BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Same Sex Marriage

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex "marriage" is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s. This is false. First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected. Same-sex "marriage" opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility. Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the "marriage" between two individuals of the same sex.
Same Sex Marriage

Should people run their company how they see fit? Yes, that's how I would do it myself. However, a company shouldn't be able to stomp on another person's beliefs just because the two contradict one another. In a better example, imagine a world where anybody who doesn't believe in Catholicism is punished by death. It's absolutely ridiculous! Now let's take that concept and replace it with something else - same sex marriage. If, in this world, any gay or lesbian was punished just because they're not like the leader of a given country, that's simply unethical. My point is this: it's not unethical to HAVE same sex marriage, but rather it's unethical to PUNISH same sex marriage. And you're welcome - I love this topic :)
Students should be able to hug their teachers

Unfortunately, your support to your claim is on yahoo. You don't have any words to add to your claim? I agree to what your saying but i'm also against the idea of hugging being involved, its not appropriate for a student and teacher to touch in any form. Third party viewers see it differently. As to say when allowing a teacher to hug a student, sometimes it tends to become more than a hug and this is where relationships between student and teacher occur. Yes in some cases its only a simple innocent hug, but unfortunately there are those who have ruined it for all others. You have to make decisions equally, not just because the person receiving the hug needs it. Therefore any kind of involvement in touching, like a simple hug shouldn't be made. Its unnecessary and causes bad ideas to others.
Students should be able to hug their teachers

I apologize for not looking at your first post, I was writing when you posted that, but although you state some of the reasons for allowing a teacher and student to hug. You don't have anything to back up your reasoning for allowing this type of action to be placed. Depending on the situation, Example; Allowing a teacher to hug a student on graduation day is except-able. This is because this is the proper way of saying good-bye to a student, its a hug saying congratulations and go on succeeding.
Homosexuals are Destroying America

You say how they are terrorist organizations. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. You also said "And in terms of Cary Grant, what man doesn't want to spend a night with him? And you cannot get straighter then me. Straight as an arrow." Now as far as Im concerned, thats a contradiction in terms, unless you are not reffering to Mr. Grant as being "extremely handsome." These organizations are not zapping in anyone that doesnt want to be part of a Homosexual Rights organization. This debate has turned to strict opinion on your part and This was supposed to be a real debate with real information. So far there is just a lot of opinion mumbo-jumbo. Gays have rights, just as much as we straight folk do. I personally respect Homosexuals and have two in my family. I am perfectly OK with that and I love them the same. They are NOT the next terrorists and this as well is clearly based on opinion. Here are some GREAT positions some very influencial and inspriing Homosexuals have done. Philisophers Scientists Entertainment/Television News Anchors Politicians Actors Cameramen (Im sure there are some) Writers Singers Warriors Poets Caeaer Rulers Playrights Metal workers This only proves my point that gays are not "out to take away our kids" or to destroy the world. Thank You.
Homosexuals are Destroying America

Hello, visionofdan. I would love to prove you wrong in the topic of "Homosexuals are Destroying America." First of all, how do you prove that they ARE bad for soicety? You dont make any resolutions in your discussion. Here is a list of all the incredible actors, personalities and other people that you MIGHT have heard of. Joan Baez, Musician (present) Zeno, Greek philosopher (500 B.C.) Sophocles, Greek playwright (496?-406 B.C.) Socrates, Greek philosopher (470?-399 B.C.) Aristotle, Greek philosopher (384-322 B.C.) Alexander the Great, Macedonian ruler (356-323 B.C.) Emperor Hadrian, Roman ruler (76-138 A.D.) Richard the Lion-Hearted, British ruler (1157-1199) Richard II, British ruler (1367-1400) Leonardo da Vinci, painter-scientist (1452-1519) Benvenuto Cellini, Italian goldsmith (1500-1571) Christopher Marlowe, British playwright (1564-1593) King James I, British ruler (1566-1625) John Milton, British poet (1608-1674) Jean Baptiste Lully, French composer (1632-1687) Frederick the Great, Prussian ruler (1712-1786) King Gustav III, Swedish ruler (1746-1792) Baron Alexander von Humboldt, German naturalist (1769-1859) Lord Byron, British poet (1788-1824) Tennessee Williams, American playwright (1911- ) Tchaikovsky, Composer Pedro Aldomovar, filmmaker Alexander the Great, conqueror Hans Christian Andersen, writer Ellen Degeneres, TV Host Chastity Bono, daughter of Sonny Bono and Cher David Bowie, musician Marlon Brando, actor William S. Burroughs, writer Julius Caesar, caesar Truman Capote, writer Traci Chapman, singer Mary Cheney, daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney Margaret Cho, comic James Dean, actor Allen Ginsberg, poet Cary Grant, actor Merv Griffin, television mogul I think that is enough examples. There are so many famous homosexuals that did incredible things for society. They contribute totally differnt view to everything. I can understand that some religions do not condone Homosexuality, but this debate has nothing to do with religion. This is a debate about Homosexuals in their own right, not in religions sense. I am saying that Homosexuals have discovered some great thigs and there is really no argument you can make besides Religion, and that is not what this debate is about. Thank you.
Demonitesation

1) Only 6% of the whole money was in the form of black money , remaining 94% is in the form of Gold , Land and the stock market . Even out of that 6% most of the money was exchanged by corrupt bankers . 2) For building my house I'd first give it a foundation , but this move is a building whiteout any foundation , it may collapse anytime. 3) If you circulate a 100 rupee note 1000 times its value remains 100. But if you circulate a 100 rupees through e-wallets such as paytm and mobikwik for 1000 times, for each transaction charges 2% , the value becomes 1000*2.5=2500rupees . In that amount we only get 100 rupees , the remaining 2400 rupees go to the e-wallet companies. 3)Even fully developed countries like USA , have 60% of their economy in cash. 4) Due to this step , even the GDP rate has decreased .
Demonitesation

Hey, my opinion on the issue is that it isn't a bad decision overall but could have been slightly implemented in a better way. It was a huge move for a country and there were some consequences that occurred in the following days but as they say, it takes time to change. 1. The 1000 Rs note wasn't the villain actually. The decision was taken mainly to eliminate a major part of the black money in the country. When the 1000 Rs note was decommissioned, all the bundles corrupt people had were rendered useless. They couldn't use it. Even if demonetization didn't eliminate all of the black money, it did eliminate a huge part of it. Many even donated it for the country. The previous governments hadn't taken any major steps to eliminate black money. This was the first step and surely won't be the last. That's why they are pushing towards a cashless India. The 2000 Rs note isn't the hero, it is just a replacement, even if it has a value double of the earlier one. 2. 125+ people have died. This is actually sad and I'm not going to defend this point, simply because it would be an insult to the people who have died. All I have to say is those deaths could've been prevented if the move was planned a bit better. They didn't die due to demonetization, they died due to the poor execution by the government. I don't think they could've done a better execution as a warning a few days back gives chance to the corrupt to protect their black money. I'm not sure about this point but the reason wasn't demonetization, it was just the poor execution. 3. Yes, it takes time to turn a cash flourished nation into a cashless one. It is a change and change takes time. It is inevitable. The point is, good changes take time too. You say it takes time to turn into a cashless economy, building your house took time too, right? Does it mean you shouldn't have done that? Cashless economy has lot of benefits and will completely eradicate black money if the whole economy turns cashless. It will take years, even decades but after all that time, corruption will be non existent and black money too. It is worth the wait. I myself use PayTM and other cashless methods and I prefer them over carrying cash around. It will take time to implement it over the nation but we just have to wait, as the sweetest fruits takes the most time to ripen. Your turn, good luck.
Demonitesation

I think demonitesation is a very bad move . Because:- 1) If the 1000 rupee note was the villain , how could the 2000 note be the hero _P.chidambaram 2) More than 125 people have died due to demonitesation . 3) You can't just make a cash flourished economy into a chasless one , it takes time . "Anyone up for the challenge"
Trump is innocent of collusion.

The report claims that Russians attempted to collude with the Trump party and they declined. Hillary got hacked because she doesn't understand how servers work apparently. Not to mention she wiped her servers which is more concerning than Trump being proven to deny help from the Russians. The way that the investigators say the election was hacked was because Russia spread misinformation via social media sites. The CIA getting mad about disinformation campaigns seems a bit hypocritical. The CIA literally hacked Germany. . . Our ally. So "hacked the election" is kind of a disingenuous statement because of course Russia would use media to propagandize the election in its favor. Just like the United States did in 81 foreign elections. Makes you kind of glad Trump fired the CIA director hu?
Trump is innocent of collusion.

So you may not like trump. You might find his rhetoric repulsive or his policies poor. No matter your opinion Trump he is innocent of collusion. To say otherwise is a conspiracy theory at this point. Barr has released a summary of the Mueller report and it clears trump. I know some people won't like him regardless but I've been waiting to make this claim for a long time now. I honestly might have waited too long but I was waiting on evidence like everybody else. I mean cnn wasn't but who cares about them and all the retractions they have to make. No one in Trumps cabinet has been convicted of treason or collusion. There have been people convicted of corruption especially in campaign fund raising. Good riddance to them too. No collusion tho. I heard of one case that was called collusion but it sounded more like a clerical error when I followed up on it. It's really nice to be able to say it with such confidence now. I had speculated Trump wasn't the kind of person to collude but it's awfully nice to claim it on a site full of people willing to debate things so fervently. NO COLLUSION!
should there be a 1 child limit

All of the arguments my opponent makes are personal choices for a family. People who can afford to have more children or prefer to have more children shouldn't be restricted because other people can't afford or prefer not to have more than one child. A major example of my opponents idea being a failure is what happened in China. Families would be forced to get rid of children because they already had one,. Also, many families chose to abort their female babies, because they preferred male, as males carry on the family name. Only allowing one child will only fuel the genocidal abortion problem that America already has. The population would drop drastically, and the US would become a weaker country as a result. One child policies don't work
Morality

My opponent only offers a hypothetical in defense of all real world examples I have given. Pro introduces the idea of the 23 year old person being able to save many more lives during the 37 years. The problem with this is that it is a hypothetical. I have provided actual examples that have actual results. Richard Rescorla saved 2,500 people. If the reader is won by Pro's argument, than I can apply this logic onto this example. 2,500 people have probably 20, 30 years of live to live on. Why ignore them? The death of Rescorla could have possibly inspired them to do life saving things. We are arguing from the moral point of view. So far, Pro has not made one argument that has sounded moral, and more arguments that sound selfish to one's life. The debate is even titled morality. We have to look at this debate from a right and wrong point of view. Is it moral to risk your life for someone else? Yes, because it inspires others to become more moral as a result.
Morality

Let's take hypothetical example. A person is 23 years old and enters a situation where he could save 4 persons with a 80% of him dying in the process. Let's think about it. Average life expectancy for him is about 75 years. Iet's say that he doesn't choose to save them and lives till 60. Don't you think that he would have saved many more lives even unknowingly during those 37 years? That is a long time during which many life changing and life saving things can be accomplished.
Morality

My opponent argues that the potential you have in your life outweighs the potential in other lives. I perceive this argument as selfish. I will give you examples of people that have risked there lives for people, and are still honored today. http://listverse.com... Richard Rescorla was instrumental in the evacuation of thousands of people during the 9/11 attacks. As the director of security at Morgan Stanley, Rescorla was a stickler for his building"s safety and held twice-yearly evacuation drills to get people out.When the attacks happened and the tower next to Rescorla"s was hit, he put his plan into action and calmly instructed people to leave, right up until the moment he was killed. Rescorla"s actions were considered instrumental in the successful evacuation of over 2,500 people. R32;2,500 lives matter. One might ask the question that if there were more people like Rescorla we would live in a better world. The bond between siblings is strong and unless you have one, it"s hard to explain the intense urge you feel to protect your kin. Ryan Arnold had that urge when his brother Chad desperately needed a liver transplant.R32;R32; Without thinking, Ryan immediately checked that he was a compatible donor. Discovering that he was, the transplant went ahead.As with all surgeries, there was risk and Ryan lost his life during the procedure. He"d made the ultimate sacrifice to ensure that his brother could live. He risked his life. There are countless more people that have done the same thing these people have done. They not only saved lives, but they saved families. They saved fathers, mothers, children, brothers, and sisters. This is what morality is. Morality is idealistic in nature, but idealistic things can become a reality. Pro said the person that could sacrifice shouldn't, because "doing a simple thing like contributing to economy". Rescorla saved 2,500 lives. Those are 2,500 lives that can do a "simple thing like contributing to the economy". One must see things through a moral lens. What Rescorla, Ryan, and countless others did should be the model for everything a human should be. Than we can live in something close to a honorable, orderly world.
Morality

You say that it is morally right, yet it is irrational to do it because everything stops existing after you die, That's from the persons perspective. But i argue that it isn't even morally right from the perspective of observers because if you dont sacrifice yourself there is still a potential to save many other lives without risking your own directly or inderctly throughout your lifetime even by doing a simple thing like contributing to economy and that's at the very least. I know it sound's a bit sociopathic.
Morality

Pro is arguing that it means nothing to sacrifice yourself for somebody else. Let's first define morality. Morality-a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society. Now, I think that it is a very moral to sacrifice yourself. Let's also get one matter straight. We are arguing from the moral point of view, and not the it does not make any sense point of view. Morality-It is generally agreed in society that one should not lie, cheat, steal, and murder. Morality was an idea developed in Ancient Greece to provide ideas for how the common man should behave. If every common man practiced these ideas, than the world would be a better place. One might say that it is idealistic for every common man to practice these ideas, because their will be rotten apples in every pile. We are not talking about that argument. This debate is about morality. Now, the idea of sacrificing yourself for others is a sign of extreme morality. If everyone was to practice the basic tenants of not to lie, cheat, steal, and sacrifice, I believe the world would be a better place. If everybody believed in these ideas, than we would live in a more calm and orderly world. That is what morality is designed to do. From the moral perspective, It is moral to sacrifice yourself, and will make this world a better place.
Morality Can Only Be Understood In Terms of the Supernatural

Confirmation and proposal: Sounds fun :D. "Morality Can Only Be Understood In Terms of the Supernatural" is such a bad topic to debate since there are obvious examples shown in the secular world today. Is that really a debate? Define morality: "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." From that we can discern that this has to do with values and we see that society gives us values, of which religion is now only a part of. Thus lets debate this instead drawing from your wording (We have innate moral instincts in our nature and can understand morality scientifically.): Do humans have innate moral instincts? I'll position myself against you. Humans do not have moral instincts.
Morality Can Only Be Understood In Terms of the Supernatural

Morality need not be a byproduct of religion. We have innate moral instincts in our nature and can understand morality scientifically. Debate Structure: Round 1 - Confirmation Round 2 - Initial Argument Round 3 - Rebuttal 1 Round 4 - Rebuttal 2 Round 5 - Concluding Statements
Morality Can Only Be Understood In Terms of the Supernatural

Since my opponent has forfeited this round I wish to take this opportunity to express my enthusiasm regarding the topic of morality and how science is finally making headway in the field of values. I believe that as we have come to understand basic emotions scientifically and have been able to trace them back to our primate relatives and our common ancestors, I believe that we will understand morality scientifically one day. The study of human emotion and human thought processes was believed until recently to be purely metaphysical endeavor and that science had no bearing in. We can see nowadays that such a hypothesis has been fully debunked. In much the same way, the common consensus is that morality is purely a metaphysical topic totally alien from the rigors of science. We are in the opening stages of seeing this perception change and the next decades will likely lead to revolutionary discoveries and radically change our understanding of the human condition. I hope you are as excited about this prospect as I am.
Animal Rights

If we didn't eat animals then the supply would go down it would happen gradually and the appeal to nature argument is a fallacy there are many things animals do that we wouldn't advocate for so carnivores shouldn't be either. Much research has been done and it has been shown that we don't need meat to survive and that milk isn't even that good for the body so why are we still eating it? Vegan food is good and nutritious and people who are vegan tend to live longer healthier lives.
Animal Rights

Why can't we eat them? Other animals don't think twice about eating an animal lower than them. If you are saying that we are no better than the animals, then why should we come up with a different standard? There is no reason to by what your reasoning says. Eating them is not a cruel act, it is just part of life. If we stop eating animals, we regulate populations of several animals, and if we stopped eating them it would not help the other animals, because the animals we didn't eat, will be eaten by other animals, or eat other animals, so why not benefit ourselves by getting to them first? We are not changing their lives much because they are going to die anyway. When an animal kills a human, we aren't asking why the heck would it do such a thing, we know that it eats other things to survive. Same thing with humans. We eat other things to survive, so why not it be animals?
Animal Rights

treat them a such how? If you mean by eating them i don't agree, animals have the right to their lives just as we do and just as we wouldn't put up with being eaten they shouldn't either besides as i said before the farming industry is cruel and continuing to eat animals is simply creating more demand for those practices to continue. Animals such as dogs are some of our greatest companions used for thousands of years for various types of work and continue this very day as therapy animals for many people. Zoo's are also another big issue animals should not be kept in captivity they are wild and should be left there the fact that many animals display abnormal behaviors in zoos such as loss of interest in mating and less fertility shows that zoo's warp in animals perception of the world. Aside from that zoo's have offered little educational opportunities to the public as we continue to destruct animals habitat's and hint them for sport. so animals should be treated with respect and dignity and not be killed or treated bad.
Animal Rights

I posted in the wrong debate obviously, but will still be the con. Animals are great creatures of this earth. They provide many benefits to us. However, they are not on the same level we are. No matter which way you look at it, from an evolution standpoint, or a creationism standpoint, humans are higher up than animals. We should not be abusive towards them or kill them for no reason, but they should be classified as lower than us and we should treat them as such.