BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We Already Have Marriage Equality Without Legal Same-Sex Marriage

Thank you for opening this debate. My opponents argument assumes two things: First, that offering a privilege to something so long as they conform to something undesirable is "equal". Second, that equality means offering the ability to experience a right with major qualifiers. It also seems to lack any understanding of sexuality and relationships, to assume "Of course you can get married! It just can't be to someone of the same sex!" This is similar to saying "Of course you have free speech! You just can't say anything that might upset me". It's illogical. To refute the first point, similar arguments were used to defend racial segregation. The concept is "separate but equal". Black Americans were offered the same rights as white individuals but separate from them - they weren't allowed to participate as themselves in white activities or use things labeled "White Only". This is similar to the use of civil unions to segregate gays and lesbians. To refute the second point, the point of homosexuality is that they do not desire to have a relationship with a person of the opposite sex. Adding the qualifier that "you must be in a straight relationship to get married" would be similar to expecting people to change their race to get married. It is not something you can simply change. The difference is, while people of the same race could still be sexually and romantically satisfied, a gay person can NOT be sexually and romantically satisfied in a straight relationship - it's the nature of sexuality. Forcing gay people into relationships that could not possibly serve any purpose a relationship is meant too isn't equal. The only way to offer marriage equality is to open it for all consenting adult couples (I personally have no problem with polygamy, but that's a separate argument). Keeping marriage for only straight couples, and insisting that gay people can get married if they just turn straight, reinforces the outdated beliefs about "separate by equal" and expecting conformity to current law which is unequal rather than changing the law.
We Already Have Marriage Equality Without Legal Same-Sex Marriage

It is equal, because the law applies equally. Under the law sexual orientation does not matter. What matters is that marriage is limited to 2 people of age who are not family and who are the opposite sex of each other. No state has ever required that both spouses be heterosexual, just that they are the opposite sex. There is no law against a gay man getting married to a lesbian. This is equal application of the law, hence it is already marriage equality.
Students should be able to speak up in schools for what they believe.

I say that freedom of speech is not superior to freedom of assembly. Someone's choice to express is not superior to another's choice to be impressed. The problem with public education is it forces students to endure impression without consent. The solution isn't to increase students' freedom of speech, but to make sure that their freedom of assembly isn't violated. This pertains to both curriculum as well as bullying. If we focus solely on freedom of speech, we basically turn schools into a warzone where students become exposed to information overload and bombardment. Weak, sensitive, thinskinned, exposed, and vulnerable students become forced to endure duress, intimidation, harassment, negligence, and provocation. Those who are bombarded with speech into submission will have their sensitivities disrespected, and they won't even be able to stand up for themselves. You mentioned faith before. In Catholicism, this is called "universal reconciliation". Nobody is entitled to judge anyone else. This includes freedom of speech where people who engage intensely without manners judge others who don't consent to be impressed too fast, too soon.
Students should be able to speak up in schools for what they believe.

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." -George Washington "Here's a nation, one of the founding pillars was freedom of speech and freedom of expression. And yet, we have imposed upon people restrictions on what they can say, on what they can think. And the media is the largest proponent of this, crucifying people who say things really quite innocently." -Benjamin Carson "A people which is able to say everything becomes able to do everything." -Napoleon I What do you say to these people? Students are citizens.
Students should be able to speak up in schools for what they believe.

Hmmm... ...to be fair, I was thinking of the exact opposite situation. For example, sometimes, schools expound social norms in English and history classes. In turn, a wise guy student will speak up about moral or cultural relativism. The real problem in the situation you described doesn't seem to be that the faithful deserve the right to speak up, but that everyone else is speaking up too much, silencing the faithful out.
Students should be able to speak up in schools for what they believe.

Students are in school to be professed to and learn discourse ethics. Speaking up about anything is insubordination. This isn't to say students should be automatically restricted, but it's important to remember that school is not an anarchic environment. It has structure which means students should be expected to prove why their questions are relevant, necessary, and germane to the topic at hand. Otherwise, education will become a waste of time, energy, and attention. This is especially important beyond a 1:1 teacher:student ratio. Spending time dillydallying on one student can lead to the abandonment of others. That's selfish.
gerrymaandering AWC english 101 js

Jessica Sanchez Professor Fergozo English 101 27 February 2014 Gerrymandering Gerrymandering is in fact is judged negatively because it unfairly divides districted to favor a certain party line lines are messed with every 10 years. This disenfranchise group of voters separates the minority votes into different districts so their vote basically won"t count (Long Island minority vote). Politian"s are still doing this "Because it makes their seats safer"or so they think. But gerrymandering is done to benefit parties, not individual politicians. Thus, seats grow safer only for the party: gerrymandering makes general-election challenges less likely"(The Economist). They think keeping it around will help when in reality it is just hurting both parties because it is not a real challenge anymore. In my opinion gerrymandering is still around because politicians need it. It is also still around because there has not been a fair way to solve. Some suggestions on to fix gerrymandering would be to fix the lines completely based on population and just keep it like that without moving them to party any favor. Just base it all on population could help a lot because then the real party would get elected, and it will be more of a challenge for politicians.
Resolved: The GOP's staunch opposition to the presidency and the left has caused more harm than good

Hi, I go by Liberal Canadian, and here is some information and clarification on this debate. It is very important that these rules and structures are followed (I know its a lot):The Debate will be structured in 4 rounds:1. General Acceptance, as well as any clarification needed on the topic, I will answer the information briefly before the second round.2. Constructives, essenitally a presentation of all of the evidence and arguments structured by your contentions, the evidence must be cited, preferably in MLA format with the URL below.Like This (this is an example article) use easybib.com to cite (its easy):Rosenberg, Matthew, and Jawad Sukhanyar. "3 Explosions Rock Afghan Capital After Months of Calm." The New York Times. The New York Times, 09 Nov. 2014. Web. 09 Nov. 2014.http://www.nytimes.com...; You can present as many arguments as you would like they just have to be extended (just type "extend my argument on..."). 3. Rebuttals, address the other side's arguments and provide legitimate counter arguments against as many as you can. Feel free to bring in new evidence, just no new contentions. 4. Closing arguments, a wrap up of the debate, just close out your arguments, there can be no new evidence in this round. About the topic: This debate will revolve around wether or not the GOP's (republican party) constant opposition to Obama and other left leaning figures is doing us any good. I will argue that it is harming us more than it is helping us. Con will argue that it is justified and that it is indeed helping us. Other rules: 1. Have good behavior, no trolling, swearing, or one sentence comebacks, just be a good sport. 2. I am a busy person so stay patient if I can't post my arguments right away, there is a 3 day limit to posting, so there should be more than enough time. Its completely fine to post last minute, I get we are all busy. 3. Just have fun, present good arguments and I look forward to my first debate on this site.
Westboro Baptist Church is wrong in protesting at soldier's funerals

^^^First, please show how even if most people don't agree with homosexuality that makes it wrong. --- Forty-eight percent said they believed homosexual relations were morally wrong and 48 percent also said they believed homosexual relations were morally acceptable. This last 2 percent not metioned have no opinion on the matter. The percent of those against it have stronger beliefs than those agreeing with it. Also, a large portion of religions are against homosexuality. America is said to be a nation based on religion, and this proves my point. ^^^ Second, these people have the same right of free speech as every one else. To take their rights away just because you disagree with them is simply fascism. --- Im not arguing that they dont have free speech. Im arguing that though they are allowed to, they shouldnt want to. By prostesting outside of these funerals, they are hurting the families of the fallen soldiers. ^^^I thought your god supposedly did let someone die for another's sins. And there is actually no historical evidence that Jesus died for our sins, rose from the dead, or ever existed. --- My God did let someone die for another's sins: Jesus. After that, no other blood was needed for the forgiveness of sins. Also, there is historical evidence of Jesus and what he did: The Bible. Though you may deny the validity of The Bible, since America is a country based on faith, and since 76% of Americans claim to be Christians, you must recognize that the WBC is wrong in their beliefs, and perhaps not even a legitamate sect of Christianty. ^^^I agree with you here. They should stop. But it is still there right to picket and protest. --- Good, you agree with me. But that is not what this debate is about. Though they have the right to protest, they shouldnt want to on moral grounds. Thus, Westboro Baptist Church is wrong in protesting soldier's funerals. They shouldnt because they claim to be Christians, and shouldnt want to protest the way they are doing. They are making the bad decision, and is wrong in protesting soldier's funerals.
Westboro Baptist Church is wrong in protesting at soldier's funerals

"Though they believe themselves to be right, and although homosexuality is generally accepted as wrong, this is outrageous." First, please show how even if most people don't agree with homosexuality that makes it wrong. Second, these people have the same right of free speech as every one else. To take their rights away just because you disagree with them is simply fascism. "No God of mine, nor the rest of America for that matter, would allow someone to die for another's sins. Only one figure in history was required to do this, and that was Jesus." I thought your god supposedly did let someone die for another's sins. And there is actually no historical evidence thatt Jesus died for our sins, rose from the dead, or ever existed. "Westboro Baptist Church should immediatly stop their picketing and give their apologies to the families of our fallen warriors." I agree with you here. They should stop. But it is still there right to picket and protest.
Westboro Baptist Church is wrong in protesting at soldier's funerals

Please be reasonable and fair with your arguments. Best of luck. Definitions: Westboro Baptist Church: The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is an independent Baptist church known for its extreme stance against homosexuality[1] and its protest activities, which include picketing funerals and desecrating the American flag. [2] The church is widely described as a hate group[3] and is monitored as such by the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center. It is headed by Fred Phelps and consists mostly of members of his large family;[4] in 2007, it had 71 members. [5] The church is headquartered in a residential neighborhood on the west side of Topeka about three miles west of the Kansas State Capitol at 3701 West 12th Street, Topeka, Kansas, United States. Its first public service was held on the afternoon of Sunday, November 27, 1955. [6] The church has been actively involved in the anti-gay movement since at least 1991 when it sought a crackdown on homosexual activity at Gage Park about a mile northwest of the church. [7] In addition to anti-gay protests at military funerals, the organization pickets other celebrity funerals that are likely to get it media attention. [8] The WBC is not affiliated with any known Baptist conventions or associations. The church describes itself as following Primitive Baptist and Calvinist principles,[9] though mainstream Primitive Baptists reject the WBC and Phelps. [10] . http://en.wikipedia.org... In essence, the Westboro Baptist Church is wrong in pickiting outside of the funerals of fallen soldiers. Though they believe themselves to be right, and although homosexuality is generally accepted as wrong, this is outrageous. No God of mine, nor the rest of America for that matter, would allow someone to die for another's sins. Only one figure in history was required to do this, and that was Jesus. Westboro Baptist Church should immediatly stop their picketing and give their apologies to the families of our fallen warriors.
Euthanasia

Euthanasia refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering. While it is an issue of law for certain, I labeled this debate into the Philosophical category. Euthanasia, sometimes called "mercy killing" or referred to as assisted suicide has both ethical and legal ramifications. I will be arguing on behalf of the law embracing euthanasia as a viable legal option for willing patients and/or their care takers.To be clear, I support voluntary and most non-voluntary euthanasia. I do NOT support involuntary euthanasia (killing against one's will) or passive euthanasia, where a treatment or cure is withheld from the patient unless they agree to that voluntarily. I will not be arguing in favor of involuntary euthanasia in this debate. My opponent is free to make any key points or a brief summary of his position in Round 1, but I will start the debate as Pro in Round 2. Thank you and happy reading.
true laissez faire libertarianism iz dangerous

I did refute and defeat the resolution all of which was dropped. My opponent clearly dropped the entire thing, so I extend upon Kant and Nozick's Prinicples across the board. My opponent then tries to state that protection of good food to eat is that of a perfect duty, but this is false as it involves helping others and this is a textbook classification of an Imperfect duty. [1] Thus we can see that this portion by Pro is negated. My opponent argues that I didn't refute the resolution, but when I argued that the government interfearence is harmful and hurts us I showed that it is harmful, not to mention that the BOP is on Pro who has yet to uphold her BOP to show that it is harmful in the first place. My opponent doesn't refute my argument at all. This is an EPA mandate, but a very bad one and abuse of government power which is something that was dropped by my opponent. My opponent claims that I didn't dispute that we would die without healthcare. First I broke the link to the argument showing that there's no cahnge from status quo and free market. This was dropped by my opponent. Even if I dropped this argument it wouldn't harm me concidering that there is no Link. To argue in favor of my opponent's side on this part is just faulty. Healthcare is something that insurance picks up a large chunck of your medical bill. If there was no health care or said person just paid out of pocket then they would still be alive. They would just have to pay more.With that we can see that my opponent has dropped several, if not all of my arguments. I urge you to vote Con.Thank you.Sources1. (http://www.uark.edu...)
true laissez faire libertarianism iz dangerous

so con doesn't really dispute the resolution. he just says dangerous or not, it's not the government's role to do the things i mentioned as examples. all i really have to do to disagree is to say i dont agree, and add that it's in the social contract and natural law for people to be able to do what they need to eat etc. if we deprive them of their rights, we must make up for it in the social contract. i might even be able to call it a perfect duty to use con's jargon? at any rate, con had a lot of academic bluster which didnt add up to much more than saying he has some fundamental differences with me. he did mention the EPA going against its lawful mandate. true, but it still has the authority to mandate a lot of stuff legally. and, we dont have to just talk about the constitution... we can talk about things more generally as in what "ought" to be. in that vein con doen't dispute pollution can kill and cause harm to the environment. con says health care can still exist in a laizze faire economy. he doesn't dispute that people die without healthcare though. if this is "working" to him, then we have a different expectation for what works and what doesn't.
Insurance Exclusions for the Treatment of those Diagnosed with GID Should be Illegal in the US

Insurance Exclusions for the Treatment of those Diagnosed with GID Should be Illegal in the US. "treatment" for this is actually not vital, in fact it is optional. as the new York times says Individual and family therapy is recommended for children to create a supportive environment at home and in school. Individual and, if appropriate, couples therapy is recommended for adults. Sex reassignment through surgery and hormonal therapy is an option, but identity problems may continue after this treatment. the treatment in which one needs insurance for is not required. If the treatment is optional we should not allow an unfair advantage for people with GID. That would be like the gov. paying for peoples cosmetic surgeries such as breast enhancements. We also should not do this because it is not guaranteed that one would be cured as the N.Y.T said " but identity problems may continue after this treatment."
China is Better Off as a Communist Nation than as a Capitalist Society

Yes in a normal communist society this is true but in China communism has evolved to insert a few certain capitalist ideals into the communist system that make it so that consumers are more satisfied. Many of the Chinese who live in urban areas are wealthy and happy. The government is oppressive when it comes to certain areas but I do not believe it to be "tyrannical". I am going to stand by my argument I said before. I think more people would suffer if the communist regime collapsed than how many do currently. There are 1.3 BILLION people in China that would be directly affected by the change in government and I think that they would be affected negatively. 1.3 billion is a much larger number than 65 million. I stand when I say that China is better off as a Communist Nation.
China is Better Off as a Communist Nation than as a Capitalist Society

My counter-argument can be said in just two sentences: Communist societies do not have a price system for the means of production, hence economic calculation becomes impossible, which will result in resources never being allocated in such a way that satisfies the consumer. The economic chaos that ensues, and the dictatorial power that is required to eliminate private ownership from taking place naturally, makes for a tyrannical and oppressive country for the citizens, who in the case of China have already suffered greatly under Communism during the 20th century, where over 65 MILLION people were killed directly through murder or indirectly through famine by the Communist regime.
China is Better Off as a Communist Nation than as a Capitalist Society

Before I start I want to lay down a few definitions. [1] Communism - a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state. [2] China - People's Republic of, a country in E Asia. 1,221,591,778; 3,691,502 sq. mi. (9,560,990 sq. km). Capital: Beijing. [3] better - larger; greater: [4] 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, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth Now that I have my definitions out of the way I can continue. I would like to start with my main points. A - No political stress. Communist countries operate under a one party system meaning that the communist party is the only one running on the ticket come "election" time. Therefore under this one party system the Chinese people do not have to worry about politics and a bipartisan system like they do here. Think about how much we waste on bipartisan politics and how much money and hours are put into political campaign's. In China I think it helps the younger generations to not have to worry about this kind of stress. B - New economic reform. Present day China has released some of its hold over the private sector over there paving the way for an economic powerhouse. The Chinese government has introduced a new system that injects a lot more capitalism into their economy. Combine this with the uniform government and lack of political related stress and you have a formidable force. C - If China happened to change to a democracy it's people would suffer. I think that China would react like post Soviet Union Russia did after the collapse of their communist regime. The people would not be able to function properly without the federal government taking care of them. I say China is better off the way it is and tough to the US and other nations who want to change this. It works for them.
If you are prolife (Abortion) then wouldn't you be against the dealth penalty? Pro(Agr) Con(Disag)

This is actually a very interesting question, but I do believe I can argue against it. This question is about context, as well as net gain. If you are pro-life in the context of the abortion debate, you believe that life should not be taken away from an individual who has not actually done anything so far except for exist, you believe they should be given a chance at life. In the context of the death penalty, people who are pro-death penalty tend to come at it in two ways, either they are for it because they believe in retribution, in which case they may well be for abortion too as the two are not interlinked, or they are for it because they believe that a killer would, if ever released or somehow got free, kill again. Therefore they are pro-death penalty because there is a net gain of life as killing that individual would stop a number of other people from being killed by that person. Therefore, you can be pro-death penalty whilst being pro-life. Sorry if I've been confusing, I will clarify if needs be.