BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Rights

Contradicting claim: "Anyone can just go to the Town Hall and sign a marriage proposal and get married." -> Anyone includes gays, so if you premise is truth why are we even debating this issue? Marriage has both legal and religious connotation while civil unions only has a legal one. Considering that homosexuality is not accepted by Christian religious authorities as well as a large portion of Christians, why do homosexual feel the need to push for the right to marry if they can instead protest instead demand equal legal rights under civil union? The answer is because the struggle for gays to have the right to marry was originally started by religious gay people. "Why not let gays marry the person that they love most in their life?" Because of the religious connotation that the word marriage carries and because they could be debating the right to legal equality under civil union status. Why deny them the privilege of marrying the person they want to spend the rest of their life with? I have not advocating against denying gay people the legal privileges of marriage, I am saying that they should only be denied marriage in name. Dicto simpliciter (i.e. Generalization) -> Gay people want equality, not a civil union with their partner. -> This is a fallacy as you make the assumption that there isn't a single gay person that wants to enter in a civil union. Dicto simpliciter (i.e. Generalization) "If it because of religious purposes, then the government is corrupt for favoring with a religion." ->The US government is multitude of different organization who contain also a multitude sub division. Therefore, claiming that the government is corrupt is inaccurate. In addition, many US states have legalized gay marriage and others are in the process of doing so. Therefore, the government is simply weight both sides of the issues and making decisions as a result.
Gay Rights

First of all, marriage is not a religious ritual. Anyone can just go to the Town Hall and sign a marriage proposal and get married. Plus why create a whole different system of civil union if they have the same benefits. People are fighting for gay rights so that they can have the same rights as everyone else; they are mainly fighting for equality. Why not let gays marry the person that they love most in their life? Why deny them the privilege of marrying the person they want to spend the rest of their life with. Gay people want equality, not a civil union with their partner. I am straight, but it is sick how people treat gays and after all the pain we have involved them in, why can"t we let them marry their lovers. If marriage has the same benefits of civil union then why have civil union? If it because of religious purposes, then the government is corrupt for favoring with a religion. If people think it is not right because only a man and a woman should be married, then they are wrong. You marry someone because you love them and you want to spend the rest of your life with someone you love. Love is too powerful to be limited to a gender, if you love someone, you should be able to marry them. Not civil union, marriage.
Gay Rights

Since morality can vary from culture to culture, we must debate this from the perspective of a sole nation so that our arguments remain consistent. My Proposition: Gays should not have the right to marry in the United States. 1. Operational definition: A right is a legal entitlement. 2. Not all rights are morally correct. 3. A gay person refers to homosexual (this includes lesbians). 4. Marriage is a religious ritual since civil unions exist. 5. The government can pass legislature granting gays in civil union the same benefits as a married couple.
Gay Rights

I stated that there is such a thing as religious rights which my opponent did not challenge. Therefore, my argument is that one should not be allowed to take the rights of another in order to gain rights themselves. I also stated that there is an alternative that would satisfy both parties: civil union with the same legal rights. Therefore, gays should be protesting for legal rights under civil union which makes the debate for marriage rights pointless. So far my opponent has merely argued the implications marriage and civil union and therefore has given no arguments to support his position. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ The arguments stated in this debate are not necessarily the views of the debater.
Could the universe have come out of nothing without a cause

I did not intent to play a manipulation game, so if I gave that impression I apologize. I don't understand what Con meant with the first paragraph ("failing to realize that not everything can happen immediately: sure enough, I provided my argument for the existence of the Cause in my previous post, after defending it from you."), so I can't really respond. All I have to say is that no evidence for a god is given. Then go to the premises. This time Con uses the analogy of a football. However, that is once again not a good analogy. If a football is made, nothing happens except that energy which already exists moves matter that already exists to form something new. When the universe started to exist, there was nothing. It came out of nothing. The two can't be compared. The argument you gave for the second premise makes even less sense. If atheism is correct (which it most likely is), there is indeed no explanation (yet). If your (unsubstantiated and extremely unlikely) theory of god is correct there would indeed be some sort of explanation. Granted, it's a pretty terrible explanation (On par with the flying spaghetti monster or magic), but it is an explanation nonetheless. I am arguing that it is more likely that the universe came into existence without a cause than that an all powerful being exists outside of space and time, while still being able to influence space and time. I have given reasons for denying the premises, and the explanation is that you suppose that the only possible explanations are an external cause or that something necessarily exists. I am arguing that there may be more than that, and that that must be true because the alternative (god exists) is so incredibly unlikely. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. God's existence is an extraordinary claim. There is no extraordinary evidence for god. Therefore it is unlikely that he exists. That only leaves the option that the universe is uncaused. In essence, all your claims and premises only work from the basic assumption that god exists. Until that assumption is proven, all your arguments are completely pointless and my first argument still stands: Essentially, your conclusions only follow when you add the premise that god exists. Premise 1: The universe began to exist Premise 2: There was no matter before the universe existed Premise 3: Time and matter are connected in spacetime Premise 4: A cause precedes an effect Premise 5: Preceding something requires time to exist Conclusion 1: Based on premise 2 and 3 we can conclude that time did not exist before the universe began to exist Conclusion 2: Based on premise 4 and 5 we can conclude that a cause could not exist before the universe began to exist. Conclusion 3: Based on premise 1 and conclusion 1 and 2 we can conclude that the universe must have come out of nothing without a cause.
Could the universe have come out of nothing without a cause

I do not know what kind of manipulation game you're playing here, but it will most certainly not work on me. (1) You have made the claim that since there was no time before the beginning, there could be no Cause, and I have responded to that -- but then you claim I have given no evidence.. failing to realize that not everything can happen immediately: sure enough, I provided my argument for the existence of the Cause in my previous post, after defending it from you. Now, what premises will Pro disagree with? He says that he disagrees with the two first premises, justifying: 'We simply don't know enough about quantum physics and what happened in the beginning to know for certain whether or not it was caused by something or necessarily exists.' Of course, the Pro does not realize that we're talking about ANY object in existence, not the universe specifically - even footballs! If you see a football infront of you, you immediately conclude that there is an explanation as to how that football arrived there, that is the point of this premise. Then, the second premise he also disagrees with.. again, telling us that we do not know enough. I would say, yes we do know enough. We know that there is no explanation if atheism is correct, and if there is an explanation, atheism is most certainly not correct -- and therefore theism is correct, and therefore, there is a God. You have given no reason for your denial of the two premises, as I have shown. Therefore, your denial is rejected and the argument stands firm. If you would like to extend your disagreement, please state your reason and refute what I have said about your previous denial. Thank you.
Could the universe have come out of nothing without a cause

Unfortunately Con entirely ignored my argument. He starts of by claiming "Now that I have made possible the existence of the Cause, I will provide my argument for the Cause.", while he still hasn't made a convincing argument for the existence of the cause (God). As long as there is no evidence for this extraordinary claim, you still haven't made it possible. After that, Con made an argument and asked with which premise I disagree. I disagree with both the first and the second premise. We simply don't know enough about quantum physics and what happened in the beginning to know for certain whether or not it was caused by something or necessarily exists. Perhaps some things just randomly happen in quantum physics. We simply don't know. I also disagree with the second premise. Once again, we don't know enough to make that claim. Especially quantum mechanics is just a big unknown, and there may still be other forces that we know nothing about. Why bring god into it? God is so complex that he is incredibly improbable.
Could the universe have come out of nothing without a cause

Now that I have made possible the existence of the Cause, I will provide my argument for the Cause. (1) Every existing thing has an explanation of it's existence, either in the necessity of it's own nature or in an external cause. (necessary: things which exist necessarily exist by a necessity of their own nature e.g., numbers, sets, and other mathematical entities. contingent: things which exist contingently have causes of their own existence e.g., people, planets, galaxies etc. (2) If the universe has an explanation of it's existence, that explanation is God (if atheism is true, the universe has no explanation of it's existence, if the universe has an explanation if it's existence, atheism is not true) (3) The universe exists i. Therefore the universe has an explanation of it's existence (1 - 3) ii. Therfore the explanation of the universe is God (2 - 4) _________________________________________ What premise would you disagree with? _________________________________________
Could the universe have come out of nothing without a cause

I was already afraid that the debate would take this turn. By using a being outside of spacetime, con has conveniently made any rational argument impossible. This is because the laws of nature or even logic itself can be argued to be invalid by simply invoking a supernatural being. The only way I can counter that argument is by arguing that this creator does not exist, but since proving that god doesn't exist is impossible (because of him being outside of nature or logic), that is not a possible approach. What remains is asking for proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and if con is going to claim that a supernatural being exists outside of reality, he'd better have some amazing evidence. With that in mind, let's look at the arguments that con made: " I certainly agree that the universe had to come out of nothing and is not eternal, but there is a big difference between an universe form nothing without a cause and an universe from nothing caused by someone -- a creator." What evidence do you have that a creator exists? "The one who created time space and matter has to be outside of time space and matter, therefore, the laws of time space and matter do not apply to that someone. And therefore, that someone could have been uncaused and eternal in nature. The operation of the computer does not explain the origin of the computer, the operation of the universe does not explain the origin of the universe." The analogy with the computer is completely irrelevant, because both the cause and the effect both happened after the big bang. Time exists, so a cause can exist. The big bang is radically different from the creation of anything else, because there was nothing before the big bang while with anything else that ever began to exist there was something prior to it. There simply are no good analogies. Then Con said "Your premise number five is false. The creator would not necessarily need time to exist, because the creator created time itself. See my answer above for more detail." For this I would like to refer to my first 2 paragraphs: the claim that a being exists outside of the laws of nature, outside of time and space and even outside of logic is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. That evidence is non-existent. All in all, I reject con's assertion that a creator is a cause, because there is no evidence for such a claim. Until that evidence exists the only logical conclusion is that that universe has come out of nothing without a cause.
be honest about yourself

"Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, And sorry I could not travel both And be one traveler, long I stood And looked down one as far as I could To where it bent in the undergrowth; Then took the other, as just as fair, And having perhaps the better claim Because it was grassy and wanted wear, Though as for that the passing there Had worn them really about the same, And both that morning equally lay In leaves no step had trodden black. Oh, I kept the first for another day! Yet knowing how way leads on to way I doubted if I should ever come back. I shall be telling this with a sigh Somewhere ages and ages hence: Two roads diverged in a wood, and I, I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference. "
Marijuana Legalization.

http://thinkprogress.org... . http://www.cnn.com... . http://www.alternet.org... 1. I believe all US citizens should be allowed Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS 2. the most common idea is that they prevent people from harming themselves and from causing harm to the culture. But laws against self harm always stand on shaky ground, as they are, on the idea that the government knows what's better for you than you do and no good ever comes from making governments the guardians of culture. 3. You don't have to look hard to find examples of lives needlessly destroyed by marijuana prohibition laws. The government arrests over 700,000 Americans for marijuana possession every year. These new convicts are driven from their jobs and families. Then pushed into a prison system that turns first time offenders into hardened criminals. 4. Marijuana prohibition has created an underground economy, where crimes unrelated to marijuana but connected to those who sell and use it, go unreported. End result: real crimes become harder to solve. 5. A recent Fraser Institute study found that legalizing and taxing marijuana could produce considerable revenue. 6. Marijuana is not a lethal drug and is safer than alcohol. It is a scientific fact that marijuana is not toxic to humans; marijuana overdoses are nearly impossible, and marijuana is not nearly as addictive as alcohol or tobacco. It is unfair and unjust to treat marijuana users more harshly under the law than the users of alcohol or tobacco. 7. Both the fiber (bast) and pulp (hurd) of the hemp plant can be used to make paper. Fiber paper was the first kind of paper, and the first batch was made out of hemp in ancient China. Fiber paper is thin, tough, brittle, and a bit rough. Pulp paper is not as strong as fiber paper, but it is easier to make, softer, thicker, and preferable for most everyday purposes. The paper we use most today is a`chemical pulp' paper made from trees. Hemp pulp paper can be made without chemicals from the hemp hurd. Most hemp paper made today uses the entire hemp stalk, bast and hurd. High-strength fiber paper can be made from the hemp baste,also without chemicals.
Eliminating tobacco rights is not in America's best interest.

(Medicar not being paid, by the way. ) =Rebuttals= 4. "Second, again, the healthcare industry ACTUALLY doesn't spend as much money on tobacco users as anticipated" Well, then, we must recognized what is anticipated and discover if in your statement the cost is higher or lower and who is the anticipator. Cigarette smoking adds BILLION to Medicare spending, (according to . http://www.dmoz.org...), they cause more time off work and a lower productivity, and they also say that, in their conclusion, health care for debilities from smoking is expensive. Smoking likely increases overall lifetime health care costs. My opponents OWN SOURCE . http://seniorhealth.about.com......, says. "Those who engage in exercise and activity have fewer hospitalizations and have a lower risk of dying. " 3. "The argument is dead. " It was, until you stated: "that it would have a HUGE impact on the cotton industry". However, I'm going to disreguard this since you admittedly conceded and weakened your case. 2. The article says smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, but it's a risk factor for it. Well, that's like saying beer does not cause liver damage, alcohol does. It's kind of arbitrary. Sure, the act of smoking itself doesn't cause lung cancer, but smoking does VASTELY improve your chances of obtaining cancer, which in itself can cause lung cancer. 1. It seems as though my opponent is advocating the deaths that tobacco imposes and the expensive costs to postpone immenint death. In light of this, I would like to say that asthema is fairly easily regulated and not very expensive, save for very few asthma attacks, which still aren't expensive. Memory loss is not nessicarly a hospitiliazed trait. The others are just natural traits of death. However, having people smoke (Especially since most start at a young age), would have such an impact on the economy due to deaths of the elderly and the young, resulting in a substandarded population, which is bad. As for healthcare costs, people will grow old and die naturally, whereas young ones would lay in hospitals with no funds to support themselves and the hospitals unable to give them "the boot". =Notes= I don't feel www. aoa. org is appurtenent (supportive) of my opponents case. It merely states that vision loss occurs when old and you should get checkups. I don't feel that "www. psycheservices. ps. .. " is appurtenent to my opponents case either. It states, and I quote: "This study examined the relationship between age at first gambling experience and severity of gambling and related problems among older adult problem gamblers. " I hope my opponent isn't just listing sources to get a "cheap" vote. Based on my contentions above, I believe I have wont this debate. VOTE NEG
Eliminating tobacco rights is not in America's best interest.

I realized what you meant after I posted that argument. Sorry. :) 4. "The healthcare industry is losing a considerable amount of money because of the negative effects of tobacco, despite campaigns to warn the public. People are hospitalized with cancer, emphasemza, and some sever asphyxiations. When they die, sometimes they aren't paid (actually, a good amount of the time they aren't). " First, I would like to ask who you are referring to not being paid? I'm not sure if I'm the only one off put by this, but I'm a little confused. Second, again, the healthcare industry ACTUALLY doesn't spend as much money on tobacco users as anticipated, as tobacco users will have less health related problems, possibly only one. Tobacco also releases Carbon Monoxide into the bloodstream while smoking. (Carbon Monoxide actually prevents blood clots which cause heart attacks. ) (. http://www.ilefttobacco.com...) 3. The argument is dead. I still do wish for the voters to know that it is a rather small plus, but with all of the cigarettes being produced, if you stopped producing all of them, that it would have a HUGE impact on the cotton industry. Possibly more than you would think of at first glance. 2. When most people think of cancers that tobacco users incur, they think lung cancer. Well take a minute and overview this. (. http://www.journaloftheoretics.com...) A lot of diseases are blamed on cigarettes and tobacco, while a lot of the cons of tobacco can also be blamed on alcohol. 1. "I now ask my opponent to present a source and proof of this, if it is, in fact, on the contrary. If my opponent assumes it pertains to the nature of "common sense", then he must assume that I have none. Therefore, he cannot blame me for requesting a valid source. " The life expectancy of the average American is 78 years. Tobacco cuts from 10 - 15 years off of that. In those 10 - 15 years, most people incur more severe asthma problems, memory loss, more severe vision problems, liver problems, kidney problems, arthritis problems, and many more. **. http://seniorhealth.about.com... **. http://www.aoa.org... **. http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org... I would like to thank my opponent on this very interesting debate, I actually learned a few things. I look forward to debating you again in the future. Thanks to all of the viewers. :)
Eliminating tobacco rights is not in America's best interest.

(Heh, I admitted in the "Comments" tab that I was wrong. That's why I dislike using negatives (not) in a resolution, but that's getting off the point. I apologize for the confusion. ) =Rebuttals= 4. "There is no "health care deficit"" Allow me to rephrase that then: The healthcare industry is losing a considerable amount of money because of the negative effects of tobacco, despite campaigns to warn the public. People are hospitalized with cancer, emphasemza, and some sever asphyxiations. When they die, sometimes they aren't paid (actually, a good amount of the time they aren't). 3. "This was not one of my MAIN arguments, so I accept the fact that the cotton industry wouldn't be DRASTICALLY affected by the tobacco industry, but it is a pro. " My opponent concedes to my point. No further argumentation on cotton nessicary. 2. "The main point I would like to note here is that, although tobacco may kill people, non-tobacco users tend to live longer and as a result, end up having more health problems that would cause them to go to the doctor. In conclusion, tobacco users actually have LESS health problems than non-tobacco users. " (Note: There were no gramatical errors, just, I suppose, multiple interpretations. ) My opponent cannot prove, in every case, that there will be more health problems. Even so, chances are that the health problems posed won't be as life-threatening as cancer or as expensive as months or even years of state-of-the-art radiation therapy or other expensive methods for an extended period of time. (Yes, I know that employment is benefical, even if it invovles mercenaries to kingpens, but that doesn't automatically make it a good thing when there are so many bad things about it. ) 1. "I am going to refer back to my last point. Contrary to popular belief, non-tobacco users tend to live longer and incur more health problems than tobacco users. " I now ask my opponent to present a source and proof of this, if it is, in fact, on the contrary. If my opponent assumes it pertains to the nature of "common sense", then he must assume that I have none. Therefore, he cannot blame me for requesting a valid source. I also do not feel the need to post more arguements, as long as Pro and I continue to rebut effectively.