BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Polygamists should be granted the right to a civil union with rights similar to marriage

This is a continuation of a recent debate challenge that expired. I am arguing as CON, The BOP will be shared: Con must prove why Polygamists shouldn't have the right to the legal entitlements that would accompany a civil union type arrangement. Pro will have to demonstrate why they should. (note that no one is arguing in favour of extending the definition of marriage to Polygamists) Accepted Definitions: - "Civil Union Type Arrangement": A legally recognized form of partnership similar to marriage that grants the legal and social benefits of marriage to those partaking. - Polygamy: The practice or custom of having more than one wife at the same time. - 'Right': A legal entitlement. Debating Platform - Round 1: Acceptance - Round 2: Pro argues, Con argues rebuts - Round 3: Pro rebuts, Con rebuts. New arguments can also be introduced. - Round 4: Pro's final rebuttas conclusion, Con's final rebuttas conclusion. No new arguments in this round. Any variation from this platform by either party in the debate results in immediate forfeiture. If you don't meet the acceptance criteria, make a comment and I'll extend the invitation to you. Good luck to whomever accepts!
Assuming that the technology exists, parents should be allowed to choose the gender of their baby

So my opponent has forfeited the last round. So, I would just continue to state another argument from the opposition. The second argument that I would like to present is that it is unethical. There are two perspectives of why this is unethical: it would be harming various aspects of biological birth, and it would be hurting the child later on. First, people should be born the way they were supposed to be, instead of their parents controlling them. However, by letting parents choose the gender of their baby, it would be violating nature"s law. Letting parents choose the gender of the baby is unethical itself already, even without its other and more severe consequences. As I had already stated in the first argument, most parents in countries such as China or India want boys. They think of girls as burdens, and boys as assets. In this case, my opponent may clearly argue that the parents know what will be best for their child. However, is choosing a male baby over a female baby choosing the best for their child? The answer is a no. Second, it would be hurting the child later on. For example, if a parent decided to choose a female, and the female child does something wrong, the parents may say that they should have chosen a boy instead of a girl. Then, the girl would feel hurt and would want to become a boy. If choosing the gender of their baby is allowed, it would only cause the parents to offend their child more about their gender and the gender roles of their child.
Assuming that the technology exists, parents should be allowed to choose the gender of their baby

I would like to begin with one argument for round one. The first argument that supports my choice is that letting parents choose the gender of the baby causes gender imbalance. Even at the current status quo, there is gender imbalance due to parents aborting their child as soon as they find out that their baby is a girl. Gender imbalance is the most severe in China. After the ultrasound scan had been invented in China, the boy and girl imbalance had become severe. However, if we allow parents to choose the gender of their baby, it will only cause more imbalance between gender, and create a more biased, male-oriented society as the population of males increase incredibly when compared to females. Of course the proposition may later on argue that there are the parents' rights to choose the gender of their own baby, but this argument does not make sense, because the citizens' rights should be limited to a degree that doesn't harm anybody else. However, letting parents choose the gender of their own baby will create a harm to the society in the present and the future as well (especially in countries that are more male-oriented) and in this case, the parents' rights to choice does not stand.
Resolved, the United States should abolish birthright citizenship.

Seeing as how my opponent has forfeit round 2, I will just be reinforcing my rebuttals.Again, in my opponent's first contention he cites a flawed study. I have shown that the illegal immigration rate is currently dropping fast, and that fewer children will be born to illegal immigrants once birthright citizenship is abolished.I have also shown that, even if my opponent can prove the amount of illegal immigrants will increase, the cost associated with them will not increase, as their children can no longer claim welfare benefits for their parents. In my opponent's second contention he mentions the 14th amendment. I have clearly shown that illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and therefore are not covered by the 14th amendment. Next, I showed that a constitutional amendment is not outside the scope of this debate, rendering my opponent's entire second contention useless.Finally, should my opponent attempt to refute the argument for a constitutional amendment, I cited the opinion rendered in the Wong Kim Ark case, and showed how it does not support birthright citizenship.In my opponent's third contention he brings up the possibility of a bureaucratic mess. I attacked the relationship between birthright citizenship and citizenship checks, using the example of other countries. My opponent has not yet responded to this, and has shown no reason why the U.S. will have a harder time than any other country in the world.Furthermore, I quickly negated the impact on cost by showing that $3.4 billion dollars is, in fact, much less than $100 billion dollars. Therefore, even if my opponent can prove that a complex bureaucratic mess will result from abolishing birthright citizenship, the effect of such a process will be minimal.The entirety of my opponent's case has been refuted, while mine remains untouched.
Resolved, the United States should abolish birthright citizenship.

Hey thanks for accepting! And sorry about the typo... let us begin! Today I will present the three primary reasons that abolishing birthright citizenship would be disadvantageous to the United States. -Repealing birthright citizenship will increase the number of illegal immigrants and harm the economy. According to Aimee Rawlins of the Council on Foreign Relations, repealing birthright citizenship will increase the amount of illegal immigrants in the United States. This is supported by a study done by the Center for Immigration Studies that found if birthright citizenship is abolished there will be an additional 400,000 illegal immigrants each year. The study goes on to find that birthright citizenship, if repealed, would cause there to be up to 16 million illegal immigrants by the year 2050. This has serious, negative effects on the United States. For example, according to Dr. Steven Camarota of the CIS, illegal immigrants cost the nation currently over 10.4 billion dollars. These costs combined with the increase in illegal immigration will cause the negative effects to be even more devastating to the US. -Repealing birthright citizenship would be unconstitutional. The 14th amendment of the Constitution states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." This grants citizenship to anyone born within the boundary of the United States. The Supreme Court has gone on to prove this point with its interpretation of the amendment. In the case of the United States vs. Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court ruled that all children born within the geographical border of the United States shall be granted citizenship regardless of the immigration status of their parents. Thus showing that the constitution and its interpreters protect birthright citizenship in the United States and repealing it would be unconstitutional. -The process of repealing birthright citizenship would be costly and complex bureaucratic process. According to Daniel Gonzalez of Arizona News repealing birthright citizenship would be a process requiring citizenship checks, new computer systems, and the hiring of many new officials. In addition Margaret D. Stock of the CATO Institute found that the costs would be an about 2.4 billion dollars a year. This money would come directly from taxpayers, which will directly harm virtually every citizen of the United States. Another negative bureaucratic effect would be regular citizens having to more frequently prove their citizenship. In the same article from the CATO Institute, the analyst showed that in order to implement the abolition of birthright citizenship United States citizens would be more often forced to prove their citizenship, especially in times of emergency such as child birth and travel. This burden on regular citizens of the United States would be unfair, overly complex, and economically disadvantageous. Overall, birthright citizenship has become an essential part of functional American society and thus should not be abolished. Thank you.
Resolved, the United States should abolish birthright citizenship.

Your case must be based on fact and any facts asserted must be supported with evidence from a source. My opponent, CON, will argue that the net benefits of birthright citizenship do not outweigh the costs and thus the US should abolish it. I will argue that the net benefits of birthright citizenship do not outweigh the costs, thus the US should NOT abolish it. Thank you. Please respond with your acceptance of these conditions.
Abortion

An abortion can result in medical complications later in life; the risk of ectopic pregnancies doubles, and the chance of a miscarriage and pelvic inflammatory disease also increases. Abortion should not be used as another form of contraception. Abortion is not used as a form of contraception. Pregnancy can occur even with responsible contraceptive use. Only 8% of women who have abortions do not use any form of birth control, and that is due more to individual carelessness than to the availability of abortion.
Firemen, Doctors, ect. Should be payed more than Athletes and Celebrities.

People, in private industry at least, are usually payed based on the money they bring in. For example, the NFL brings in huge amounts of money. This is why NFL players are payed so much. If doctors were paid a much as athletes, that money would have to come from somewhere. That is either from the taxpayer or the patients. Economically it makes no sense for you to do this. Also, in the case of athletes at least, the money is certainly not just handed to them. They have to be skilled and train for years. Either you would drop the athlete's pay, or up the pay of the doctors, so much that they would have to charge much more for their services. Logically, you can't justify doing this.
Surrogacy

I meant gestational surrogacy when an embryo created by in vitro fertilization (IVF) technology is implanted in a surrogate. If you first need to create embryo in laboratory and than additionally implant it in someone who can carry this pregnancy I cannot see positive side of this process. If women's body is not made to have a child then she should not have it. Quality and happiness of life do not depend on whether you have a child or not. Medicine does have influence on longevity of person and it does interfere with natural selection also (and is another theme for discussion definitely) but medicine takes care of someone who is already born. This is first difference. From other point of view it is like saying that it is ok to, for example, trow a plastic bottle in sea because it is already polluted.
Surrogacy

Why not? This is a free country and I agree that infertility is horrible, but how are bad genes being passed on? You do understand how surrogate mothers work right? It is when a woman bears a child and gives it away to an infertile mother, the main point of surrogate mothers is that they birth the baby FOR the woman who is infertile. This means that the only genes being passed on are the ones from the male sperm and the surrogate mother. So how are bad genes being passed on? Unless of course you mean gestational surrogacy and if so, then we do that all the time by saving people with bad immune systems and other problems with medicine.
Misotheism

I will provide my counter arguments now that you have tried describing why you are not in agreement with me. Now with or without God evolution did happen that's why public schools teach it so to deny the evidence is to deny reality which means you are flat out denying the truth. Not that I give a da.mn about science because it is a different issue then being a believer or nonbeliever in the Creator of the Universe. I will attempt to provide a rebuttal to your Albert Einstein video! That is in no way proof that Albert believed in God or much less even made those statements. In my honest opinion this video was dumb and a poorly produced video. This doesn't help your case against Misotheism. Here is another verse from the Holy Bible that proves my point Isaiah 45:7- I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things. So now here is another good reason I believe your Albert Einstein video is totally "epic fail" my friend. The Jesus/Anti Religion video was nothing more, nothing less then Christian propaganda! You and I are religious followers of other religions; period, we can't deny these facts! At least I'm speaking from a position most logical and in sync with the truth about the Creator of the Universe; your just giving me religious propagada videos that prove no points. The "Trinity Argument" is in no way a good case against Misotheism. It's not even working for me because it's totally off topic and does nothing to justifiably refute my stance as a misotheist. You must stay on topic my friend! The Creator of the Universe is one completely different entity not anything more; not anything less! I in my honest opinion do not care about "Jesus Christ" or the "Holy Spirit". When God created us, it was straight out but so was all the "Violent Sociopathic" stuff God did and it's even in the Holy Bible. Excuse me; but you are absolutely right that I do have "God" and "Religion" mixed up; and mixed up well, like a cup of cinnamon water and unadulterated black coffee that I have every morning, as it's suppost to be. And as a side note to answer your question; yes I do believe that God did wipe out every living thing, including all of mankind, well most of the humans and beasts! From a logical human perspective the Creator of the Universe is a "big bad bully" who is "Cruel" and "Unusual" for this. And just as a friendly reminder the New Testement doesn't cancel the Old one! Here is another bible versus proving my point: Matthew 5:17-18- Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. I'll also give you my last rebuttal to your claim that: "Misotheists believe in the Creator of the Universe but believe against him". Actually misotheists are believers in the Creator of the Universe but they reject him. Why do you think LaughItUpLydia? It's because I strongly dislike the Creator of the Universe to tell you the truth.
Misotheism

Since you are arguing that the Creator of the Universe loves us and you believe this is justifiable I will then attempt to provide a rebuttal that he is not. I don't know for sure if you are aware of this but there is just too many versus in the Holy Bible that actually vindicate my religious position as a misotheist. I'll provide you evidence right now! 1.) Zephaniah 1:2-3- I will sweep away everything from the face of the earth, declares the Lord. I will sweep away both men and animals; I will sweep away the birds of the air and the fish of the sea. The wicked will have only heaps of rubble when I cut off man from the face of the earth, declares the Lord. Jeremiah 25:29- See, I am beginning to bring disaster on the city that bears my Name, and will you indeed go unpunished? You will not go unpunished, for I am calling down a sword upon all who live on earth, declares the Lord Almighty. Genesis 7:21- Every living that moved on the earth perished- birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all of mankind. Of course Genesis 7:23 shows how every living thing was annihilated all except for Noah and those animals and humans which were on the ark with him. These are good reasons so far I hate the Creator of the Universe because he destroyed the entire human race and he's only going to do it again along with the rest of the world. He is my sworn Arch-Enemy respectively my friend and to state otherwise would make me a hypocrite to my own beliefs. Now it's your turn to counter my rebuttal!
Misotheism

I accept. Thank you for instigating; this will be interesting! I enjoy debating Xxzefd. Misotheism = hatred of god(s) Christian = belief in the God of the Bible and that He loves us https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com... We agree to these definitions. Basically, I will argue that God loves us and this is justifiable, and Pro will argue that Misotheism is the right way to go. I will let Pro take the first arguments to be fair.
Misotheism

Let's have a debate just for fun my friend. I do believe in the Creator of the Universe but I dislike the Judeo/Christian version of him however. It seems to me that based on Judeo/Christianity as a whole; for example this Great God who decrees doesn't seem like a very nice god according to some of the information found in the Holy Bible. Honestly my friend, no offense to you; I hate the Judeo/Christian god Jehovah and to claim otherwise would not only be intellectually dishonest of me but also cowardly for choosing to withhold evidence about my religious preferences as a misotheist. I need evidence backing up your position against mine. Why are you Con/Against Misotheists? Do you serve Jehovah out of love or fear or perhaps both? I have evidence right now that I will attempt to use to justify my valid position as a misotheist so here it is LaughItUpLydia: go to http://www.evilbible.com... for more information my friend. Let the games begin!
Misotheism

If you are a Christian then you must also accept that you cannot sugercoat the biblical examples I gave to prove why my religious belief system is without error and why it is justifiable. You must also accept the "Violent Sociopathic" things God did throughtout the Holy Bible. You must accept the whole "End Times" craziness thing which is in the Holy Bible. You must then accept that you are enslaved to a tyrannical sociopath who would nowadays be worse then all the religious/non-religious mass murderers throughout the history of the human race. You must then embrace utter hopelessness in your powerlessnes. You cannot deny/reject all the "Violent Sociopathic" things the Judeo/Christian god Jehovah did like the evidence I provided like the "Great Flood" for example. That was a very terrible event that went down! Countless innocent people were annihilated; women, children, and men! Animals of all kinds were also annililated! The whole planet earth was desecrated and covered like an ocean it was a da.mn waterworld my friend. In my eyes he is more meaner then the entire structure of the fallen angels (the one-third) that were reprobated out of Heaven by him; including all the people who have and those who will also receive the same condemnation. He is insane! He has not me not ever! I regret being born to Christian parents and having "The Holy Bible" shoved down my throat and forced against my will to attend worship and church services growing up just to pay homage to this god Jehovah. You must admit that either it would of been better had I never been born or been exposed to any form of religion whatsoever if Judeo/Christianity is the truth. Revelations 20:14/15 and Revelations 22:12 thru 16 are great reasons so far which is part of the "New Testement" section of the Holy Bible that I hate the Creator of the Universe who is known by many as Jehovah. Many people interpret the Holy Bible differently. But to me a diety like the Judeo/Christian god Jehovah is definitely not fit for worship or servitude; he's only fit for one thing and that's "Permenent and Absolute Rejection". My religious preferences as a Misotheist are fully justifiable and correct my friend. I did have a fun and exciting time debating with you LaughItUpLydia it was in "many respects" challenging. Being "Iconoclastic" and always open to new ideas and being "nontraditional" isn't easy my friend; but all people cannot believe the same things. Not all people have the same religious beliefs my friend. Diversity and a clash of ideas is everywhere, not just on Debate.org.
Misotheism

Thank you again. Definition of skeptic 'a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.' http://www.merriam-webster.com... I am not a total skeptic, obviously, because I express belief in an "accepted" opinion, whatever that is. As I alluded to last round, I am more of a skeptic-of-anything-except-the Bible, and yes, this sounds laughable, but it is the truth about me that I cannot deny. What I am trying to say is that the Bible is considered an "accepted" opinion and it's the only thing I don't doubt. I am not particularly religious (I am Christian though I focus more on the relationship with God than the "Christian"/religious actions), and this makes it so that the only "opinion" I believe is what the Bible says. Other than the Bible I like to think that I question everything. "The whole point of the debate is defend your religious belief system, nothing more, nothing less." Earlier I thought we were both defending our belief systems. I have defended mine and there wasn't an argument presented for Pro's R4 thus there isn't much to rebuttal. Pro you did not answer any of my questions for your beliefs. If you had, we would've had a lot more to talk about, but instead we've gotten off topic and wasted time saying what the topic is. Please read my arguments before writing yours, pro, thank you! Hopefully the last round can end well. My case that misotheism is false stands.
Misotheism

Your welcome! First I would like to provide you my counter arguments now that you have posted your arguments in R3. I will attempt to provide my educational opinions about you and your religious preferences, along with mine, just to stay on the safe side. First off my friend, you are totally not a "skeptic". I'll provide my rebuttals to your false claims now! Just because you question everything on television doesn't mean anything special because millions of viewers from all religious and intellectual backgrounds are doing the same exact thing. This proves no point! Also to be straight forward with you; even though you don't believe everything the church puts out to you, you still believe in everything that is in the Holy Bible. This makes you a Christian, period! This makes you in no way, shape or form anything more, anything less! Same goes for me also! I may not believe everything put out to me, or that I read, but this in no way means I'm a "Skeptic" too because belief in any diety or dieties, even if I hate some still means I have a religious preference. This makes me a Misotheist, period! Also just to be proper and follow the rules of this debate; I am going to justifiably drop the "Creationist/Evolution" argument because it's totally off topic. It is a topic that deals with "Science" not "Religion" my dear friend. This would require another debate LaughItUpLydia. The whole point of the debate is defend your religious belief system, nothing more, nothing less. I will not provide you any case against Creationism or better yet Evolution as I take a "Apathetic Stance" to these topics as a whole.