BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage should be Illegal (3)

Premise 1) Freedom is our defaultI agree that freedom as you put it is the default. However, I still believe that no one, including gays, have any enumerated right to marriage and the right to marry is really what you claim gays have. Marriage is a privilege, granted by the state; rights are “endowed by our Creator” of which marriage is not included. Privileges are set in law, inferred from other rights or take the form of “freedoms” as Con puts it. As a privilege, marriage can be denied based on the needs of the State. Marriage is already heavily regulated. To wit, a license must be obtained, a fee paid, and it must be legal for the participants to marry. Siblings, inanimate objects, animals, etc. are not granted this privilege. I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. The benefits mentioned in my initial argument (among possible others) garnered from this privilege should only be extended to those who would benefit the state by their union. Married partners are granted these benefits because the propagation of society is a compelling interest for the State. This is why laws tend to restrict marriage between couples unlikely to produce viable children. Sterile couples often do not know before marriage that they are infertile. And even if they did it would be cost prohibitive to require such testing of all marrying couples. Otherwise, I would argue even sterile couples should be denied marriage. Premise 2) You need a good reason to make something illegalPerhaps it doesn’t refute the premise but the premise is flawed in that gay marriage isn’t illegal as much as it’s not an allowed circumstance in most states. Let me give an example: Aliens and humans aren’t specifically banned from marriage but they wouldn’t be able to get a license either. Lack of prohibition in law doesn’t make the act illegal it just means that they would not be recognized by the state as a valid union. Conclusion)The State has a compelling reason not to allow non-reproductive couples from marrying. CA: Gay marriage provides benefits to gaysI would argue that marriage should be banned for everyone that has a “marriage of convenience” based on the benefits derived from the State making it in the State’s interest to do so. In fact, when the INS learns of such marriages they often prosecute the violators. So, yes, even in heterosexual marriages certain restrictions should and do apply. And I still believe that either homo or hetero couples that do this violate the sanctity of marriage.
Gay Marriage should be Illegal (3)

Pro has kept there opening objection and argument short so I will try and do the same. Premise 1) Freedom is our defaultPro mentions what rights gays may or may not have, but that is a reference to the current law. My first premise isn't derived from law, its an ethical principle, an ethical principle that is generally adhered to when making laws within modern western civilisation. That is, that things are not assumed to be illegal, but rather legality is assumed, and if you want to make something illegal you need a good reason for it, hence premise 2). The alternative to this premise is that freedom is NOT our default, I don't think Pro makes any argument for this alternative. Premise 2) You need a good reason to make something illegalYes there are laws that don't have a good reason to exist, this doesn't refute the premise, it just shows the premise is not always adhered to. Denying this premise on grounds that it is not always obeyed makes as much sense as denying that raping children is wrong cause some people rape children. Conclusion) If a law exists that does not have a good reason for making something illegal, then the law should be changed so the thing is no longer illegal CA = Counter ArgumentCA: Gay marriage provides benefits to gays Pro argues that marriage provides benefits, well no argument there, isn't that part of the reason why both hetrosexuals and homosexuals want to get married ? Pro then goes on to say. .. "The problem this creates are the marriages of convenience between two friends. There would be no way to guard against abuses of the system and we could wind up with everyone married but acting single just so that they can receive marriage benefits. "Well I agree, this is a possibility, but there is a HUGE double standard, Pro says that gays marriage might result in marriage of convenience and thus should be illegal, but this is also possible with a hetrosexual marriage. Does Pro also argue that hetrosexual marriage should be banned for the same exact reason ? no, hence the double standard. If we adopt Pros principle that marriage should be banned cause friends can get married just to get benefits, then you would have to ban both gay marriage and hetrosexual marriage, no body can get married. I hope Pro realizes that people have friends who are the opposite gender. I can merely retort Pros argument back to them, allowing hetrosexual marriage can result in a marriage of convenience and thus "completely degrades the sanctity of marriage" I suspect this is not the outcome that Pro wanted. I look forward to Pros reply.
Gay Marriage should be Illegal (3)

This should be interesting ;Premise 1) Freedom is our defaultI agree with this premise prima facie. However, I don't agree that it applies to this situation. Gays may not have marriage rights in all states but do in some and have civil union rights in many others. Secondly, there is no right or freedom in the Constitution that guarantees anyone can marry including heterosexuals.Premise 2) You need a good reason to make something illegalI agree if the law doesn't have a good reason for making something illegal it should be changed. But there are many laws that do not have good reason to exist and yet do. Sites like http://www.stupidlaws.com... to that fact. I'm probably just arguing semantics here :)Gay Marriage should be illegal because marriage these days affords much more to a person than a simple certificate. It allows gays to add each other to insurance, receive government benefits, tax breaks and much more. The problem this creates are the marriages of convenience between two friends. There would be no way to guard against abuses of the system and we could wind up with everyone married but acting single just so that they can receive marriage benefits. That would completely degrade the sanctity of marriage.
Uniforms in schools/workplaces should all be unisex/gender neutral

Once again it isn't about professionalism it is about a companies right to choose. If you're going to try and force companies to abide by your ideas on unisex uniforms someone has to enforce that. Since it obviously isn't going to be the company itself you have set a precedent that all people will follow because that's going to be law. Since you haven't set forth any kind of line on what unisex might actually entail for companies you're just slapping a word on it. A study by ucla puts the transgender community at. 58% of the community. So no I'm not just talking out of my butt and here's a link. Https://www. Dailydot. Com/irl/transgender-population-in-us/ and I'm just going to assume all of those things you just listed could be covered as transgender. Think about it. There really isn't a single unifying definition of transgender or gender fluid and I can give you some examples. Dictionary. Com says it can be as broad as "noting or relating to a person who does not conform to societal gender norms or roles. " That definition could describe anyone who isn't ideally masculine or feminine. It can also be as narrow as "noting or relating to a person whose gender identity does not correspond to that person"s biological sex assigned at birth. " The quote is taken from the same site. Https://www. Dictionary. Com/browse/transgender? S=t, Then there's webmd who defines transgender as how someone feels. Https://www. Webmd. Com/sex/features/transgender-what-it-means#1. And therefore I'm able to debunk your statement about that. lastly it can be harmful to a companies image because it could be construed as not allowing people to be masculine or feminine. Something people like because around 99% of the population identifies as male or female. As a matter of fact you could say it's built into our language. I mean could you imagine trying to speak gender neutral Spanish? You're argument isn't nuanced and doesn't have precedents, Definitions, Or a point.
Uniforms in schools/workplaces should all be unisex/gender neutral

Yes a company has the right to choose how it is presented to the world, But why does that presentation have to differ between men and women? Changing the ways we present a company does not mean that it would appear any less professional. Also, I'm sorry but I am unable to see the error in my argument, I was simply using skirts as an example of how uniform often falls into a binary. I understand that there is obvious biological differences between men and women, However these difference have no effect on most uniforms. Relating to your statement about peanut butter allergies: approximately 1%-1. 6% of the population is affected by some form of peanut allergy, And approx 1. 7% is affected by being intersex. Intersex is only the physical attribute of having characteristics of both sexes, So we must add on the amount of people who are genderfluid/nonbinary/questioning gender which I was unable to find a reliable statistic for, And therefore I am able to debunk your statement about that. Being intersex or having gender identity issues are both serious challenges in ones' life, And changing the uniform would not be harmful to companies/schools (in fact could be beneficial as they would only need to manufacture one type) in any way.
Uniforms in schools/workplaces should all be unisex/gender neutral

So I'm going to stick to my argument and say that the companies right to choose its image is applicable to all fields. A companies image is a huge profit dictator no matter what the field and if you aren't managing the companies image it isn't your place to change it. You are at that point being paid to wear it and not be insubordinate. There is also an incredibly huge error in your argument when you mention not forcing skirts on people and then saying you're only arguing why these rules these rules should be changed not how. When, Where, Why, And how you are changing the rules is incredibly important because if you're arguing they should become the law of the land. Whatever land that may be. Now as far as the gender identity politics go there are some very obvious and important things to cover. First, There is a biological difference between men and women. I can quote endless biologists if you like but I don't think it is necessary. Next, We have to take the number of people this is effecting and the number of people it's designed to help. There are more people with peanut allergies than people bent on gender fluidity. We haven't forced peanuts from our shelves because of those people I'm not about promote the forced removal of skirts from businesses uniforms. If you don't like a companies image then don't work there. You will hurt more people working for more companies with mandatory legal dress code than with picky company uniforms.
Uniforms in schools/workplaces should all be unisex/gender neutral

Modeling or themed uniforms are not relevant to this argument, What I was referring to is uniform in shopping centres, Fast food chains etc. An employee is representative of the company, However they would be no less representative all wearing the same uniform, Instead of skirts being for girls for example. As you said about not seeing any reason to go before the community to change public school rules, That is irrelevant as this argument is about why they should be changed not how we would need to change them, Also is the mental health of our youth not an adequate reason? Many children and adults are now questioning their gender identity and forcing them to fall into a binary could be harmful for all involved and often challenges their mental wellbeing.
Uniforms in schools/workplaces should all be unisex/gender neutral

I disagree with the pro for multiple reasons. For starters if you work at a themed or historical place that is trying to be accurate there are obvious reasons for differing uniforms. Next is the entire modeling profession which is literally paying people to wear certain items. A model can most certainly deny wearing an item for any reason but they aren't going to get paid for not doing their job. Lastly the image of a company isn't up to its employee's. As long as the company isn't portraying an illegal hateful message it can portray anything it wants to. If an employee is refusing to uphold the image of the company he works for he can be fired. It is important to remember that an employee is a representative of the company not vice versa. They're literally getting paid to wear those clothes. As far as school's go the government agrees on clothing standards for public schools. In order to change those standards you'd have to take it before the community and I don't see any reason to. Private schools are business and therefore can have their own standards.
Open Campus Lunch

Leaving school to get lunch is damaging to a student because there is no supervision. Once a student is outside school grounds teachers wont be there to take care of them, the police and school body guards will. In the situation of a fight the police would break it up and take the people involved, down to the station. The students would miss school and have a permanent mark on their record damaging future opportunities. In conclusion students should have lunch on school grounds to keep people safe from themselves, and others.
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person? (2)

1.The stated definition of romantic love being, expressive and pleasurable feelings from an emotional attraction towards another person. 2.The definition of romantic love does limit and individuals emotions to one person, because in order to invest your emotions of attraction to someone you must invest your time and effort into them. 3.Just because someone is dating multiple people at once, does not mean that they are romantically in love with them all. 4.Emotional attraction is not be mistaken with the physical short-term momentary attraction of lust and infatuation. Emotional attraction is within the means of feeling romantically in love. 5.In order to romantically love someone a person must give commitment, time and energy. These things are necessary to give, because being romantically in love, is to gain emotions from the way a person make you feel as stated in our definition. In order to make a person feel good emotionally one must commit their time and energy without trying to multitask their time and energy with another participant added into the relationship. 6.Therefore it is not possible to be romantically in love with more than one person at a time. The emotions of romantic love is only structured to be devoted to one person at a time
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person? (2)

1.Romantic love is the expressive and pleasurable feeling from an emotional attraction towards another person 2.The definition of romantic love does not limit an individual"s emotions to one person. 3.In an instance such as open relationships, gives an individual the opportunity to find multiple partners and to spend the necessary time with them to fall romantically in love with any number of them. 4.Being married does not prove that an individual will romantically love his/her spouse eternally, although, in America, when we get married it is because we romantically love our significant other and promise to do so forever. With that in mind, romantically loving that person, the finding someone else that you love while you are married could imply that there is a period, in which, you love your spouse and another person romantically at the same time. 5.Cheating on your spouse does not prove that you do not romantically love him/her anymore. Therefore, the possibility of loving someone else simultaneously remains. 6.No matter how many relationships an individual has at once, as long as it is more than one, the possibility still remains. 7.Thus, there is no evidence to one hundred percent guarantee that an individual cannot romantically love more than one person at a time.
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person? (2)

When a person cheats on a spouse they cannot overlap the feelings of being romantically in love, because in order to form the impulse action of cheating, and individual must have already lost romantic love and desires for their spouse. Thus resulting in the reasoning of them venturing out of the marriage to find romantic love that they are missing or failing to receive. This shows that the spouse is only loving one individual at a time not simultaneously seeing that they lost romantic love for their marriage partner and loving their mistress only. If you are romantically in love with a person and favor them, your feelings time and energy would not allow you to neglect them in such a way to spent time minimal time with them for another person, in which whom you do not like as much. This is simple it"s like ice cream flavors. If a person loves chocolate and only likes vanillas, they will always choice chocolate to eat without hesitation. This proves that it is only possible to be romantically in love with one person and only like the other person, even though you are dating both of them at the same time. I am sticking to my argument that it is possible to be in a relationship with more than one person, but it is not possible to romantically be in love with all them. In reference to my statement in round 1 and round 2, yes it is possible to date and be in a relationship or attempt to be in a relationship with multiple people, but that does not mean they will achieve the feeling of being romantically in love. Thus making the relationship fail, because it is not possible
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person? (2)

2.Your argument that showing favoritism and spending more time with one person would ultimately prove that the person getting the most time and effort would be the one that the individual is romantically in love with. I would like to point out the possibility of the individual purposely showing one person more attention and time so that he/she does not become suspicious of the other individual that he/she is seeing and is also romantically in love with. I understand that chances of this are not high, but the possibility is all that is needed to question and disprove your argument. 4.Once again, in your definition from round 1 you stated that it is possible to romantically love more than one person. In round 2, you stated that romantically loving more than one person has a small success rate. You did state that it fails quickly more usually than not, but you are further proving my point that it is possible to romantically love more than one person at a time. 5.&7. I concede that the being married while also having someone that an individual loves romantically on the side would imply that he/she does not romantically love his her spouse anymore, but in the process of falling in love with someone other than an individual"s spouse, he/she could still romantically love his/her spouse. Therefore, overlapping romantic love with two individuals. 8. I understand what you are saying about being in relationships with multiple people and not being in love with them romantically, but having multiple relationships would present the opportunity in each and every one of those relationships to fall romantically in love with those people. Therefore, given the opportunity, such as multiple relationships, it is possible to fall romantically in love with more than one individual at a time.
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person? (2)

(2) Commitment and devotion is conducive to being in a romantically in love. I agree a person can date two people at once, but they will only really be romantically in love with one of them. The person in which whom they give the most time and attention to subconsciously, will most likely be that one due to favoritism. The emotions and feelings of being romantically love with gravitate the person into being around the one person them favorite the most, while giving less attention to the other person in the relationship. This proves that the person only truly romantically loves one person and lust for the other one. (4)When being romantically in love with a person, you possess it through emotion. In order to gain these emotions, they must build up through longevity. The attempt to trying to be romantically in love with multiple people has a small success rate. The attempt usually fails fast, which doesn"t give the opportunity for the participants to really feel the emotions of romantic love. Thus making the relationship with multiple partners only a zone of lust and infatuation not love. If a person truly loved someone romantically they will have long lasting emotions. (5) If a man or women cheats on his spouse more than once then he or she no longer carry the feelings of being romantically in love with them anymore. Their action of cheating is an outline to finding romantic love in which they are lacking in their marriage. With that being said, just because two people are married that the does not mean they are still in love romantically. They can love each other platonically and care about each other, but the emotion of being romantically in love is lost. This means when they cheat on their spouse they are only married to them, while being romantically in love with their mistress or side partner. Thus making them only be romantically in love with one person at a time, but still in a marriage. This is seen all the time when married couples are separated rather than divorced. (7) If a man is continuously cheating on his wife, then he is no longer is romantically in love with her, as I explained before. He is still in a marriage with her, but he lacks the emotions and feeling of being romantically in love with her, so he cheats. So I agree with you that he is still married to her but he is only in love with his mistress while still being in a marriage. (8) Yes, I am proving that open relationships and marriages are possible, however just because participants are involved in one of those relationships, does not mean the participants are romantically in love with all of the individuals involved in it at once. The topic is whether or not it is possible to be romantically in love with more than one person at once. Just because a person is in a relationship does not meant they are romantically in love, for they could just all really like each. Therefore it is not possible to romantically love more than one person at once, but it is possible to be in a relationship with them.