven is greater than two, I would be a fool to argue otherwise. If the premise was that Carbon has a greater number of electrons than Hydrogen, yet again, I'd be a fool. This is an issue of taste. Can we objectify taste? Can we say that one form of art is better than another outside of our own judgment? No, we cannot. It is true that society deems certain individual pieces of art as better than others. There is, however, no way to say conclusively that one form is greater than another, because it is subjective. It is impossible to say without a reasonable doubt that live theater is greater than any other performing art, for the mere fact that art is subjective. In my mind, there are two possibilities: The individual is the determiner of greatness If the individual determines greatness, the "classics" of live theater are no greater than me singing to people on the subway, because one individual observing may be deaf and blind. Or, for instance, they may think that my singing voice is the most beautiful they have ever heard and they never really were for costumes and scripts (. .. although, I highly doubt this is the case. :P) Society is the determiner of greatness If society as a whole determines greatness, then it may be possible to compare individual pieces of art, but not forms of art. I remind you that the premise claims the greater form. For instance, society would deem Hamlet greater than my impromptu singing, but does not claim that live theater is better than music. Society deems certain pieces in all forms of art (music, theater and dance included) to be great or. .. not so great. Because of this, one form cannot be strictly greater than another. In either case, there is no way to say conclusively whether live theater is greater than music, dance, or any other performing art.
Live Theater is the greatest form of the performing arts.

Live theater is the greatest form of the performing arts. The performing arts are an age old traditional method of displaying a story to an audience. Great playwrights and musicians have spent their lives developing shows to draw out their innermost emotions, and cast them onto the stage, for the audience to experience. Through this, Live theater creates an emotional bond with the stage actors that is simply not possible viewing a performance on the screen. In a theater, the audience are surrounded by like minded people, who contribute to the atmosphere with call lines, and with displays of their own emotion. This can be extended, by "breaking the fourth wall", a technique common in Shakespearean plays which involves the actors speaking to the audience, and moving among them, with responses from the audience altering the course of the show. One such show, Life in The Spotlight, has audience member interaction whereby the entire second act of the show is changed, depending on the reaction of their audience to a specific question or stimulus. This is inherently impossible on recorded and screen based performing arts. The Live theater tradition is the oldest form of theater, and can be used to celebrate religion (Joseph and the amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat), Life (RENT), Philosophy (Hamlet) and history (Julius Ceaser). Any topic that a human can name can be adapted to a live theater performance, and any tragedy or glory can be shown to the audience through this method. Surely it is impossible, knowing this, to declare any other performing art equal or greater than live theater.
Live Theater is the greatest form of the performing arts.

Live Theater is the greatest form of the performing arts. Performing arts are defined as: forms of creative activity that are shown in front of an audience, such as drama, music, and dance. This includes screened arts, being movie and television series. Live theater includes spoken and musical theater, but does not include cabarets, variety shows or screened arts. First round is acceptance. Second round is opening statements- No rebuttal. Third round is rebuttal- No new arguments Fourth round is concluding statements- No new arguments, or new rebuttal. Happy Debating! If any confirmations needed, comment here, or message me.
Resolved: In a democracy rights created by legislation are preferable to rights created by the judic

In a democracy, people are given the major say in government decisions. By electing politicians to represent them in legislation, rights suitable for the citizens are created. This represents what people want, making rights created by legislation more preferrable. On the other hand, the judiciary consists of judges appointed by government officials. This does not represent the people's voice in any way, making rights they create invalid in the case of a democratic government. Also, judges in courts interpret the Constitution based on their own thoughts, clearly providing for unfair judgement in judicial decisions.