BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gays should be allowed to marry

For gays not to be allowed to marry is archaic and discriminatory. idon't understand why anybody would think gay marriage is acceptable. Please explain your reasoning. - Denying them is a violation of religious freedom (civil and religious marriages are two separate institutions). - Marriage benefits (such as joint ownership, medical decision-making capacity) should be available to all couples. - Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with a proven biological causation. - Denying these marriages is a form of minority discrimination. - It doesn't hurt society or anyone in particular. - The only thing that should matter in marriage is love. - The number of child adoptions should increase since gay couples cannot pro-create.
Smoking marijuana is not unhealthy

"The Pro's argument that Marijuana smoke is unhealthy is that it doesnt matter because ALL smoke is unhealthy. Thats like saying that Handguns hurt people, but since ALL guns hurt people it doesnt mean that handguns are unhealthy...."True I shouldn't have added smoking in the title. Either way I guess I concede the debate, I clearly didn't know what I was getting into (new to this site, I didn't know the debates were that intricate).
Consuming Animals

There are so many animals dying at such a young age and its not fair. They can live so much longer than just a few months. Animals can live up to years but instead they are being slaughtered as babies for food. I just don't see how that is fair. Why can't we give them a chance at life. I also don't understand why they are being slaughtered for milk and such. Just because they suddenly can't provide what we need doesn't mean they are worthless. Not to mention that the exotic animals are being skinned just so people can wear them as coats and shoes. A lot of those animals are being extinct because of this. Thousands of animals are being killed for food and material, so what happens when there aren't anymore of these animals to consume?
Consuming Animals

There is the moral argument and the legal argument. The moral argument is that it is right from the side of nature. Ultimately we are a part of a food chain. Our technology and the intelligence that birthed it have caused us to have a distorted presence on the food chain from a biological perspective but we are a part of it all the same. Fundamentally, as living organisms we have to live off of other living organisms to survive, whether or not they are part of the animal kingdom becomes a semantics argument that is based entirely off of emotion. The legal argument is that since most domesticated animals are created by the means of human beings who intend to consume them or use them for natural resources, it is the right of a human being to consume them. You also have to realize that domestic animals do so much for humanity and consuming them has sustained the lives of tens of billions of human beings for thousands of years.
Income inequality does not equal economic inequality

FINAL REBUTTAL 1. My opponent states throughout this debate that I have given facts and that he agrees with practically everything I have posted. To that I say thank you. 2. In several of his own contentions I have identified contradictions. For example look at the very last sentence of one of his sources: "...inequality grew only 1/3 as fast....or maybe it didn't grow at all". 3. Indeed, the identification of economic inequality with income inequality is fairly standard, and the two are often seen as effectively synonymous in the economic literature. (Southern Economic Journal) Summary: My opponent has complimented and agreed with my case while presenting a somewhat confusing case of his own. I respectfully request that you the readers vote CON. Thank you.
Income inequality does not equal economic inequality

My opponent would have us believe that as the value of a dollar gets weaker, and the costs of goods and services gets higher, the window between the haves and have nots remains at least the same if not improves. This cannot be. I will concede three constants: 1) The dollar held by a rich man equals the dollar held by a poor man 2) The rate of inflation experienced by a rich man equals that of a poor man 3) Rich men do have more dollars to spend then poor men Unfortunately, there are a disproportionate number of poor men to rich men. The money spent by rich men does not offset the lack of money spent by poor men. The larger number of poor we have, the less they can contribute to the GDP. UNEMPLOYED: The unemployment is the highest it's been in some time: "In October, the unemployment rate rose to 10.2 percent, the highest since April 1983, and nonfarm payroll employment continued to decline (-190,000). (http://www.bls.gov...) HOMELESS: On any given night in America, anywhere from 700,000 to 2 million people are homeless, according to estimates of the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty. (http://www.policyalmanac.org...) The sliding window is not proportionate. Word picture: It is not like riding in an elevator together.
Income inequality does not equal economic inequality

My opponent's case: Sentence 1: Standards of living have not become more equal, to the contrary, they have moved further apart. As the adage goes, "The rich get richer, the poor get poorer". Further, a source from inequality.org states: Our current financial crisis and the subprime crisis are both symptoms of a larger economic problem: an economy that no longer sustains a middle class and instead, allows the wealthiest elite to gamble massive fortunes regardless of its possible impact. Historically, what has made the US economy strong has been an economy that fed and strengthened the middle class. Over the last 30 years we have seen the American economy go in the wrong direction. Instead of a growing and prosperous middle class, wealth has become concentrated in the hands of the rich, leaving middle class and working class America cash poor. Sentence 2: My oppoenent has contradicted himself in this sentence. Have they remained relatively inchanged or have they actually improved? Which is it? I extend my counter quotation from sentence one. Sentence 3. This is an unsubstantiated opinion with no supporting evidence. Sentence 4: I would like to thank the Pro for offering this opportunity. My case: Contention 1: The growing disparity between incomes disenables the lower earners to spend as much. As the cost of goods and services increases, the value of monies earned by the lower earners decreases. Because fewer goods and services can be purchased due to the diminishing purchasing power, the GDP/GNP will ulitmately suffer. Each generation lives longer than the last, doesn't it? Well, yes, that's true for most people in most places. But it hasn't been true lately in large areas of the United States - the poorest areas, basically. Between 1983 and 1999, life expectancy declined among women in more than a quarter of all U.S. counties (and among men in about 3 percent of all counties). That fact could be linked to growing economic inequality, Elizabeth Gudrais suggests. "Disparities in health tend to fall along income lines everywhere: the poor generally get sicker and die sooner than the rich," she explains. "But in the United States, the gap between the rich and the poor is far wider than in most other developed democracies, and it is getting wider." Contention 2: Income inequalities vs Economic inequalities are far more reaching than a simplified solution. The relationship between income (and other resources) on the one hand and individual achievements and freedoms on the other is not constant. Different types of contingencies lead to systematic variations in the conversion of incomes into the distinct functionings we can achieve (i.e., the various things we can do or be), and that affects the lifestyles we can enjoy. There are at least five important sources of parametric variation. (1) Personal heterogeneities, (2) Environmental diversities, (3) Variations in social climate, (4) Differences in relational perspectives, and (5) Distribution within the family. To summarize, there are factors which make income inequality relational to economic inequality.
Animal Abuse

Well, I agree that pets should know who is the master, but I'm talking about other animals here. For example, animal testing. Those animals did nothing wrong to deserve being tested on. And meat. Cows never killed humans. Yet we are using them and many other animals as food. Let me ask you: why do people love dogs and cats but eat cows and chickens? You might want to consider that. If eating cows is common, why isn't eating dogs common?
Resolved: Lelouch Lamperouge(Zero) Is Smarter Than Light Yagami

I contend that Light is more intelligent than Lelouch. These 3 definitions combined will be the definition of intelligence used in this debate. 1.having good understanding or a high mental capacity; quick to comprehend, as persons or animals: an intelligent student. 2. displaying or characterized by quickness of understanding, sound thought, or good judgment: an intelligent reply. 3. having the faculty of reasoning and understanding; possessing intelligence: intelligent beings in outer space. In order for my opponent to win he/she must provide evidence as to why why Lelouch is more intelligent than Light and/or why my argument is faulty. I must provide a stronger argument as to why Light is more intelligent than Lelouch and/or why my opponent's argument is faulty. First round is for acceptance and clarification along with my opponent posting his first argument. I will post my rebuttal, along with my argument in round 2. All arguments must be based on the Anime, not the Manga.
Paintball is safer than bowling

Unless you call bruises injuries, generally people do not get injured in paintball as long as they are following the rules. In bowling, people have sprained and snapped their wrists, dropped the bowl on their foot, and things of that nature, and this goes for professional players. People who play too much in a weak get injured as well according to twinboro.com. Also according to the site, injuries are caused by incorrect balls, meaning weight and grip, and can be caused by unfitted equipment such as gloves and braces. According to the National Injury Information Clearinghouse of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission it"s statistically more likely that you"ll injure yourself while bowling than if you were playing paintball. A 2001 study reported that per 1000 participants there are only 0.24 injuries in paintball while bowling was almost double the incidence of injury at 0.47 injuries. As long as paintball is done in a professional way, and watched over by trained referees, and using the right, paintball approved protective gear, than you are sure to walk away with only a few bruises and aches. Bowling is self officiated while paintball is over watched by people ready to protect a player who is defenseless in a time of need. Also, on a day playing paintball, owners/managers will require that the game go on break so that people can rest, refill, and eat for nutrition. They also provide on site medical assistance. Maybe not the best, but it is available, while I have seen people in bowling alleys require ambulances when injured. In bowling, people can go on their own, play by themselves, get too involved in the game, and completely forget to rest. Sure, maybe you have to be "dumb enough" to make such mistakes, but unlike paintball, no one is there for you to protect you from yourself.
Paintball is safer than bowling

As someone who plays and enjoys both sports religiously, I have to say paintball is a safer sport than bowling. I hope to have an opponent that has participated and enjoys both. I also hope for a good argument. I will not tolerate any bashing of the opponent. I will also not allow poor grammar and spelling. A couple mistakes is understandable however. If English is not your first language, then mistakes are understandable. Please tell me if English is not your first language. Sources do not have to be outrageously professional. Wikipedia will be an acceptable source as long as I can find the information you provide somewhere else. As I said you can use Wikipedia, but if I find a professional source that contradicts what you say, than your statement will be invalid. But only that statement. You do not forfeit just because the information you provide is contradicted. Let us enjoy this discussion! First round is acceptance. Most of us have been bowling since a young age for recreational purposes, but please provide how long you have been playing both sports when you accept. I have been bowling for about 3 years on a regular basis, and before that was on a sporadic basis. I have been playing paintball for about 5 years on a regular basis.
Capital Punishment

I am in favor of the death penalty, because it is evident that, if implemented correctly, it can save innocent lives. The Death Penalty deters murderUntil relatively recently there was little consensus on the impact of the death penalty on murder rates, however in the last decade, nine of twelve referenced academic studies by notable economists concluded that the death penalty does, in fact, deter murders[1]. Among the conclusions of those studies was one that determined each execution deters an average of 18 murders [2]. Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14[3].A controversial study conducted to evaluate the evidence of the "innocent executed" is the Bedau-Radelet Study. The study concluded that 23 innocent persons had been executed since 1900. However, the studies methodology was so flawed that at least 12 of those cases had no evidence of innocence and substantial evidence of guilt[4]. The remaining 11 cases represent 0.14% of the 7,800 executions which have taken place since 1900. And, there is, in fact, no proof that those 11 executed were innocent. Even if one uses the apparently most conservative numbers, we can calculate that the death penalty has deterred 7,800*3=~23400 murders of innocents and executed 11 innocents (which have not been conclusively proved innocent either). Thus, it is simply not true that a staggering number of innocent persons have been executed, as previously noted, yet even if it where true, the number of innocent lives saved by the death penalty exceed those that have been executed by a factor of ~20000%. Con argues that the state should not hold power over others, which contradicts the very nature and function of the state: to distribute power and resources. Con also argues that the state should not have jurisdiction over death, as murder is murder. Whilst I sympathise with this sentiment, it is evident to me that the murder of innocents is wrong, and that implementation of the Death Penalty will reduce it.References: [1] http://www.prodeathpenalty.com...[2] http://www.wesleylowe.com...[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com...[4] http://books.google.ca...
Capital Punishment

I am opposed to the death penalty because of the power it places in the hands of other humans. If somebody kills another person, only to be killed themselves does it resolve anything? After Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed President John F. Kennedy he himself was shot and killed by Jack Ruby. Ruby was then arrested and sentenced to death. Jack Ruby executed Lee Harvey Oswald. Had Ruby not passed away prior to his execution date the executor would have been as guilty as he was. Which is murder. A staggering number of innocent people have been executed and many more put on death row before being exonerated. A life in prison sentence has an easy fix if new evidence comes up that proves the inmates innocence. Nobody can be brought back to life.
Physical Books are superior to E-books

Physical Books are superior to E-books. In this debate, I wish to prove that books are superior to e-books. There are a number of reasons for this. I can touch, feel, and smell a book; which are all part of the unique experience. I can make notes in a book. I can loan a book to a friend. I can read them where there is no internet. Physical books have had a larger impact on our world than e-books. Physical books offer a wider variety. I will expand on these issues and more in the following rounds. Lets first go over definitions:book- 1. a written or printed work of fiction or nonfiction, usually on sheets of paper fastened or bound together within covers. [1]e-book- 1. a portable electronic device used to download and read books or magazines that are in digital form.2. a book in digital form. [2]We are not debating specific devices but if my opponent wishes to use a specific device as an example, that is fine. I will likely be doing the same. superior- 1. higher in station, rank, degree, importance2. of higher grade or quality: superior merchandise. [3]1. http://dictionary.reference.com...2. http://dictionary.reference.com...3. http://dictionary.reference.com...
The Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings were not Justified

**Open debate**Debate Premise: Full resolution: The Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings were not Justified. -72 Hour argument period. -Whoever takes the position of "Con", will be arguing that the U.S was in fact justified in bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the end of its war with Japan in August 1945. -Shared BoP. Rules: -Round one acceptance.-Round two opening argument[s]-Round three rebuttals.-Round four closing argument[s] Definitions: 1. Justified a. to provide or be a good reason for (something) b. to prove or show (something) to be just, right, or reasonable.
Diet pills should be banned

Okay, you are sure that if person will take diet pills and do some exercises will lose a weight easily. .. .but why no one thinks that it cause different consequenses? First of all, Ingredients in a Diet Pill Taking a closer look at the ingredients used in the average diet pill, you can be sure to find caffeine in almost every diet pill on the market. There are other ingredients such as Ephedrine, which is one of the appetite suppressants, and Synephrin. Side effects include increased heart rate and blood pressure, insomnia, dizziness and headaches. Then, it's very easy to buy! Anyone, at any age, is permitted to buy this product. Man and women, don't take into consideration that weight loss pills are dangerous and may not work. They just buy a bottle of something that promises them quick results. And of course, side effects. In general, you can expect headaches, dizziness, nervousness, dry mouth, vomiting, diarrhea. In more serious cases, increased blood pressure and heart rate, heart attack, stroke, and heart failure are possibilities. You also said that there are some witnessed on how effective pills are. .. who? Just an advertising! Someone want to lose weight? Why nowadays people become so lazy? Is it impossible to get your fat butt up off the couch, and get away from your computer? ! People should go outside and walk around the block. They should try to do this each and every day until it doesn"t make them tired, then should increase their walk to two blocks. Try to add more fruit and nuts to the daily diet (apples, bananas, and almonds) and also drink plenty of water. After all that, you will find that you never needed those stupid diet pills in the first place. And you might even end up liking yourself))
Diet pills should be banned

Hi ! I am also new here! ^^ I would like to propose a debate on the idea of diet pills. >>Diet pills are made for those people who want to lose weight easily, it means that it also needs an exercise and proper diet. It is not directly said that taking in diet pills will automatically lose the weight you desire to lose Nowadays diet pills became more and more popular. >>It became popular because many people witnessed on how effective pills are. "I lost all the weight I wanted and then more - now I really love my body!" Most people believe all you have to do is take a pill and magically the weight will disappear. >>As I have said, taking in pills will need an exercise and proper diet and I think that it is indicated or whether told by the doctor, because stupid people will not take those pills whenever they want to. We all know that everything is interconnected to another thing, simply means you can do a thing successfully if you will do it with some help. Considering they do more bad than good for a person, there is no question that the pills should be banned. >>How do you say so that they do bad more than good, it's not their fault to take those medicines maybe because it will help them a lot and you don't care about it, even a little, because those medicines affect their own bodies NOT YOURS!
Diet pills should be banned

Hello everyone! I am new to debate.org so I apologize for any mistakes. I would like to propose a debate on the idea of diet pills. Nowadays diet pills became more and more popular. The testimonial on a leading diet website is gushing: "I lost all the weight I wanted and then more - now I really love my body!" Most people believe all you have to do is take a pill and magically the weight will disappear. Considering they do more bad than good for a person, there is no question that the pills should be banned.
Diet pills should be banned

So, as I said some lifestyle changes is all thats required. There is no quick fix when it comes to losing weight. Not all advertisements are true. Even if you lose weight quickly, it will be not good for your body. There is no need to take a diet pills at all, when you have healthy food and a pair of running shoes. Especially when you know, what kind of ingredients are present in it and what may happen later. Finally, there is no question that diet pills should be banned!
Diet pills should be banned

As I said, I believe that this pills are a waste of time and money. I read that seven women have died due to the toxicity of the substance. Also , they could effect all organs in the body and cause some mental problems. I had a friend who take diet pills. During a week she drunk 6-7 pills a day. She was taking them and had a nervous tic, her hands were shaking. It was so awful to watch what was happing to her. In the end, she was put in a psychiatric hospital. There is a kind of example what diet pills can do with a person! Of course, if someone wants to pump chemicals into their bodies, who am I to stop them? I mean, if they really WANT all those side effects that come with those stupid pills, they shall continue! That's what makes this great - the right ti stupid.