BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.

It is unfortunate we could not compete in a final round. I will extend my arguments from Round 2 and leave the voters with a closing statement. This debate is about whether or not the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. My opponent would have you believe that DOMA has removed rights once possessed by same sex marriage or prevents such rights from ever occurring. Neither is true. No rights are taken away. No rights are prevented. Is DOMA non-progressive? It would seem that way too many. Does it add controversy to an already heated debate? There is no doubt about it. Does it violate the federal constitution? Not in the least. Please vote Con. Thank you.
The Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.

Gay marriage is supa cool. 1. The 14th amendment of the Constitution states that "no state shall deny equal protection under the laws." The Defense of Marriage Act forces the government to discriminate against gay couples who want to get married. Gay couples are clearly not protected equally under the laws. 2. The Supreme Court case, Loving vs. Virginia, states that marriage is "civil right." This case was referring to interracial marriage in the 60s. But there is a direct and obvious parallel. 3. The Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article 4, Section 1) of the constitution states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." This means if I get married in one state, like Massachusetts and California, the next state I move to should recognize my marriage. And the government should give full faith and credit to my marriage.
Gay marriage should not be banned

My opponent has agreed to the definitions for the key terms listed in round 1. I will proceed with countering my opponent's responses. Counter Argument 1. Like I have stated, our definition of right and wrong is all in determination of our own opinion. For example, you think homosexual marriage is wrong, therefore you consider it to be immoral. Proven before, this is your opinion as well as many others who feel the same way. Opinion can be supported by facts but cannot be proven to be true if only an opinion. I ask this simple question. .. How exactly can homosexuality be immoral if it does not cause any harm? Fact: God teaches us to love not hate, not to discriminate. Taking a right away from a specific group of people is in FACT discrimination. Therefore, it violates biblical law as well as the Constitution. I would like to note that the Bible was not written by God. It is only our interpretation of morality, A. K. A. our opinion of what God thinks is right. But can we prove that God's beliefs match to those of the Bible? With the evidence proven, no it cannot. If what the Bible says is true, then the Bible contradicts itself entirely. For example: Do not hate, only love. Yet if you are homosexual, you are condemned to hell? Contradiction 1. Contradiction 2: The Bible states you can love who ever you may please, yet it states you cannot love someone of the same gender? How contradictory! I would also like to remind the audience that for the years of the Bible being around. For thousands of years, how are we so sure that it was not reformatted? Everything that we interpreted could have been reformatted. Though of course not saying this is true, it is only a theory. Counter Argument 2. Let me clarify why the government of the US makes laws that prohibit things like running around naked. The Constitution, Bill of rights, as well as the Civil Rights grant freedom to all men yes. This freedom is the type that allows the people of the United States to have a fair life with equal treatment to that of others. Running around naked may be an example of freedom. But the US makes certain laws that are appropriate for the people. Running around naked is inappropriate. Therefore it is harmful to the people and the government prohibits it. Homosexual marriage on the other hand is only an act of union no different to marriage between different gendered people. Therefore it is unharmful and the government has no way of saying it can be banned without evidence it is harmful. Contention 1. We certainly cannot compare politics with religion. Because the Bible states certain things that can cause people to be too radical, we cannot follow it's set of rules. Especially considering the fact it is only our interpretation of God. In addition, the Bible is all one large contradiction to itself, why should we follow a set of rules when we are supposed to be a free nation, because the Bible takes away some of the freedom some of us would like to endure. Further more, I extend my arguments. Thank you!
Gay marriage should not be banned

I accept the definitions. "I argue that what is thought to be right and wrong is all in determination upon a large group of people, this would mean the US. Then on the other hand, what is right and wrong is all to be an opinion upon the union. An opinion is simply not fact. Therefore, how can anyone prove that homosexuality or the partnership of homosexuals is wrong? Simply, no one can. " No one? Watch. Wrong: not in accordance with what is morally right or good. [1] Morally: in a moral manner [2] Moral: opposite of immoral [3] Immoral: against the bible [as said by opponent] So the partnership of homosexuals is against the bible, therefore immoral, therefore not moral, therefore not morally right or good, therefore wrong. See? It can be proven. "As for sin. The Bible states many things that are immoral. Like shaving your beard for example is immoral. Many would say that God "hates" homosexuals. God did create everyone yes? So how exactly can He hate his own creation? He did after all create everyone including homosexuals. I can only argue that the ideal of hatred against gays is only a mere act of discrimination. " What do you mean, how can He hate his own creation? That's easy. If you do a science project and you don't like it, you might hate it. The hatred against gays is because it is immoral. It's the same way we hate serial killers. Is it discrimination to hate them? "The United States grants freedom to any person no matter gender, race, ideology, religion, etc. The Constitution to grants freedom as well as the Bill of Rights and the Civil Rights. For the US to take the right of partnership between those who are homosexual away is no different than taking the right of marriage away from two people who we would call 'straight' or non-homosexual. I affirm that banning gay marriage is no different than banning any right, therefore it is unconstitutional. " What about the "right" to run around naked? Somehow, I think it makes sense to remove that "right. " The difference between taking the right of partnership of homosexuals and heterosexuals is that the former is immoral, similar to the running around naked thing. If you want to defend your stance, try defending the right of people to run around naked. Hard, isn't it? "To who ever may accept this debate. .. Your are free to proceed with your opening statement in support of your case. " As I did. "Thank you! " You're welcome. [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] . http://thesaurus.reference.com...
Gay marriage should not be banned

I take the affirmative side of the topic and will give a brief summary for my reasons in support of my case. First I will define key terms: Gay: To be happy or another way of saying homosexual (in this case, it refers to homosexuality of course) Marriage: Union of individuals that creates kinship. Kinship: (To give a brief meaning) Relationship. I as well as many other people in the world are pro gay marriage. There are those who dispute it and say it is "immoral", though of course their ideal of immoral refers to the biblical term "sin". Immoral: -Against what is right -Against the Bible Sin: a violation or something told not to do in biblical law (referring to Christ). I argue that what is thought to be right and wrong is all in determination upon a large group of people, this would mean the US. Then on the other hand, what is right and wrong is all to be an opinion upon the union. An opinion is simply not fact. Therefore, how can anyone prove that homosexuality or the partnership of homosexuals is wrong? Simply, no one can. As for sin. The Bible states many things that are immoral. Like shaving your beard for example is immoral. Many would say that God "hates" homosexuals. God did create everyone yes? So how exactly can He hate his own creation? He did after all create everyone including homosexuals. I can only argue that the ideal of hatred against gays is only a mere act of discrimination. The United States grants freedom to any person no matter gender, race, ideology, religion, etc. The Constitution to grants freedom as well as the Bill of Rights and the Civil Rights. For the US to take the right of partnership between those who are homosexual away is no different than taking the right of marriage away from two people who we would call "straight" or non-homosexual. I affirm that banning gay marriage is no different than banning any right, therefore it is unconstitutional. To who ever may accept this debate... Your are free to proceed with your opening statement in support of your case. Thank you!
resolved : that organized political lobbying in the united states does more harm than good

My opponent has forfeited his round. Please extend all my previous arguments. In addition to responding to those arguments, should my opponent wish to rejoin the argument in the next round, he will need to argue why the forfeit should not count as dropping all arguments and ceding the debate. Per the guidelines on this website, "Forfeiting a round destroys your credibility and makes it less likely that voters will vote for you.[1]" I will elaborate on this if Pro comes back. [1] http://www.debate.org...
resolved : that organized political lobbying in the united states does more harm than good

In my case, I have never stated that lobbying is universally bad, only in most cases, it does more harm than good, as clearly stated from all the negative aspects of lobbying in all of my contentions. Then, looking back to my first contention, my opponent does not address the fact that lobbying undermines the definition of a representative democracy. We can conclude that lobbying is not an equitable form of action when the lobbyists are not supporting the majority of the people, since the lobbyist's views are more influential to the political figure's views since he is allowed, in many cases, to speak and interact with the political figure more directly. With this, if an organization has the resources to hire many lobbyists, then the organization will get an unfair chance to influence the political figure and thus, they get a potentially greater amount of representation for their own specific interest. Thus, political figure can get a distorted sense of what the majority wants, and/or be pressured to support the lobbyists' views. My contention number 3 also falls under this. Lobbying in this case, is extremely harmful, when the minority's interests negatively influence the majority's interests. And since lobbyists are usually paid to support one's viewpoint, having greater amounts of wealth, especially the gigantic corporations, can hire a greater amount of lobbyists to have an unfair advantage against legislation which would be benefit the majority of the people in a representative democracy. Thus, it clearly goes against the definition of a representative democracy, in which the politician should support the views of the majority. Since lobbyists give an unfair advantage to those who have the money and power to hire them in our political system, it is certainly clear that lobbying does more harm than good whenever they advocate the minority's views. Also, my opponent also does not address my use of semantics in contention 2. bribery is: "the practice of offering something (usually money) in order to gain an illicit advantage. . A lobbyist, as brought up earlier, is a person who conducts activities aimed at influencing public officials and especially members of a legislative body. Thus, we can definitely uphold the fact that lobbyists are indeed influential, as mentioned earlier. Therefore, as long as lobbying provides an advantage for a certain group, we can concur that all hired lobbyists are a form of bribery, and thus corruption. In the NAACP, however, and its interests do not hurt anyone and most of its lobbyists aren't paid, and since it benefits the majority, the con cannot use this as a counterexample since it's only one, in many rare cases, that lobbying is good. Also, the petitiononline. com is completely irrelevent to the argument. Since the definition of lobbying is to conduct activities aimed at influencing public officials and especially members of a legislative body on legislation, and my opponent denounces the reliability and actual influence of these petitions, so this cannot be counted as lobbying.
Debate #26: Schools should replace art and music with calculus

Weather Models Weather is more accurately predicted than ever before. Part of the improvement is thanks to technology, such as computer modeling that uses calculus and is able to more meticulously predict upcoming weather. These computer programs also use types of algorithms to help assign possible weather outcomes in a region. Much like in the computer algorithms, weather forecasts are determined by considering many variables, such as wind speed, moisture level and temperature. Though computers do the heavy lifting of sifting through massive amounts of data, the basics of meteorology are grounded in differential equations, helping meteorologists determine how changes in the temperatures and pressures in the atmosphere may indicate changes in the weather. Improving Public Health The field of epidemiology -- the study of the spread of infectious disease -- relies heavily on calculus. Such calculations have to take three main factors into account: those people who are susceptible to a disease, those who are infected with the disease and those who have already recovered from it. With these three variables, calculus can be used to determine how far and fast a disease is spreading, where it may have originated from and how to best treat it. Calculus is especially important in cases such as this because rates of infection and recovery change over time, so the equations must be dynamic enough to respond to the new models evolving every day. Architecture Calculus is used to improve the architecture not only of buildings but also of important infrastructures such as bridges. Bridges are complex constructions because they have to be able to support varying amounts of weight across large spaces. When designing a bridge, one must take into account factors including weight, environmental factors and distance. Because of this, maths such as differential calculus and integral calculus are often used to create the most robust design. The use of calculus is also creating a change in the way other architecture projects are designed, pushing the frontier of what sorts of shapes can be used to create the most beautiful buildings. For example, though many buildings have arches with perfect symmetry, calculus can be used to create archways that are not symmetric along with other odd shapes that are still able to be structurally sound
Debate #26: Schools should replace art and music with calculus

We can express our creativity through writing books. But we can also express creativity through painting or drawing. There is no need to destroy art. Calculus is not involved in most jobs. Trigonometry might be. Algebra will be. But calculus- that's the highest form of math there is. Only people heading into incredibly scientific jobs will need to use it. Also, art and music does come in handy in certain jobs- if you want to be an artist or a musician. Ever think about that? We should give kids the option to take calculus of they're up for a challenge, and have art and music as options too. We do not need to replace art and music with calculus. Those are the most enjoyable classes for many students. Your proposition is absurd.
Debate #26: Schools should replace art and music with calculus

We can express our creativity through other mediums, such as writing books. Also, calculus is useful. When you play video games, drive, or start a business, calculus is involved, believe it or not, like it or not. On the other hand, art and music are not very useful. In real life, answer me this question, please: How is art or music beneficial? How if calculus worthless?
Debate #26: Schools should replace art and music with calculus

Calculus can be useful if a person is planning to become a rocket scientists. However, art and music are the ways in which humans express their very souls. If we were to end art and music, then the world would be dead and all civilization would fall into turmoil. Art does have a reason for being. It is the expression of creativity and can come in handy all the time. Some people might become scientists. What if a person wants to be an artist or a musician as an adult? If they wish to follow either of those careers, they will need art or music classes. I say too many people these days take boring office jobs. The world needs more artists. A kid should be able to take any classes that they want, and they can take calculus and art simultaneously. There is no reason to cease production of art or music classes. Both are less stressful than core classes and they allow a person to partake in exquisite creativity. Both art and music should stay alive, because when they are no longer practiced, humanity will have lost every ounce of integrity it has.
Debate #26: Schools should replace art and music with calculus

Welcome to debate #26. I believe that schools should replace art and music class with calculus class, because art and music is useless, whereas calculus is really useful. In chemistry and physics (such as AP Physics C, which I took), calculus is really important. In engineering today, we still use calculus in countless ways, including finding limits, maximizing or minimizing values, etc. Art and music may be fun, but they are just useless subjects that have no worth in the real world.
This House believes the sky is falling.

Pro admonished con for not arguing the "reasons" as to why Obama is a "bad president". Before I answer I will state that the pro is a moving target, first pro says that she will prove that he has been the WORSE president and now is claiming that her position is that he is a BAD one, clearly moving her position halfway in the debate. <-- VOTER Because the main notion in debating is to become more educated in a variety of different subject matters it is important to uphold the standard of that education. With that said, it is imperative for a debate framework to be established for a successful round (debate). Without a framework an opportunity for education to take place becomes non-exstent and all that the audience is left with is two people saying "look at all these reasons" and the other answering, "well, look at all this evidence". The impact here is that the neg has no where to turn, the pro has not established a judging criteria and leaves the neg with nothing in his arsenal to attack with because he knows not how to position his refutes. <-- VOTER With that in mind: a very good opportunity for learning has been compromised because the pro did not uphold the resolution (notice how she dropped her arguments from WORSE to BAD and then focuses only on econ). Also, because no criteria was articulated for the round to be judged. Finally, the pro has not overcome her burden of having to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that, "the sky is falling". Pro had the right to define and establish the resolution and framework for the debate, failed to both. The Con had neither right or time to prepare and is defending the squo with his 4 citations of evidence that may not disprove what the pro has said but gives the audience reason to doubt entirely what the pro is claiming (giving the judges the reason to vote con because of this). The pro needs to understand that her "arguments" go moot in the debate because no criteria has been set, I cannot stress this enough! She could post 100 "Arguments" and they hold no weight. Vote for the neg because the neg is the only one upholding their burden. It may not seem fair for the neg to win out like this but their are only two sides in this debate and one must win, pick the side that played the game correctly; not the side that was abusive and did not uphold their burden. vote neg, :)
This House believes the sky is falling.

Instead of arguing against my reasons why Obama is a bad president, he instead points out what I am doing wrong. He had not addressed any of my convictions, instead he is judging this debate for himself. He only gave me 4 answers on how the economy has been good since Obama took office but he dose not expand on these answers. Next I will be proving his awnsers wrong. 1) Hiram says "Passed Health Care Reform (insured millions of Americans). <-- helped econ" This is false. *It threatens the profits of health insurance companies, making people loose jobs. 2). He next states :" Passed the Stimulus ($787 billion). <-- helped econ" again, false .Judged by his own standards, President Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus program, which he signed into law last week, is deeply disappointing. For weeks, Obama has described the economy in grim terms. "This is not your ordinary, run-of-the-mill recession," he said at his Feb. 9 press conference. It's "the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression." Given these dire warnings, you'd expect the stimulus package to focus exclusively on reviving the economy. It doesn't, and for that, Obama bears much of the blame. The case for a huge stimulus, which I support, is that it's insurance against the possibility of a devastating downward economic spiral. Spending and confidence are tumbling worldwide. In the fourth quarter of 2008, the U.S. economy contracted at a nearly 4 percent annual rate. In Japan, the economy fell at a nearly 13 percent rate; in Europe, the rate was about 6 percent. These are gruesome declines. If the economic outlook is as bleak as Obama says (and it may be), there's no reason to dilute the upfront power of the stimulus. But that's what Obama's done. His last two given reasons as to why, Obama helped the economy is correct. There's only 2 things that he has done that helped the economy a little bit. Here's a list of more things that he has done that has effected American in a negative way. 1) Lack of Focus The President and his political advisors have wasted a ton of time, energy and effort on things like nationalizing our Health care system to deal with something that quite frankly doesn't really rise to the level of being a true national emergency. In the meantime they have spent 2)Playing the race card Whenever anyone tries to criticize the President or his policies one of his supporters almost always falls back on the notion that it's because of race. Despicable. What's even worse is that the President makes sure to portray himself as "above the fray" in this regard and lets his political cronies make these unfounded charges when it's painfully obvious that they would cease and desist if he told them too. No he wants it both ways, he has cronies play the race card for him and then when asked for comment he'll throw out a mild, "Well I don't see it as racism" statement long after the damage is already done.