BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Legalize Gay Marriage

While my strong point in this debate is most likely to my rebuttals, I can also offer reasoning as to why gay people should be allowed to be married. Let me first say that marriage is not a right owned by any religion, because any (straight) person of any religion, or even a person with no religion, is allowed to be married. Marriage is also not for children. This is proven in the fact that people that cannot have children and people that do not want children are still permitted to marry. Gay couples help with abandoned children. Gay couples are not able to have a child through each other, and so must turn to another source for a child. "Same-sex couples raising adopted children are older, more educated and have more economic resources than other adoptive parents. An estimated 65,500 adopted American children are living with a lesbian or gay parent." http://www.pbs.org... An argument could and has been made that children in gay homes suffer from that, but it simply isn't true. ""Consistently, over the past three decades, researchers have found that the daughters and sons of same-sex parents are psychologically well-adjusted. And now our new data demonstrate that 17-year-olds raised from birth by lesbian mothers are as happy as their peers," said lead author Loes van Gelderen, MSc, University of Amsterdam." http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu... Even if gay couples are bad for children, it isn't very important to the discussion of whether or not they can get married. Most states already allow gay couples to adopt. "Currently Florida is the only state that bans adoption by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Some states, such as Mississippi, allow a man or woman to adopt alone but will not allow second-parent adoption by a same gender partner. The state of Utah prevents any unmarried couples from adopting." http://www.pbs.org...
Mary, the virgin (Mother of Jesus). If she existed she wasn't a virgin.

It is a Catholic thing. Jesus actually had brothers but to the church, they never existed. http://chirho.me... 'Virgin' Mary is like a honorary title I guess. She technically didn't have Jesus from any human male so is she still virgin? Or should she have a different title. . . lol and wtf down below. . . https://www.facebook.com...
Not everyone who disagrees with homosexuality is a bigot.

"Everyone is a bigot" It appears the basis of your debate is that everyone is already a bigot, therefor people who disagree with homosexuals were already considered bigots. Well, I like your style and it is superficially clever. However, if you want to use "everyone", you must include; infants, toddlers, kids, teenagers, and young adults. You must also include; nuns, Buddhist monks, and even the pope. To call homosexuals bigots based on the notion that they already unfairly dislike someone else implies that the definition you are using is present tense. Believe it or not, not everyone is a bigot. There is absolutely no proof of that. The burden is on you to actually prove that everyone is already a bigot. I hate criminals, but it is justified. That being said, remember, there must be reasonable justification for the disagreement. There are people who can justify their disagreement. What about forgiveness. It's not only a religious term, if people have the ability to forgive, they have the ability to not be a bigot, I hope that makes sense. In conclusion, I would just like to know how everyone is a bigot, especially since forgiveness is a practice humans can use at any time. Thanks for the debate!
Not everyone who disagrees with homosexuality is a bigot.

I'll answer my opponents questions first: 1. Do you disagree with the definitions provided? No, they are perfectly acceptable. 2. Do you have any issues with the use of the first definition provided from the word 'bigot'? That fine as well. 3. Do you accept the notion that society is based on morality? I feel like this is a long debated subject of its own, but for the purpose of this debate we can assume it is true. 4. Should people make decision based on morality? For the purpose of this debate, this can be assumed to be true. 5. Why can't a person disagree with homosexuality if their belief is based on morality? I am not arguing that a disagreement with homosexuality is unjust, however I do believe that hostility based on morals is unjust. I am not suggesting that every person who disagrees with homosexuality is also hostile. Arguments: My argument is based on the assumption that everyone is a bigot. Every person strongly and unfairly dislikes at least one other person or idea. For a person to strongly dislike something is simple. However, to do so unfairly requires that their dislike is unfounded. For example, extremist Christians strongly dislike Muslims. They also dislike the Muslim religion, but the vast majority of them will reply that they dislike the people, despite never having met them. The majority of extremist Christians strongly and unfairly dislike Muslims. Not everyone is an extremist Christian, but everyone does have a similar class that dictates they strongly and unfairly dislike another class. Even people that strive to be accepting dislike a group of people. They dislike people who are extremely and unfairly unaccepting of others. Rebuttals: My opponent's argument states that anti-homosexuals' morals justify their dislike, but they are still bigots, just in regards to other people or ideas. Also, they attempt to support morality using an appeal to authority. Conclusion: Everyone is a bigot. All anti-homosexuals fall under the category 'Everyone', so all anti-homosexuals are bigots, regardless of their morals.
Not everyone who disagrees with homosexuality is a bigot.

I have no issue with the definition you provided of the world 'bigot'. Definitions (Merriam-Webster): 'Disagree': To have a different opinion : To fail to agree. 'Homosexuality': (1) the quality or state of being homosexual. (2) Erotic activity with another of the same sex. Lets break the definition of bigot into two parts as it is presented by the definition: 'bigot': (1) A person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. (2) A person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as racial or religious group). The definition of homosexuality best fits within the first definition provided within 'bigot'. As the definition of homosexuality does not classify itself as a particular group. It is better seen as a state of mind or action. What the Pro/Con must argue: Pro: Must convince the audience that it is possible to disagree with homosexuality without being classified as a bigot. Con: Must convince the audience that if you disagree with homosexuality, you are a bigot. Introduction: I will base my arguments under the notion that people can disagree with homosexuality without being classified as a bigot. Based on the definitions provided, a person strongly AND unfairly dislike homosexuality to be considered a bigot. Many people who disagree with homosexuality do so out of moral reasoning. Morality is a term that is encouraged by society in many ways. There are numerous laws established within the Federal Government and States that encourage morality among its citizens, it is illegal to murder, rape, steal, etc. Questions for my opponent: Do you disagree with the definitions provided, if so why? Do you have any issues with the use of the first definition provided from the word 'bigot', if so why? Do you accept the notion that society encourages some form of morality? Should people make decisions based on morality? Why can't a person disagree with homosexuality if their belief is based on morality? Note: I do not agree with any type of HATE towards homosexuals. I believe that people have every right to disagree with homosexuality.
@Backwardseden is an A-hole and @omar2345 is his little crony

maybe. Human, I agree with you. However, Backwardseden is not fair. When you take him aside and post on his profile, He deletes what he does not like. Look, I am sure he will be on here sooner or later, And he will probably say a bunch of crap, But people need to know that no one should ever accept his debates, . . . I made that mistake. Evidently, I am using this platform better than backwardseden, Because they just go around wasting space doing the same topic debates over and over, Then omar goes and votes for backwardseden. Now, There are other people who do the same thing on this site, So I would like to call them out as well. This is why I choose to debate, Instead of voting, Because I do not want to get into what i see other people doing. The debates with backwardseden are not fair by themselves, Then with the addition of omar and others battling their own voting wars, It just ruins debates, So real winners never come out. Kind of stupid. I chose to open up a debate about this topic, Because I think people should see this crap for what it is. I apologize to anyone who is offended by this topic, But the content is something I do not apologize for, Because it is true. Just go into backwardseden's profile and look at his debates, That is all I am saying.
@Backwardseden is an A-hole and @omar2345 is his little crony

Everyone, I wish you to know that @backwardseden is an A-hole God. He knows all, Sees all, Reads your freakin mind. . . This mo'fer is a madman. He is a nut and you should never, Ever accept his debates, 'cause even if you prove his idiotic debate points completely wrong and blow his stupid butt out of the water, All he does is insult you. He will not debate on an intellectual level. I think he must be a mental patient, And that is where he learned all his "filthy language, " because not only is it FILTHY Omar2345 is his little crony that goes around to all of his debates, Comments, And also votes, (when he sees fit). . . He also thinks he is a prime example of justice and equality. . . Yeah right Both of them can KISS BUTT
@Backwardseden is an A-hole and @omar2345 is his little crony

Maybe Human. . . You are right, The title is a bit harsh. . . But, It is truthful. . . So, That is why I chose it. Unfortunately, I did not have better words at the time I created it, But, I am not ashamed of it, At the moment. You are probably correct, This is not the best approach. The best approach is creating my own site where I can discuss things in a civil, Debatable way. . . Which I have done, And will send interested people the link. However, I am pretty much done with debate. Com. The people on here have ruined it, . . . In its early days, People respected each other, Now, They don't. That is why I have my own site, Where I can kick people off if they do not debate correctly, Plus, I don't have a voting policy, So there are no winners or losers, Just intellect. @country
The world would be better without religion

How dare you say that people were stoned for sexism in the Bible? The Bible is the catalyst for sexism! Just look in the grotesque book that sits in every hotel room drawer, every pulpit and every library, and you'll find verses like 'I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.' (1 Timothy 2:12) It's not just the sexism that's so prevalent in the Bible, however. It's the categorical and unanimous support for slavery, genocide, racism and the persecution of other religions. When people say that 'in recent times, maybe the last hundred years, the Jewish people have been the subject of perpetual persecution', try two thousand years! A lot of these ill informed believers don't even recognise that Jesus was a Jew himself! Anyway, back to the motion, which is 'the world would be better without religion'. Do you claim it morally acceptable that crucifixion is still in use in Saudi Arabia as recent as last month? These are crimes that are not even worthy of a ten year prison sentence in America. Is it merely a coincidence that Saudi Arabia is under a theocracy and the legal system is dominated by Shariah law? How about not even letting women drive? Is that morally just? I say that this is evil, and should be treated with contempt. Judaism is a religion which I don't believe we have covered yet. What rational, thinking person would look down at a new born baby and think 'let's mutilate this thing's genitals'? These are people who have been corrupted by the poison of religion, and the sooner we rid the world of it, the sooner we'll be living in greater harmony.
The world would be better without religion

It's obvious that you are a Christian, as you seem to take a single minded approach, but I hope you know that you're holy scriptures are, in some ways, just as dangerous and terrible as the Koran. While the Bible supports ideas such as slavery, sexism, racism and genocide, some might say that this was merely a product of its time. Now, this would be a plausible argument if it wasn't for the fact that people still abide by these moral codes, no matter how sickening they are. Also, while your lord and saviour may be idolised by your faith, he wasn't the pacifist that people make him out to be. In the Bible he says 'I don't not come with peace, I come with the sword.' Just like much of the Bible, this can be taken as metaphorical, and this is where the different denominations of Christianity come in as a result of their interpretation of the Bible varying. However, whichever way you look at it, Christianity is not a peace loving religion. It is appalling that you think that it is not a contemptuous religion.
The world would be better without religion

It matters what religion. Like: Christianity that isn't dangerous, but some religion are saying suicide is right and they believe in thier religion they commit suicide. So you are right but not every religion is dangerous. Like without Chrisitanity there would be no one in Heaven and everyone would be in Hell. So if you don't have some religions it isn't safe. So, Religions are safe and the world would be better with religions. It's not religions making our world bad. It's drugs, murders. drunk people etc.
"Race Traitor" is a Fallacy

Cultural Differences, are real. Culture includes certain characteristics that are specific in different regions, but there's more to Culture than physical characteristics. There is food, clothing, spiritual beliefs and rituals, family ties, how their societies are stratified. Even resources that are available within a society are not always available to people of other races and culture, because Society is Stratified. Social Mobility is becoming more common today just like in the early days of globalization. People are exposed to many different cultures, many different levels of stratification, and therefore, they lose sense of their own original culture. They adopt cultural characteristics of the new cultures that they experience, and thus become more like cultures they don't belong to, and less like the one's they came from. This isn't about inter-racial friendships, its about inter-racial dating and marriage. Losing one's culture prevents that culture from being passed down, thus eliminating it in the next generation. Therefore, losing one's culture robs the next generation of knowing where they actually came from.
"Race Traitor" is a Fallacy

I look forward to hearing his views on this subject. Opening Argument: I shall prove that the term "race traitor" is a fallacy according to the definitions in Round 1. First of all, a traitor is "one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty. " In order to prove that one is a traitor, one has to prove that one has a duty to his/her race. This is where the idea of a racial traitor falls apart. To say that being born "White" obligates one to the "White" race is a matter of opinion rather than of verifiable fact. The subjective nature of obligation to one's race makes the term "race traitor" a fallacy or, " an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference. " Examples of Traitors:Two names almost synonymous with the term traitor are 1. Judas and 2. Benedict Arnold. Both these men betrayed the trust of persons to whom they were bound by obligation or duty. In both cases the traitors were committed to the persons whom they betrayed. Commitment to a cause or to a person or group of persons is voluntary. Webster defines commitment: 1 a : an agreement or pledge to do something in the future; especially : an engagement to assume a financial obligation at a future dateb : something pledgedc : the state or an instance of being obligated or emotionally impelled <a commitment to a cause> The key here is the word "agreement. " An agreement involves the will of the person who is making the commitment. Our two traitors listed above both agreed to their relationship to the persons or causes to which they were committed. "Commitment" to race does not exist, because such a commitment is not automatically agreed upon by each member of a race by virtue of birth. One's race is determined at birth, not at some point when one makes decisions about one's self. Analogy Suppose a group of children decided to play a game. The group divides up into those with light colored hair and those with dark colored hair. Suppose some of the members of the group did not want to play the game, but rather wanted to watch the game. Then suppose one of the dark-haired girls who was not playing the game was cheering for the light-haired team because she had many friends on that team. The girl did not commit to the game or to her hair-color group; therefore, she could not be a traitor to her hair-color group. As a matter of fact, if she were to cheer for her hair color group, she would rather be a traitor to her friends! Racism is a game played by some members of society, not by all. Those of us who are not playing the game are not betraying our respective races by fraternizing with the "enemy. " One's enemies are not automatically determined by one's physical characteristics received at birth, but rather by personal relationships with people. Such designations are the impositions of society which are not morally binding.
"Race Traitor" is a Fallacy

Resolved: The term "Race Traitor" is a fallacy.Note to the reader: This is a 3 round debate designed to be a quick read for voters. Voting on this debate will take very little of your time.Definition of Terms:Race: 1. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, some being "Asian," "White," "African-American," "Native-American," "Latino," etc. characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics:(modified from Dictionary.com)Traitor 1 : one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty (Webster's Dictionary)Fallacy 1 : a false or mistaken idea 2 : an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference(Webster's Dictionary)Organization of DebateRound 1 Acceptance ONLYRound 2 Opening Arguements/RebuttalsRound 3 Rebuttals/Conclusions
Resolved: Age does not matter in a relationship

I think that intercourse is what you think a relationship is.There is so much more to it.There is no point in this argument if you refuse to realise that if you educate someone, they will learn. If they then choose to get std's or pregnant that's just stupid.A relationship is about a strong emotional connection between two people, usually of the opposite genders, usually with the man earning and the woman caring for the domestic issues. There are however huge variants of the norm, and as you stated there are mindless relationships between the youth of today which involve having sex for no reason at a young age and ruining their lives but this attitude is not due to age, it's due to culture, lack of discipline and lack of genuine sex education. Why do you think that even in a developing country like India there are barely any teenage pregnancies (outside of slums) whilst in developed countries it's a major issue. It is because when you give people lack of discipline and too much freedom, the foolish ones use it wrongly, whilst the norm and wiser ones use it correctly. Thus, you are giving the rebels as your entire case, I think you are mistaken.
Resolved: Age does not matter in a relationship

That's a nice string of copy and paste you have there. Most enlightening indeed.Let me reiterate the definition of a relationship then the definition of sexual intercourse so you understand the complete and utter difference between them. Relationship: an emotional and sexual association between two people.Sexual intercourse[1]: sexual contact between individuals involving penetration, especially the insertion of a man’s erect penis into a woman’s vagina, typically culminating in orgasm and the ejaculation of semen.There are far more forms of sexual association than penetration (if you need me to go into detail I shall next round). The issue isn't that teenagers are having relationships; the issue at hand is their education as to what safe sex is. Now, considering young people learn faster than adults[2], it would only be right to see that the error is in our lack of educating them, not in them having a relationship in itself.STI transmission is related to safe sex too.Education isn't relevant to age, in fact young people learn faster than adult so in conclusion your debate stands false.Sources:[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[2] http://news.softpedia.com...
Resolved: Age does not matter in a relationship

Age: a period of human life, measured by years from birth, usually marked by a certain stage or degree of mental or physical development and involving legal responsibility and capacity. http://dictionary.reference.com... Matter: be important or significant. http://oxforddictionaries.com... Relationship: an emotional and sexual association between two people. http://oxforddictionaries.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>My Argument<<<<<<<<<<<< My first argument will be centered on teenage relationships. Many teenagers are engage in relationships thinking that they are old enough to be responsible, think that they are at a stage or degree of mental or physical development. But unfortunately they are not for teenage relationships tend to leads to: Unplanned pregnancy and abortion Teenagers often find themselves in positions they did not planned for. Many a times they get pregnant at an age they did not planned for and this is because teenagers are not ready for relationships. Not only that but it is basically due to their age. They are not responsible enough as teenagers, they tend to have sex loosely. This is based on the fact they are only for the pleasure and they are surprised and began to panic when pregnancy comes into the picture. Why? It due to the fact they did not plan for it. At that age, teenagers use fewer condoms [1]. Not only that when they become pregnant most times they are not financially stable to take care of the child hence abortion is prevalent among teenagers [2]. The rates of pregnancy among teenagers are significantly dominant [3]. And this is due to the age. Teenagers tend to be irresponsible in their acts. And most times they cannot deal with the issues and consequences related to teenage pregnancy. I am not saying that unplanned pregnancy and abortion does not happen between other age groups, but it is significantly dominant among teenagers and there are plethora of reasons others than what I have already cited. Based on this fact it can be argued that age does have importance in a relationship. Increase in spreading of Sexual Transmitted Infections Sexual activities among teenagers contribute significantly to the increase of the spreading of STIs and this is also due to the fact that condoms use if not prevalent. Studies have shown the high rate of sexual transmitted infections among teenagers [4]. Teenagers are not mentally developed to understand the implication of sex, yet they get entangled in sexual activities more and more. Teenagers do not think before they act but act before they think. I am not saying that STIs does not spread among other age groups but it is significantly dominant among te 1. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... 2. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... 3. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... 4. http://www.cdc.gov...