BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People who say "homosexuality is genetically related" are delusional

People who believe homosexuality is genetically related ARE delusional Just think for a minute, it is illogical for a gay gene to exist simply because it would be hindering reproduction, thus, eradication of society. This phenomenon contradicts the concept of natural selection (the ability to reproduce), which is one of the many underlying components of biology. If a gay gene existed, why isn"t there any emphasis on searching for a "straight/heterosexual gene"? Just because gays are a minority, the "I was born gay" is used as a scapegoat to prevent humiliation. If a gay gene did exist, then how would you explain bisexuality? If a gay gene existed, then science would be able to provide a cure for it. But there aren"t any because it doesn"t exist. If a gay gene existed, then how do you explain twins who carry the same DNA turn out to have inverse sexualities? According to the article "Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality Is Not Genetic", Dr. Whitehead asserts: "The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors." The study negated the idea for genetics being a driving force for sexuality. http://www.hollanddavis.com... More evidence that proves gay is biologically unrelated: According to the article "Is there such a thing as a gay animal?" Animals that are "deprived of heterosexual contact", fertilizes stress and in effect start exhibiting homosexual behavior. An experiment was conducted where 2 male monkeys were placed in a cage for 19 months. When the male monkey is placed in a cage with a female, they would both "exhibit conventional heterosexual behavior." http://www.straightdope.com... The following statement comes from the scientist LeVay: "It"s important to stress what I didn"t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn"t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain". http://www.trueorigin.org... A person who is born with an illness (diabetes, down syndrome, autism, cystic fibrosis) have no possibility of being cured. It IS on the other hand, possible for a person to change his/her sexual orientation. All things considered, a gay gene does not exist. People who say that they were "born gay" are completely out of their mind. EVEN WITH THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE REJECTING THE NOTION OF GENETICALLY RELATED SEXUALITY, people continue to believe an idea that has been proved to be false, thus, they are delusional.
People who say "homosexuality is genetically related" are delusional

People who believe that homosexuality is genetically driven are delusional. My opponent must argue that people who believe that notion are not delusional. Here are the definitions: Homosexuality = sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex Genetically = of, relating to, or involving genetics Delusional = deceiving Round one will be acceptance, round 2 will be composed of our arguments supporting our position, and round 3 will be reserved for rebuttals. Good luck to my opponent.
Oppressive government is more desirable than no government.

I will accept the true con position of no government being more desirable than an oppressive one. However, I would like to formalize definitions; by government are we talking about a State (monopoly of law and legitimate force in a territorial area) or such government as, say, a homeowner's association. I'll argue con for either, but will hope Pro clarifies in his opening statement. I look forward to this debate regardless and wish Pro luck.
Oppressive government is more desirable than no government.

This is a "Lincoln-Douglas" debate; each opponent must have a value and criterion, followed by contentions. Round One is for acceptance and declaring which side you would like to debate: 'oppressive government' or 'no government.' Please excuse the side debate.org has declared I am; it would not let me proceed with the debate without picking a side. Round Two is for opening arguments only. Round Three is for rebuttals and strengthening your case. Next, Round 4 consists of more rebuttals. And finally, Round 5 is for conclusions only; no rebuttals. With that, I look forward to a wonderful debate.
Marijuana legalization

Thanks to my opponent for the response.1. Not as dangerousThis argument fails on the sole reason that my opponent got his facts wrong. Cannabis, in fact, causes many deaths claimed to be "accidents" every year! [1] Deaths are not the sole measurement of how dangerous something is. In fact, cannabis has been seen to cause neuropsychological decline as well as been seen to cause other neurological disorders.[2] This means that cannabis is not as harmless as my opponent claims it is. Just because alcohol is "more dangerous" does not mean that cannabis should also be legalized just because it is "less dangerous". There are good reasons not to legalize cannabis, such as lab rats treated with cannabis getting an increased motivation for heroin use; meaning that marijuana being legalized could cause people to move on to drugs that are even more dangerous. [2]2. Boosts EconomyHowever, marijuana is dangerous. This means that the creation of a marijuana industry also means the increase of medicare and medicaid costs, and mediciad and medicare come from the pockets of tax payers. Tax payers should not need to cover for something that was caused by other people trashing their bodies! I am for a public health care system but people having to cover for something that was caused by legalizing marijuana is just too pathetic to me. [1]http://alcoholism.about.com...[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Marijuana legalization

Marijuana should be legalized because:1. Not as dangerous as certain legal substancesThere are 0 deaths from Marijuana in the U. S. per year, [1] as contrasted to the 80,000 annual deaths from alcohol and 443,000 from smoking per year in the U. S. [2][3] This means that if we should keep alcohol and smoking legal, we also have to legalize marijuana; because it is less dangerous than alcohol and smoking, in terms of deaths. 2. Boosts economyIf marijuana were to be legalized; it will create many new jobs for the people. This is because we need people to farm, process, inspect and sell marijuana; if it were to be allowed for commercial use. Just like any other instry, the marijuana industry will create jobs, effectively reducing the unemployment rate and allowing people to earn money to spend and boost other industries as well. ConclusionBecause of the economical benefits of legalizing marijuana, as well as marijuana being less dangerous than many other substances that are legal, marijuana should be legalized. [1]. http://www.drugwarfacts.org...[2]http://www.cdc.gov...[3]http://www.cdc.gov...
Anselm's First Ontological Argument Holds Merit

Relavent Background for DebateSaint Anselm of Canterbury (ca.1033– 21 April 1109) [1], a Benedictine Monk and famed Father of the Church, posited that the existence of God was proveable from its very definition by way of what became known as the Ontological Argument, which he described in the following manner:"Hence, even the fool is convinced that something exists in the understanding, at least, than which nothing greater can be conceived. For, when he hears of this, he understands it. And whatever is understood, exists in the understanding. And assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. For, suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater.Therefore, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, exists in the understanding alone, the very being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, is one, than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Hence, there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality." (Proslogion, 2) [2]His argument, for the sake of this debate, consists of the following logical sequence:I. Humans hold a conception, or an idea, of a maximally great and perfect being. II. This being, as outlined in Premise I, is otherwise known to us as "God," the pinnacle of perfection.III. A being that exists in both the mind and reality is greater than one that exists merely in the mind.IV. Therefore, per Premise III, in order for the maximally great being which we conceive of in Premise I to be maximally great, it must exist in both our minds and in reality.V. Because a maximally great being exists in our minds, it must exist in reality in order for it to be perfect.VI. Hence, God must exist This argument has formed of of the most controversial claims in theological and philisophic history. Many, such as Immanuel Kant [3], Guanilo [4], and Thomas Aquinas [5], took issue with the claim for a variety of reasons. It remains a hotly debated topic, one which we shall approach the merits of in this debate. Debate Rules and RegulationsIn order to ensure the smooth continuity and success of the following debate, these rules shall be set for this debate:I. The Burden of Proof in this debate, because of the nature of the prompt, falls on CON. In order to win the debate, they must prove that a fallacy, contradiction, or falsehood within the Ontological Argument invalidates it.II. Because I am not presenting a defense this round, as I have nothing yet to defend against, CON will waive their right to make a final argumentIII. Neither side will engage in trollingIV. Each side will at least make an earnest attempt to post, rather than forfeit, as Debate.org has been experiencing odd issues as of late. Presuming my opponent accepts these terms, may the debate begin!Sources and Footnotes[1]https://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://www.sacred-texts.com...[3]http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...[4] [5]https://plato.stanford.edu...
Missed high fives are funny.

By the resolution, it seems that only one counterexample is necessary to negate. Take this example, for instance: Two guys are passing each other in the hallway. One guy puts up his hand and says, in a bored voice, "Hey. " The other guy doesn't notice the gesture, and continues walking. The first guy shrugs, and continues walking. Nobody witnesses the event, and both guys soon forget what had even happened. This missed high five does not afford light mirth and laughter. Neither person laughed, and there is nobody to witness the event and potentially laugh. Therefore, this missed high five is NOT funny. Here's another: One guy puts up his hand for a high five. The other guy doesn't even put up his hand. The first guy high fives anyways, and accidentally hits a button that detonates a bomb that is under their desks. The room explodes, and neither person laughs. All of the potential laughing witnesses are blown up in the flames, leaving no laughter and no mirth. And one more: One guy tries to high five another guy, but the other guy isn't paying attention, so he falls over into a bottomless pit. The other guy doesn't even notice, and walks away. Nobody is laughing. Nobody has mirth. You, as a reader, may laugh as I point out these examples, but although I have a few examples, there are many more situations that have gone unnoticed for centuries, and will remain unremembered. They can't all cause laughter, for they are forgotten forever. They cannot be funny. The resolution is negated.
Missed high fives are funny.

missed - to fail to hit, reach, or contact . http://www.merriam-webster.com... high five - a celebratory gesture made by two people, each raising one hand to slap the raised hand of the other — usually meant to communicate mutual satisfaction to spectators or to extend congratulations from one person to another . http://en.wikipedia.org... funny - affording light mirth and laughter . http://www.merriam-webster.com... I stand in resolution that when someone goes for a high five, but doesn't get a high five in return, the action is funny. My opponent will be a party pooper, and argue that this action is not funny. I can see it now. After a boy gets his test results back, he is excited that he got an 'A', so he turns to his friend for a high five, expecting to meet hands in celebration. But his friend is not really paying attention and turns away. The high-fiver is then left in a state of panic because he only has a split second to decide what to do with that lonely hand. At this point, he will either put the hand down quickly hoping that noone has seen the embarrasing moment; or he will keep his arm in the air, pretending that he is streching. Meanwhile, I have witnessed the whole event and make eye contact with the high-fiver, and burst out in laughter, the high-fiver also gets a good chuckle out of it. Overall, the missed high five is a funny moment.
Jesus is Messiah

Thank you, I will now analyse the other verses given forth by my opponent:Isaiah 9This child is Hezekiah as I will explaine.There are a few issues with using it as a proof text of Jesus' messianicship.(1) This prophecy is nowhere in the New TestamentNowhere does any of the New Testament writers have Isaiah 9 as a fulfillment of Jesus as Messiah. Therefore, we can conclude that it is probable Isaiah 9 is not talking about a Messiah.(2) MistranslatedIn the Old Testament, this is the actual translation of Isaiah 9:5-6, "For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wonderous adviser, the mighty God, the everylasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace." To him who increases the authority, and for peace without end, on David's throne and on his kingdom, to establish it and to support it with justice and with righteousness; from now and to eternity,the zeal of the Lord of Host shall accomplish this."What we see is that this prophecy is past tense meaning that the child has already been born, a far cry from Jesus! (3) A KingThis is obviously talking about a king, thus the phrase, "the authority is upon his shoulder." It is obvious Jesus was and is never a king.Although the person is called, "mighty God; everylasting father, etc." and all these wonderful names I would love for God to call me, this does not mean that I am God! Hezekiah is called "the mighty God" because this name is a sign that foretells God's defense of Jerusalem through the miraculous sudden mass death of Sennacherib's army.Note that Hezekiah cleansed the temple of idolitry and made Judah greate again. Thus, God, bestowed upon Hezekiah the name which honors the king by proclaiming great things G-d will do for him and Israel. http://jewsforjudaism.org... I will leave it here as I want my opponent to respond to my Isaiah 53 argument.
Jesus is Messiah

Thank you for providing your opening arguments. In this round, I will discuss why Jesus CANNOT be the Messiah that was promised in the Old Testament. This round is just for opening arguments.Contention 1: Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.1. The messiah will (1) Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28); (2) Gather all the Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6); (3) Usher in an era of world peace, end all hatred, oppression, suffering, and disease (Isaiah 2:4); (4) Spred the universal knowledge of Ha'Shem, which will unite humanity as one. (Zechariah 14:9) 2. Jesus fulfilled none of these prophecies.3. Therefore, Jesus is not messiah.This is the understanding Jews have of the messiah. It is a historical fact that the Third Temple has not been build, all the Jews are not in Israel, and war and violence increased after Jesus. http://www.simpletoremember.com...Conention 2: Jesus did not fulfill the messianic requirements.1. The messiah will be a descendent of David through Solomon. 2. Jesus was not.3. Therefore, he is not messiah.According to Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1, the Messiah will be a descenent from David from his father's side. However, there is a problem with the virgin birth. According to Christian claims, Jesus was born of a virgin, therefore he had no earthly father. Thus, he could not have fulfilled that requirement. http://www.simpletoremember.com...Thank you.
Jesus is Messiah

Full Resolution: Jesus is the Messiah that was predicted in the Old TestamentBurden of Proof: Burden of Proof is upon my opponent to prove that Jesus is MessiahFirst round my opponent may present his opening arguments. Good luck, daley. Same technical rules as always except for the change above. Jesus: A man that lived in the 1st Century, claimed to be messiah.Messiah: A Hebrew word meaning, "annointed."
The system of taxation is fair to all

Before we begin we must determine what "system of taxation" we are talking about. Are we debating the system of taxation found in the U. S. ? Or perhaps Canada? Britain? Which system would you like to debate? Or are we debating whether the general idea of a tax is fair. Is it fair to take from the individual in order to fund social programs, defense, and government? Now is a tax "fair"? That depends on what criteria you use. I can say that it is unfair for me when the government takes my money away from me to fund programs that I will never use. I can also say that it is unfair to the people born in poverty (who rely on tax funded social programs to live, survive, and improve their situation) that we are not taxing the wealthy more to help the poor. In a general sense, and using my opponents definition, a tax is very fair. Each one of us lives in a shared, collective society, where we depend on the achievements of others every day of our lives. Each of us benefits from the protection of a tax-funded defense budget, from the education provided by a tax-funded school system, and some of us benefit from a tax-funded social net that provides medical help when necessary instead of letting us die due to lack of funds. Before I construct a more detailed argument I must know what system of taxation we are debating. I would also like to know why my opponent feels this system is unfair, and I would like to know what group of people this system is unfair to.
The system of taxation is fair to all

I will let Pro go first, although I will provide definitions and burdens that are to be preferred. Burden of the affirmative (pro): To win the affirmative must prove that the system of taxation is a fair system to all involved (the people who are taxed, and those who receive the money from taxes (poor etc)) I will be giving definitions, and I politely ask that my opponent does not drag me into any stupid semantic debates. I also ask that any claims made by either side be backed up by evidence from a credible source. Tax: a payment exacted by legislative authority is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution, exacted pursuant to legislative authority Fair: equitable: fair to all parties as dictated by reason and conscience
The bible is outdated

The bible is indeed outdated. It is an antique, a dusty legacy of an age long gone. I just have one question before I begin. When you say "The Bible" do you mean both the Old and New Testaments or just the Old? My opening argument is as follows: We have already extracted the portions of the Bible that are helpful to us. The rest is irrelevant and even harmful to us. Our government is based on Biblical ideals. Laws prohibiting robbery, theft, murder, slander and libel are all based on such passages as the 10 Commandments (Exodus 34:28). However, we have already taken what we can use from the Bible and applied it to our society. The rest is unnecessary, incompatible, and in some cases downright harmful to our society. For example, passages describing rituals to be followed when offering sacrifices to God (see most of Leviticus) bear no significance in a modern context. Laws concerning dietary restrictions and the garb of the order of High Priests also are completely irrelevant today. Other examples are less benign. Leviticus Chapter 20 [1] is nothing but a whole litany of crimes punishable by death, including witchcraft, adultery, and homosexuality. Do any of these laws bear any relevance to today? No! How does punishing the free practice of religion and sexuality with death fit at all into modern society? This is my argument in a nutshell: The parts of the Bible that are useful to us, have validity and positively impact our society have already been incorporated into the fundamental fabric of our society. All that remains is useless rules and regulations bearing no relevance in the world today that do, in many cases, conflict with our own basic ideals. Because of all this, I affirm that the Bible is indeed outdated. [1]: http://www.biblegateway.com...
The Galactic Empire's military at its peak is the strongest military of all time

The Q is a nigh omnipotent race with the weapons to destroy solar systems. Just one Q can accomplish vast number of feats including time travel and bringing back the dead with absolute ease. The timelords of Dr. Who and the Daleks are more powerful than the Empire. The Saiyan race of warriors could defeat the Empire. Frieza's galactic empire could defeat Star Wars. The Federation of Star Trek could probably do it with their superior technology. The Green Lantern Corp, Kryptonian military under a yellow sun. Darkseid's armies. The Borg could probably do it.
Capitalism is better than socialism

C1: You have a better chance of success and chasing your dreams in a capitalist system. In capitalism people can pursue happiness and have a better chance of success than any other economic system. Competition makes business, schools, and hospitals better because there all fighting for one thing: money. Competition results in lower prices and productivity.In socialism the government hands everything to you, a house, healthcare,education and this is were socialism goes wrong if you get everything handed to you what is the point of working. Care to explain? You notice how Haitians come to Florida (523 miles away) instead of Cuba (53 miles away), the Turks & Caicos(110 miles away), Jamaica (124 miles away) and the Cayman Islands (440 miles away). Because they know that in Americas capitalist society they have a better chance for a better life than any other leftist government. C2: Welfare dosen't lift people from poverty. In America during 1964 we declared war on poverty. In 1968 13% of Americans were in poverty. From 1968 to 1980 we increased welfare payments by 400% precent, the end result? 13% of Americans were still in poverty by 1980[1]. Still believe in a welfare state? C3: Capitalism is better for the Healthcare system. A former soviet nation Estonia had a life expectancy age of 64 during soviet rule by 1994 just a few years later they had a life expectancy of 72.8 because they allowed the private investment of the healthcare sector.
Capitalism is better than socialism

I will like to dedicate this opening to an acceptance to a debate. Opponent must accept these terms. Socialism-a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. Capitalism-an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth. http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com...