BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Catholic Church condones Child Molestation through its SILENCE on the matter.

By being silent they are trying to disgrace the church as little as possible. A church that has been around since about 50 A.D. A church that has with stood time itself, when many others fell. They do not condone Child Molestation through its silence, they choose silence because they do not condone it. Actually since 2001, it is no longer up to local bishops the fate of the accused. Now it is reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome. As for the accused priests being "shipped" to a new church, they are not. They are actually dismissed. Lastly the church has always spoken out against homosexuality and abortion; however, that is not the subject of this debate!
The Catholic Church condones Child Molestation through its SILENCE on the matter.

By "hoping the matter will simply go away", the Catholic Church isn't being mature or responsible as the moral compass for the Global Catholic Community. More often than not, priests are simply shipped to a new Church where many have been caught molesting children again. < > Wrong. They are simply too cowardly to face the public. They don't want to be held accountable for their disgraceful actions of protecting these pedophiles, as well as giving them license to continue their predatory behavior with the children at large. < > So then the Catholic Church is being immature when they condemn homosexuality, abortion and "living in sin"? No. They're quite vocal when they choose to be heard, but frightened when their stranglehold on their followers is in danger of weakening. < > Therefore, they are condoning Child Rape by not joining forces with the law to prosecute their protected criminals, the pedophile-priests.
The Catholic Church condones Child Molestation through its SILENCE on the matter.

By being "silent" about the child molestation cases, the church is hoping the matter will simply go away. By not dragging on in long conversations and debates about the subject there is less attention on them. Then they are able to handle it in a mature manner without the immaturity of the media. Therefore, they are not condoning the matter, they are simply taking the matter into their own hands without all of the attention.
Gay Marriage should not be allowed in the United States

Greetings untitled_entity I don't believe we have debated before, so good luck and i hope that it is a good debate. Because you have not posted a definition for marriage or for spouse I will do so. In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. http://www4.law.cornell.edu... There you go, the federal government's definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, like it should be. You cannot allow gay marriage, because there is nothing to allow, you cannot change it because that's just not what it is, that is like saying that an apple should be an orange, it's just not an orange. Just like the federal definition of an apple is not an orange, that is because it cannot be one. And no matter how many friends, relatives, random people that you get to say they want apples to be oranges it cannot be that way because it just isn't an orange. Just like two men or two woman just aren't marriage. No worries this is as religious as i will get. Marriage was created for a man and a woman, civil unions were created for whoever wishes to be in one. __________________________________________________________________________________________ I await the next round.
Unlimited Debate Response Time

Understanding the art of debate better than your opponent goes a lot farther than you claim. If your opponent cannot articulate his/her thoughts as well as you, than you are more likely to win the debate. Another reason that debating on sites such as these is helpful when you enter a real debate is due to the fact that if you have researched the topic at hand in an internet debate, you will know more about the topic than your opponent. You will have encountered many of the arguments they will use, and will know how to refute their claims. Even if you're not able to quickly analyze a remark very quickly, there's a good chance that you will have retained certain information that will enable you to either stall until you can think of something, or crush their weaker points without even thinking. In summary, debating on the internet gives you an intellectual advantage.
Unlimited Debate Response Time

I believe that having a long time to formulate a debate on sites such as this one does contribute to growing debate skills. Having time to give a response allows for better constructed arguments, better sources, and it makes a losing debater less likely to resort to ad hominem statements. Doing this helps you learn debate etiquette which can be translated into real world scenarios where your opponent will seem unprofessional and uneducated because you'll know how to debate, while they're just throwing information at you.
Women Need to be Treated Equally as Men

Even if men are not superior to women and are just different to them, this still renders it necessary to treat them differently (hence unequally).One even could note that no two individuals are ever treated entirely equal unless they operate across two identical parallel universes where all the context and content of their treatment has been equal as well as their interactions with the said interactions and environment.If two people are not equal, they need to be treated differently from one another. If they should be treated identically, then they should at the very least be the same gender let alone other factors that must make them identical.
Women Need to be Treated Equally as Men

Why are men more superior than woman? They aren't. You can't simply say that its because they're men. Women can do everything a man can (except some things I shan't mention in this article), in fact women can do more. Women create life, and can be just as skilled at martial arts or at handling guns as a man. In an occasional life, some men are stronger than women, but the same goes for the opposite. Women can be stronger than men. Men happen to be more confident, but the same goes for women, a woman can have more confidence than a man. I challenge you to change my mind.
Religion should not influence laws and policies enacted by the government.

My opponent has forfeited another round, so I'll just reiterate my points. 1. Freedom of speech This in itself is a policy influenced by religion. Without religion, it would not exist. Pro called this point a technicality, but conceded it. 2. Valid stances If a religion affects a valid stance (one with secular backing), that stance should be allowed to affect policies and laws just as much as a stance influenced by anything else. The example I brought up was the abortion issue. Pro-life is a valid stance, and we should respect that stance regardless of if religion was among the various influences. And to the extent that people's stances affect laws and policies, these stances should be allowed to as well. Here, religion influences a stance, which in turn influences policies and laws. 3. Actions prompting policies It's quite possible for a religion to do something which prompts policies to be made. My example was Muslim fundamentalists flying planes into the twin towers - from this, policy enforcing higher security in airports was enacted, and rightly so. Religion in this case influences the actions of its followers, which then influence policies and laws. My opponent has not rebutted my last two points, and he accepted my first. I therefore declare myself WinRAR.
Religion should not influence laws and policies enacted by the government.

My opponent accepted my first point, though he called it a technicality. My opponent did not rebut my second point. And now, ladies and gents, I give you a third point: III. Actions based on religious belief Alright, we might not all agree that Muslim Extremists flew planes into the twin towers. For the sake of argument, though, please assume that they did. These actions were largely based on their religion - enough so that they wouldn not have done them without it. There were policies put into affect due to this event, such as requiring increased security at airports. I'm not sure if the government made said policy, but they should have been able to, since it would be an issue of safety for the citizenry. The actions of the extremists were influenced by their religion, the policies put into affect were influenced by those actions. Therefore, Religion influenced the policies. I see no reason it shouldn't have, in this case, either. Hope to see you back for closing statements. Cheers.
Religion should not influence laws and policies enacted by the government.

Alright, I will concede to you that Freedom Of Religion is based on religion, so it technically has influenced a policy. However, that is really a technicality, and lends no weight to the argument that we should continue to allow certain religions to influence laws that an entire country must abide by. Lets say that I'm an ultra-right Conservative Catholic. A belief of catholicism is that abortion, along with all other forms of birth control, are a sin. While other forms of birth control are generally accepted by much of America, abortion is still a heated topic that is an issue of national importance. However, being that the only reason that catholics don't believe in abortion is that their Bible and/or church establishment tells them not to. What would give them the right to impose that value upon someone else who holds views that are the exact opposite of theirs? What about homosexuality? That is a lifestyle for many people in our country, and many religious organizations denounce it, calling it a sin. Some radicals even believe that the war in Iraq and the terrorist attacks on the WTC were caused by "god's" anger with America's tolerance of homosexuals. What tolerance? Gay people do not carry the same rights you or I would have in a heterosexual relationship. What gives those religious sects the right to tell me that what I think is wrong? I don't believe in their god, so I have no reason to abide by his rules. How can it be right for these people to subject the public, many of whom do not share their beliefs, to unfair and unjust laws, that would astound our country's founding fathers. How can it be okay for these people to go against our constitution and not allow certain people the rights they deserve because their religion doesn't authorize a certain behavior?
Religion should not influence laws and policies enacted by the government.

Religion should be able to influence laws and policies of government. Not only should it be able to, it should. Not only should it, it does. Before presenting my argument, I'll go over my opponent's argument real quick. My opponent brings up freedom of religion as a 'concrete ideal' on which our country was founded. Aside from the fact that ideals are by definition not concrete, I think I still get what he was trying to say. Overall, I don't have too big of a problem with that, and I'll definitely get back to it later. He also brings up that such freedom also entails that we should be able to have no religion at all. Once again, this is true. Lastly, my opponent argues that government is supposed to be for the people as a whole, rather than for one specific group of people and their beliefs. I would also go ahead and agree with this. As may be obvious to some readers already, I have agreed or accepted all my opponent's opening points. However, I do not think they sufficiently make his case. In fact, I think they do the opposite, and I'll tell you why. Now for my case for why Religion should influence laws and policies enacted by the government: I. Freedom of religion As you yourself have noted, freedom of religion is a very important aspect in America. however, this in itself is a policy that it influenced by religion. Were religion nonexistent, I think we can all be sure that freedom of religion would not be. It cannot therefore be said that religion does not influence this policy. Also, freedom of religion is explicitly written into the constitution. Whether this makes it a law or not is debatable, but it is surely a policy. Unless I misread your first post, you admit that we should have the freedom of religion, so you therefore have admitted that we need at least 1 policy that is influenced by religion. Though I have more examples of needed laws and/or policies that are influenced by religion, I notice that this debate is 4 rounds. I'll save the rest of my cards for rounds 2 and 3, and let you rebut my first point and/or add more of your own before continuing.
Religion should not influence laws and policies enacted by the government.

Okay. I took history, and understand our country was founded by religious people. However, our country was also founded on many different concrete ideals. One of which is freedom of religion. One could affirm, that having such a freedom entitled to us would entitle us to not have a religion at all. Our country is also supposed to be FOR the people. How can our government be fair and equal if the laws and policies governing all of its people are based on the religious beliefs of a select group of people?
To be decided in this debate

Based on what my opponent has said in his first post I am assuming that when he says "euthanasia" he is referring to voluntary active euthanasia as opposed to passive or non-voluntary euthanasia. My opponent says "If they want to drink heavily, then they should" This is a completely unethical statement because of the consequences of this act that my opponent sees as exercising control over their body. Someone who drinks heavily poses many hazards to society. Heavy drinkers cause hundreds of fatal car accidents per year. Drinking during pregnancy can cause Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS), which involves mental retardation, stunt growth and birth weight, damage neural structures, and cause behavioral problems. As we can see, making decisions about your body don't always affect just you. Many patients who desire to be euthanized are not thinking rationally as my opponent states. They can be on heavy doses of morphine, despairing over their condition, or fearful of the economic strain they are putting on their families due to extended hospital stays. Fear, despair, and drugs can easily cause a person to think irrationally. Then my opponent says that people should have the right to choose whether or not to be euthanized. This debate is not about whether they should have the right; rather it is over whether or not the whole idea of euthanasia is morally justifiable. Euthanasia is not always painless. (not even most of the time really). The time from when the patient receives their last dose of lethal injection until the patient ultimately dies varies from a relatively painless four minutes to an excruciating 15 hours. Many doctors in Belgium are unused to performing Euthanasia and therefore use relatively ineffective chemicals to achieve death. There is also the problem of the slippery slope. Once death is re-defined from being bad and taboo to good, we see a much more varied group of patients being administered euthanasia. Now, instead of merely the terminally ill, people with chronic diseases, persistent pain which renders them, at least in their mind, to be unable to partake in activities which make life enjoyable, depressed teenagers, people with mental disorders, handicapped persons are being euthanized. Then, you have cases of involuntary euthanasia, as we have seen in the Netherlands and Belgium. People who are in a coma are euthanized. Eventually it gets to a point where we can't distinguish between one's freedom to die and one's duty to die. I will end my negations here and save some of my arsenal for later.
To be decided in this debate

I affirm the resolution: "Euthanasia is Morally Justifiable". =====Arguments===== When we decide what to do with someone, it is the person himself who takes the highest priority. As a rational adult, any person should be allowed to make decisions about their body. If they want to drink heavily, then they should. If they want to kill themselves, then they should be allowed to. If they want a painless death to escape an excruciating terminal illness, then they should. Euthanasia should be allowed because it allows a person to exercise control over their body. A doctor is not murdering anybody; actions themselves are never "evil' or "good". It is the intend behind it that judges it's morality. This is all I will leave for now.
radom Debate

I did the Gundam Style dance over a feathered lady from Mars, then had the remote controls roll over in the bed of grease. Why did the heat of summer melt the ice cream of shame? Probably because a "burn!" from Ashton Kutcher made you want to jump off a bridge then fly up. Rob Ford smokes crack, we all smoke crack, crack mixed with crack, mixed with something else...... cocaine. BLALALALLA
radom Debate

The speakers sing the song of evil, dancing into the night with stickers on bumbers. Why do the vaginas stink like lettuce? Perhaps they were in the wrong dimension Greg. That's what I told him, but then the rainbow appeared with the code to life. It said: 0935048953jtr9gh8r9 Oh glorious universal code! I then took my lighter for all to see, puking up cheese and cabbage alike. Im just trying to find my soul in this dark world, throwing tic tacs in the mouths of giants.
marijuana should be legalized

Regardless if weed is legalized or not youths are most likely to try it. This causes youths to get arrested for a little amount of weed causing them to get charged with possession and them having to go to court. these youths can feel ashamed and embarrassed for what they did. however so many individuals get this possession charge and end up on probation which is ridiculous because there are worse criminals out there for the cops to find. a little bit of marijuana should not be enough to arrest someone.
marijuana should be legalized

agreed that it has not been reported of death because of the use of this drug. but this drug is a addictive drug which is the gateway drug to the use of other drugs which could potentially lead to death. it is typically the case that people who smoke weed are considered druggies because they do tend to become dependent on it. i do not believe that youths should have a laid back life style, and there are many other activities that youths can participiate in such as sports, music or school clubs. i am all for youths having a good time and enjoying life, but it should not be through the use of weed.
marijuana should be legalized

Marijuana is discriminated against by legislators that are too scared of being referred to as a druggie. Legislators won't stand up for what they believe in, only the self interest of the corporations they represent. As far as youths, marijuana can help settle down a teenager giving him/her a more relaxed lifestyle instead of the on the go 24/7. smoking marijuana is better for youths the drinking or smoking ciggs. considering excessive amounts of drinking and smoking ciggs is most likely to cause death. There have been no studies that show marijuana kills you. therefore it is better healthwise for a youth to smoke marijuana then ciggs.
marijuana should be legalized

Although i do agree with the use of it for cancer reasons, that should probably be the only legal reason for people to use marijuana. it has been said that all forms of marijuana are mind altering drugs, which impair your way of thinking, as well as imparing your driving skills. Studies have shown that high levels of marijuana consumption have led to potential health problems. The legalization of this drug will only increase the use in youths. Marijuana has been shown to not increase levels of learning and has been shown to impair the ways of learning. young children are still growing and by using this drug it will stop the way the brain should typically develop.
marijuana should be legalized

There has been studies that show evidence linking to less accidents while stoned. While an individual is stoned he/she has the tendency to drive slower and more carefully. Another reason as to why it should be legalized is that it helps individuals who are sick for example cancer and having chemotherapy. the chemo makes you very nausea and gives you no desire to eat. however if you smoke some marijuana it takes the nausea away and gives you an appetite. therefore this individual does no become malnourished.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried in a US federal court.

It appears that the Negative is unaware of the legal circumstances which differentiate federal, military, and international courts. While this is understandable it unfortunately obstructs the ability for the opposition to negate the resolution. Firstly, the United States does not submit to the jurisdiction of any international court, and for good reason. Allowing an international institution with no legitimate authority to override the legal system established by the Constitution and by democracy isn't the best idea. Second, even if KSM was to be tried in the ICC or ICJ, he would still need to be prosecuted under the American system for various crimes, including conspiracy towards acts of terrorism and other crimes. The other claims which I mentioned concerning differences between the federal and military trial systems are common knowledge for anyone who is able to speak on the issue, and could have been validated with a simple Google source. Yet the Negative has left my entire case untouched. The issue of media coverage, as well as other issue, are covered in the article below. To repeat, cameras and reporters are not allowed in the courtroom during criminal proceedings. The remainder of my case stands unchallenged. The resolution is affirmed. Vote Pro. http://www.nytimes.com...
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried in a US federal court.

I'm sorry, you mustn't have read clearly. I proposed that he should be tried in the UN international criminal court, I did not mention a military tribunal. The argument of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed being tried in a US federal court would only make America appear as the 'world police'- the UN is a body specifically in place to deal with such instances of criminal, terrorist activity with international repercussions, it should be them. Furthermore, I do concede that I ignored your comment that the media would not affect the case outcome.This is because without ANY evidence, the statement is meaningless. If you wish to propose such a statement, which seems to be a complete falsity, given there is no way that the media would ignore the trial of a terrorist responsible for 9/11, then please back it up with a source.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried in a US federal court.

My opponent's only argument is that a federal court trial would risk media exposure. This was directly addressed, preemptively, in my first round. In both military and federal courts, the media is only informed of the proceedings through press releases after the trial. If KSM attempts to espouse radical views, both federal and military judges reserve the right to "gag" or silence witnesses. My opponent has yet to provide a substantive reason to support a military tribunal.