BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The "Slippery Slope" argument used in gay marriage debate is invalid

I will make no apologies for my reasoning in round two, as my opponent claims this debate is not about "homosexuality", but "gay marriage", when truly it is neither. This debate is whether or not there is logical reasoning to believe gay marriage shall lead to the acceptance of behaviors such as polygamy, incest, bestiality, and pedophilia in marriage as well. One cannot expect to win this debate without attempting to prove or disprove the correlation between homosexuality and these behaviors. The only correlation shown by my opponent's arguments are the social stigmas between each subject (homosexuality, polygamy, incest, bestiality, pedophilia) and not and in-depth analysis between them. My opponent stresses the possibilities of marriage changing its definition after once being changed to include (one man and one man) and (one woman and one woman). It is not my task to ask what others may perceive of marriage after it has changed it's definition. My task is to examine why gay marriage is most commendable to be included over a marriage involving polygamy, incest, bestiality and pedophilia. I believe the definition of marriage should not be changed to include anything that promotes a particular sexual behavior. I have already proven that homosexuality (such as heterosexuality and bisexuality) is not a sexual behavior, but a sexual orientation. Would my opponent be able to discover a sexual orientation other than heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality? If not, how could marriage ever change it's definition again?
The "Slippery Slope" argument used in gay marriage debate is invalid

My opponent makes issue about homosexuality being an orientation as opposed to a sexual activity. He goes to length making distinctions between homosexuality and sexual behaviors. The problem with this line of reasoning, even if we were to accept my opponent's contrasts, is that the debate is not about "homosexuality" but about "gay marriage. " My opponent cannot divorce homosexual activity from a discussion of gay marriage. Gay marriage necessarily is about the relationship of two same sex people and the relationship is necessarily sexual in nature. Otherwise we would be discussing "friendship" and not marriage. A marriage must normally be consummated before being fully recognized as valid under the law. The consummation of marriage is done by sexual congress. Homosexuality, polygamy, pedophilia, incest and bestiality are all conditions of a sexual nature. This fact cannot be escaped. This debate is about whether there are logical reasons to assume that gay marriage could be a slippery slope. My arguments in round one still stand but I will introduce an additional argument. If marriage has always had just one definition (one man and one woman) how likely is it that it might change? If the definition of marriage is changed from (one man and one woman) to include (one man and one man) and (one woman and one woman) how likely is it that it could be changed again? Is it more likely or less likely to change again once it has been changed the first time? An absolute definition that has never changed is not expected to change. A definition, once changed, is proved to be changeable. Which is more likely to change: a definition that has never changed or a definition that has been proved to be changeable? Is a condition that has never changed more likely or less likely to change than a condition that has already been changed once? To accept gay marriage would change the definition of marriage and once the definition of marriage is proved to be changeable then it becomes more likely for it to change again. Other potential changes could conceivably include polygamy, incest, pedophilia and bestiality. Thus it is entirely logical to view gay marriage as a slippery slope. I thank the reader for their attention and wait for opponent's response.
The "Slippery Slope" argument used in gay marriage debate is invalid

My rebuttals: I do not agree with my opponent in his claim that homosexuality is a sexual behavior. I would like to clarify the difference between sexual behavior and sexual orientation/attraction. Sexual Behavior: The method and/or means in which a person chooses to express their sexual orientation. Sexual Orientation/Attraction: the direction of a persons emotional and physical desire, toward people of the opposite sex, same sex, or both sexes. If needed proof to distinguish the difference, how does one know they are heterosexual if they've never had any physical contact with a person of the opposite sex? Are they a clean slate? No, they are simply attracted to others of the opposite sex. Sexual Orientation determines sexual behavior, not vice versa. Polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality and incest are all examples of sexual behavior, and there are legitimate reasons why marriage among these behaviors should remain illegal: Polygamy: Takes advantage of marriage benefits most especially. Imagine an employer having to pay insurance to a worker with who knows how many wives! This is unfair to other couples and to the government providing them with this abundance of benefits. Bestiality: Are animals covered by our constitution? Homosexuals are human beings, whom ARE covered by our constitution. Pedophilia: Children do not have the mental capacity and/or ability to consent over and adult. Incest: If a man loves his sister, there are still many "fish in the sea" that man would be able to marry. If that man were a homosexual, he has no options, for he can not marry any other man. I am aware of the stigmas between many of these sexual behaviors mentioned and can understand why many would associate homosexuality into them. But when analyzing the difference between sexual behavior and sexual orientation, one can clearly see that homosexuality just does not share the same label with these behaviors.
Is Minecraft Boring

Minecraft is very popular, because it's one of the most widely played computer and console games as so far over 20,262,799 people bought the PC/Mac version of the game [1] , which is a extremely big player base. So, it must be fun, because I don't think so many people would have bought it if it was boring. Also it's the 10th most popular pc game according to site [2]. So In summary i think it is very fun, as if it was boring, it wouldn't be so popular [1]: https://minecraft.net... [2]: http://www.statista.com...
Religion causes too much violence and is not needed in society.

While your argument holds mostly grammatical errors and opinions, it also seems to hold a certain prejudice against religion, specifically Islamic religion. But onto my argument. You claim that "multiple 'religious' leaders around the world" use religion as a justification for violence, yet your examples include only Islamic people and culture. In the scientific community, that is called sample bias. You are looking at a small sample and applying your observations to the entire population. There are many arguments out there for and against the Islamic religion, but I was under the impression your "argument" concerned religion as a whole. My mistake. Across history, there are examples of religions bringing peace and helping people come together under a moral purpose. Sikhism is one religion based completely around peace. I would also ague that Christianity is based around peace and brotherly love, primarily concerning the New Testament, but that, just like Islam, certain evil individuals fool people into believing in their causes. Allow yourself to open your eyes beyond your crude examples that only incriminate Islamic culture.
Religion causes too much violence and is not needed in society.

Although terrorism is recent. It would still better without it in society. Without people dedicating and wasting there lives, dedicating them selves to a non-existing entity. Humanity cannot progress if we keep these religious constraints. For example, in Islamic culture, women are generally deemed to be lesser beings than men, they are forced to wear hijab's and bur qua's. What is wrong about this? Even though in modern society women have almost received the equality they deserve, and men are starting to see women on the same level. Many arabic women, who are viewed as equals, still wear their hijabs. This is still a symbol of their apparent inferiority. Without religion they would not longer wear these, and would not still submit themselves or accept everything they are told they can't be.
Religion causes too much violence and is not needed in society.

I accept your argument thusly: Religion has been around for somewhere in the ballpark of 40,000 years, whereas terrorism is really understood by scholars to have started around the 1st century with Jewish extremists attempting to rebel against Roman rule and control. Granted the idea of terrorism, to attack or hurt someone to cause panic or terror, may have existed longer, it is safe to say that religion has been around much longer. The first religious evidence we find is even in Neanderthals' burials and rudimentary grave markers. From there we see sculptures of animals, and humans crossed with animals, thought by scholars to have been idols representing deities. No such thought of terrorism would have existed. After the Sicarii (Jewish extremists) in 6 CE, the next conclusive example of religious terrorism is in the 11th century with Hassan-i Sabbah and Shia Muslims. So if religion is indeed the cause of terrorism and such violence, why is it that it really only started appearing recently? At least recent compared to the roughly 40,000 years of religions without. A better claim may state something like this: There exist certain evil humans, past, present, and future, that use different values and ideas to move a crowd or population to violence and acts of terrorism. These values and ideas range from cultural, as we can see in many African tribes in history, to political, as we see in revolutionary France, to religious, as we see in the Irish Republican Africa. For the arguments and the facts within, I am proud to counter your proposal.
Religion causes too much violence and is not needed in society.

In 1095, Pope Urban II said that God had come to him, and said that the Bible had a mistake and that it was okay to kill, just not to kill other Christians. Whereas the Bible said that killing anyone was wrong. "Whatsoever ye do unto the least of these, my brethren, ye do it unto Me." This means that it is God"s place to judge others not ours, for him to decide whether or not to use violence. Sometimes they refer to texts, such as the Old Testament or Bible, where their God has killed many for defense of the religion and its people, but also they do not mention how it also states that only God has the power to do this; as I quoted earlier. They use some laws to back themselves up, change some laws and cover up some laws. Multiple "religious" leaders around the world use this to convince young men to commit crimes or help build armies. They use religion as an excuse to go and kill. For example, "Islamic Terrorists" These are not "islamic" people, They are not religious, they are terrorists and murderers. However they can convince, many lost, or vulnerable young people to fight for them, in the name of "Religion". This religious excuse is all some people need to drop everything and take up arms, or to leave their job and join a terrorist group. If we had no religion in society, terrorist leaders, or dictators wouldn't be able to justify their wrong acts, and there would be much less tension between different religions. For the arguments above, I am proud to propose.
Tangled better than Frozen

There is many debate on how people say that, "Frozen is the best animated movie of all time!" But is it really? In my first argument, I used my own personal opinions to say how Tangled has a much more thoughtful soundtrack, were as Frozen's songs are more just put in because it was a Disney movie. Now, I have done some research to see how the characters in Tangled are better developed than in Frozen. In Tangled, there are many secondary characters, as in every movie. Very early on we are introduced to Flynn Rider. We get a since of Flynn's personality. He is funny, has a lot of wit, and is sly. But later we realize that Flynn has more depth to him, that he had a tough childhood growing up as an orphan with nothing. We also have Rapunzel's crazy lunatic Gothel that only wants to stay young forever by using Rapunzel's hair. Even at her death, after everything she did to her, Rapunzel still misses her because at the end of the day, Gothel was really the closest thing she had to a mother. There are many animal characters, as in every Disney movie. Maximus, with the strong and doglike personality, and smart Pascal. In Frozen, there are also many secondary characters, but not as developed. There's Hans, who tricked Anna into believing he loved her, but that's about all that's with him. There's Kristoff, with a pet reindeer Sven who is smarter than him. And don't forget Olaf. And yes, Olaf had some funny moments, and after seeing the trailer I knew his character was going to appear, but it didn't make since why he showed up. Elsa runs away, sings let it go, you see her make a snowman. Than later on as Anna and Kristoff are walking, there's Olaf. So confusing! Elsa and Anna's parents only appear at the beginning of the movie, but they die and the sister's are left alone. This is definitely not the most heartfelt death in a Disney movie. (How can anybody forget Mufasa's death!) There have been plenty better death's in Disney movies, the one in Up right at the beginning like in Frozen, but you felt and saw their story before the wife died. And yes, Rapunzel's parents were at the beginning too, but she reunites with them, and you see her parent's eagerness to get their daughter back after 18 years. The plot of Tangled was better written. The events happening helped led the story forward, the I got a dream song led to Gothel seeing Rapunzel outside the tower. In Frozen, every seemed like it was a last minute write in, the big Snowman, the wolves chasing them, Olaf. Both movies have beautiful scenes. Frozen's snow flakes. But Tangled had the light festival scene which is by far one of the best Disney moments of all time! Lastly, many people believe Frozen to be the best movie because: 1-The sisterly love between Elsa and Anna was in no other Disney movie. 2-The idea of marrying the first guy you met was questioned. 3-Kristoff was the first true love to be imperfect. 4-The movie proved girls can fight. 5-It was the first movie that the girl didn't fall in love. I will say that these are untrue and leave you with this picture http://crystal-clefairy.tumblr.com... sources: http://thefederalist.com... http://www.pinterest.com...
Tangled better than Frozen

1. The songs in Frozen, in my opinion, are much better than Tangled. 2. I like many songs in the beginning, it gives the movie more character. 3. The ice song was explaining how winter was a disliked season there. The snowman song showed how Elsa's frozen heart wouldn't let, even her sister in. The First Time in Forever showed how open she was to love, vulnerable. The song of Love is an Open Door showed that she had never known love before. Let It Go showed that although she would never know love, she would never miss it. Fixer Upper says that we all have our flaws. but we love each other anyways Summer showed that with love, all of our dreams can come true. 4. I think, as many others do the songs are awesome. In my opinion, the Tangled songs were too few, and unoriginal.
Tangled better than Frozen

I have seen both Tangled and Frozen, and I believe that Tangled far more superior. My first argument it that the songs in Tangled are better than Frozen. When I saw Frozen, I did like it. I did like the songs, but there were TOO many songs at the beginning of the movie. Because of the songs being back-to-back like that It made me dislike them when I first heard them. (After listening to the songs a couple times I do like them now) It also seemed to songs didn't connect to each other, almost like they put a song in that part of the movie just because it's a Disney movie. They sing about breaking ice, they sing about building snowmen, they sing about the first time in forever, they sing about finding a 'true love', they sing about letting it go. After let it go, I thought the songs were done. Oh no! They had then had the fixer upper song randomly in the movie, and don't let me forget the summer song. I have named a lot of songs. This movie was packed full of them, too many. In Tangled, All the songs are really spread out and relate to the characters growth. At the beginning, after the movie explains how Rapunzel ended up in the tower, it starts with the first song. The song is a cute, and quit funny, song that Rapunzel sings. The next song isn't until after Rapunzel leaves her tower. She sings I got a dream. And after that, the next song isn't until close to the end, I see the light, with the lantern scene. Because the songs are spread out, and there are a less number of them, you feel it gets to the point better. In Frozen, instead of making a point, they sang it. They open gates, they sing about opening gates. While in Tangled, they saved the songs for the special moments.
should cannabis be legal in the uk

If everyone smoked cannabis only on a social basis, I personally have no problem with that. But not everyone does, and this is where my problem lies. Like my opponent perfectly pointed out in round one. He is not a social smoker. You cannot as well use the argument of alcohol and nicotine because that just shows our failure towards drug policy, which is an inappropriate example when trying to legalize cannabis. If you were all that bothered over alcohol and nicotine, you would campaign to make it illegal, and not campaign not legalize more drugs. I have nothing more to say on this topic. Thanks.
should cannabis be legal in the uk

Okay, let me start of by saying you are a very rude, abrupt and ignorant person. Change your attitude in your in round 2 or 3, or I will just forfeit them. I can abide rudeness, manners don't cost anything. Can you mind your attitude? Right, now I can start... Yes, I have never smoked it, why would I?! I'm proud to say that, you make it sound like something is wrong with that. LIES?!?! What 'lies'? Because I haven't provided 'scientific evidence'? What? Neither have you, and I presume you have non or you would have posted it in your round, whereas in my comment on the opinion, I did post links! No, it's from experience, I have lived on 6 different councils estates in England AND Wales (so please don't lecture me), and all of the people I have come across are scum, to put it bluntly, and most has turned into 'crack heads' as you so put it! I only know 1 man who smokes it socially e.g once a month and at least sensibly. As for others I know of, just scum, and that's why I don't touch the stuff, just like cigarettes, I have been round people who do smoke it, and I have seen enough! I also most people turn to harder drugs, I know a man who started of smoking weed, to injecting steroids and it on cocaine. You may not be a 'crack head', but everyday for 10 years? You sound more like an addict to cannabis. Yeah, of course, legalising weed will pay dividends towards our economy! So was taxing petrol, alcohol and cigarettes to the hilt, but we aren't out of debt! Legalising weed would barely touch our economy realistically, that is a poor reason to legalise it. As for the medical reasons, where is your evidence? I did present links earlier, you did not, where is the evidence that it a benefit to your health?! Also, you really think that that it would take dodgy dealers off the streets from dealing weed? If this government legalises cannabis, the tax on it would be through the roof, then people would probably try to get it off dealers to get it cheaper and avoid the taxation. So it wouldn't reduce it by that much. Common sense really, because people who already smoke weed would know dealers to get it cheaper. And as for your second comment, you were just bitching a little bit there. The debate is about whether cannabis should be legalised, not to bitch, so please don't. That was just an embarrassing comment. And thank you for the chance to debate with you, I (hopefully) look forward to the other rounds as well.
should cannabis be legal in the uk

you have obviously never touched the stuff, I come to this conclusion because you put forth every hate mongering lie used against people who use this substance. 1. there is no scientific evidence to prove any of your negative claims. 2. every claim you put forward sounds like a high school brochure to discourage little girls from drugs. 3. in response to the old tale of the gateway drug, I have smoked cannabis near enough everyday for 10 years now and can honestly say i have no intention of turning into a crackhead. its not the cannabis that's the gateway its the pushy dealers out there and so called friends peer pressure that moves people on to harder drugs. 4. if it was legal not only could our economy grow from it, it would remove that pushy dealer gateway to harmful drugs. us smokers already pay about 100% "sin" tax on cigarets and as if that's not enough the government is k 5. its people like you jumping on the typical jeremy kyle "hash bashing" band wagon that are making life for good honest hard working cannabis smokers like myself difficult with your prejudice, lies and slander. us smokers already pay about 100% "sin" tax on cigarets as it is and as if that's not enough the government is giving that money back to the tobacco industry by using it to pay for every other nicotine product they can think up e.g patches, gum and even electronic cigarets.