BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage

I. MarriageMy opponent claims that traditional marriage is between one man and one woman and goes on to say that the Supreme Court unjustly considered gay marriage to be valid. My opponent fails to explain why marriage should be exclusively between a man and a woman and how it was unjust to consider same-sex marriage valid. My opponent also provides the definition of marriage that blatantly contradicts his argument. Then, my opponent says that traditional marriage is the backbone of the United States and that our founding fathers were Christians. Just because our founding fathers were Christian doesn't mean that they were against gay marriage, per se. Even if they were against it, that doesn't mean that we should blindly follow their view because it's their view. Also, not all Christians are against gay marriage. In fact, the percentage of people who support gay marriage is only growing as the years go by, as yes, this does include Christians. [1]My opponent then says that a child needs a mother and a father to be raised properly. Other research shows a different story. In fact, children raised by homosexual parents measure up with their peers. [2]II. Homosexuality is a choiceThis whole argument sums up to my opponent saying that God would never create someone who's gay, as it's seen as a sign in The Bible. However, he provides absolutely no scientific evidence that being gay is a choice or even that God is real. He then says that being gay is a learned habit from gay parents. This claim is absolutely absurd. He basically is implying that being gay is contagious or that you just pick it up if you see it happening around you. Neither of these arguments hold any weight, as being gay isn't a disease [3] or a choice of any kind. [4]Also, I'd like to ask my opponent two questions.1) What about the ridicule that gays and lesbians face? Would they really want to deal with the trauma of exclusion and abuse?2) Assuming you're straight, did you choose to be heterosexual? If so, why?III. EqualityMy opponent then says that the LGBT community was fighting for equality, despite being equal before. This is a blatant lie. There was a way that homosexuals were unequal compared to straight couples: they were unable to marry! My opponent even quotes The Declaration of Independence, in which it states that all men are created equal. [5]One more question for my opponent: how does gay marriage affect your religious freedom? Also, I'd like to point out that the article my opponent cites is heavily biased, as it's written by an obviously homophobic Christian. [6, 7] Here's a quote from the article to prove my point. "It is unpatriotic, to say the least, to propagate as a 'constitutional right,' that which our founders called an 'infamous crime against nature,' punishable by death or dismemberment."How far we've fallen." [6]***I look forward to the rest of this debate. So long and goodnight! Citations[1]http://thinkprogress.org...[2]https://www.washingtonpost.com...[3]http://www.takepart.com...[4]http://www.newsweek.com...[5]http://www.archives.gov...[6]http://freedomoutpost.com...[7]http://freedomoutpost.com...
Cell Phones are used too often, therefore making the community less sociable.

"I'm not anti-cell phone, but if we didn't have them, this wouldn't be an issue"Of course it wouldn't be an issue, but there would be new distractions. Plus, what if somebody is miserable during the date? A cellphone gives them a way to escape that misery."That's not you emoting. A picture doesn't give an emotion."Every artist in the world would disagree with Pro on this contention."you can't hug, kiss, or anything else couples do"This doesn't address my question about why physical connection is required for something to count as being social.This point is also an absolute statement. Pro has contended that I cannot breathe in the same room as my girlfriend when we're together. Couples do that, but using Pro's logic I am unable to do this.
Cell Phones are used too often, therefore making the community less sociable.

-Back to the date thing: The reason you are on the date is to connect with that one person. You shouldn't be on your phone texting other people when the reason for the date is for you two to interact. I'm not anti-cell phone, but if we didn't have them, this wouldn't be an issue -Emojis don't show real emotion. That's not you emoting. A picture doesn't give an emotion. -The thing about long distance relationships is that you can't see the person right there. You can't hug, kiss, or anything else couples do. As Francis Davison said, "Absence makes the heart grow fonder."
Cell Phones are used too often, therefore making the community less sociable.

"What I mean is that Cell phones affect face-to-face interaction."The resolution did not mention face to face interactions. The resolution only regards the sociability of a community as a result of cell phones."For example, if you're on a date with someone and the whole time you text someone, you ruin the moment and make it hard for the other person to connect."This is not the fault of the cell phone. Sure they give us the ability to be distracted, but if somebody is on their cell phone for the entirety of the date, they're not worth your time. In fact, if they are communicating with multiple people that are all far away, you could say that their cell phones have a positive impact on how social they are."Emojis don't show true emotion"If I'm happy, I can use an emoji to show that. Same with sadness. That sounds like true emotion."Facetime gives you sound and image, but no physical connection." Why is a physical connection required for something to count as being social? I have a girlfriend 70 miles away from me, therefore we have to facetime/skype in order to see each other's faces whenever we want to. This is increasing the socialness in my community because it gives me the ability to reach out to people in other communities and create links between them.
Cell Phones are used too often, therefore making the community less sociable.

-What I mean is that Cell phones affect face-to-face interaction. (I probably could've made that more clear. I'm new to this) Not only that but it can ruin interactions with people. For example, if you're on a date with someone and the whole time you text someone, you ruin the moment and make it hard for the other person to connect. One thing I hate is when someone is right next to me on the bus and they start texting me because they are too lazy to take out their headphones for a minute. -Emojis don't show true emotion. They're cartoons. -Calling isn't face to face. In a call, you interact through sound instead of head on interaction. This means you can only judge emotion by sound instead of by image which can mislead. -Facetime gives you sound and image, but no physical connection. You can't shake hands, high five, or hug through a phone.
Cell Phones are used too often, therefore making the community less sociable.

"Cell Phones are great for keeping in touch with people" This statement contradicts a later statement made by Pro that "they are causing the community to become antisocial."Are they causing us to be anti-social or are they making it easier to keep in touch with each other?"Instead of talking to someone face to face, people tend to text."I don't text people that I could be talking to face-to-face. When people text they are not with one another. Also, cell phones include calling. Does Pro not believe that we should be able to talk to people on the phone?"News flash: A text doesn't have emotions."This is what emojis are for."If you spend your life on a 5 inch screen to talk, you don't get to experience human interaction."What if I'm interacting with a human via my phone?"This can cause issues and make it hard to do anything face to face which can also affect interviews for jobs or colleges."Proof?
Cell Phones are used too often, therefore making the community less sociable.

Cell Phones are great for keeping in touch with people and keeping ourselves entertained in those long, down times, but they are causing the community to become antisocial. Instead of talking to someone face to face, people tend to text. News flash: A text doesn't have emotions. If you spend your life on a 5 inch screen to talk, you don't get to experience human interaction. This can cause issues and make it hard to do anything face to face which can also affect interviews for jobs or colleges.
Americans on welfare should be subjected to random drug screens.

The cost will be expensive, but not as expensive as one might think. The testing would be random and rare. Less than 100 tests per year in all 50 states. If we legalize marijuana we will save over $7 billion in funds spent on enforcing marijuana prohibition. We would also create over 60 billion in additional tax revenue for the taxing of it. There really aren't as many people on welfare using drugs as one may think, but there are some. I would actually like to see random drug screens conducted on all people that receive money from the government. I receive money for the G.I. bill every month to go to school. All I have to do is get a good grade and I get paid. I have heard of people using that money for illegal drugs. The problem isn't just in the lower class, and in fact it's actually more prominent in the middle and upper classes. I honestly think that the legalization of marijuana will reduce the amount of people that fail drug screens because marijuana wouldn't be tested for. I think that if a person is wanting help from the government, then he needs to use that help responsibly.
Americans on welfare should be subjected to random drug screens.

1) Religion doesn't belong in American politics. It's a place for logic, factual information, and common sense that should be used to make decisions that will benefit the American people as a whole and not just a particular social class. America is a country of free religion, and what maybe a moral decision in one religion may not be a moral decision in another. 2) Poor people are not ruining this country. It's the rich and privileged that are ruining this country. 3) Welfare recipients aren't the only ones that should be tested, it should be any one that is using government benefits for illegal drugs. 4) "Savages" running through our streets will be dealt with by law enforcement. 5) Hispanics and African Americans aren't the only people that use illegal drugs.
Americans on welfare should be subjected to random drug screens.

Though I believe that poor people are ruining our country, you have to feel sympathetic for them. Unlike you and me, Hispanics and African-Americans can't afford cocaine. Without drugs, they'll be even more violent than they are now. The last thing we need is more savages running through our streets, coming into our house to rob us because they have to be taken off welfare for failing a drug test. Also, look at what Jesus said in Angelo 4:13. "Over thy seas, as I watch the disciples drown in their own sorrow, I fear of their escape from my control. For I shall take a stake if I have to, and write thy name of my own father into their skin if I must, but, he hath allowed the marijuana plant to be emitted from our land, into the bodies of thy disciples." What Jesus was saying is that as long as you believe in God, you can smoke weed. For many of these people on welfare, God is all they have left. Allow them their drugs.
Reincarnation is not a myth

Definition Life: The existence of an individual human being or animal. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Argument As defined above life is existence and for existence we need energy. It is energy is what we require for life and when this energy leaves our bodies our body dies. So reincarnation is when this same energy is transferred from one body to another. There have been many cases around the world including countries like America where children claim to remember their past lives and many of the previous personalities have been identified by the description provided by the child and it has been verified by psychiatrists that the information provided by the children could not have been gained by them by other means. This clearly leads us to believe that reincarnation is not a myth. http://www.medicine.virginia.edu...
Reincarnation is not a myth

Definition Reincarnation: The re-birth of a soul in another body. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Reincarnation is not a myth because we know that energy cannot be destroyed or created but it can be transferred as stated by the law of conservation of energy so I believe that the energy possessed by a body that is our soul or spirit must get transferred into another body after the physical death of the previous body. Therefore, consciousness survives even after death.
Debating on Debate.org is better with no pants

My Case1) It's true, we're all busy. With arguments due, we're bound to log in at lunch hours, during lectures, or a cousin's Bar Mitzvah. It's hard to be discreet, though, without pants. Don't risk a forfeit as you try to explain to the authorities that your legs just wanted to be closer to nature. 2) Now, we know what's on our minds. It's in our names [1], our debates [2], our topics [3]. Pants are our last, best defense against our most lustful urges when alone. Without them, we'd never have enough blood above our waist to even write an argument. RebuttalsPants hurt: Unless he's using tummy control pants [4], Pro shouldn't get pinched. I encourage him to embrace his curves and join the rest of us in loose-fitting comfort. Nudity releases ideas: The only ideas people get when sans pants are either temperature-related or too inappropriate to discuss here. Sources1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://tinyurl.com...3. http://tinyurl.com...4. http://tinyurl.com...
Debating on Debate.org is better with no pants

Opponents case 1) Most under 25 year old people would believe that they would be more reckless and decide not to wear pants. Who would find the time to go on this website in public? They must be too busy to go on this website, therefore they must debate at home, according to logic and reasoning. Debates can be stressful having a certain time limit to answer your side of the debate and with many things going on in peoples lives. 2) See video, most people don't do that. . http://www.youtube.com... My case 1. Like I said debate can be stressful and when you are sitting being stressed, you tend to fold your legs and if you are wearing pants they will pinch your legs because pants are not supposed to bend that way. 2. Not wearing pants allows you to be a little closer with mother nature which gets you closer to the ideas around you. Video disproves your attack. Voters I have shown that not wearing pants is better to debate on DDO.
Debating on Debate.org is better with no pants

My Case1) The majority of DDO users are under 25 [1]. So most of us are either at school, at work, or a few feet from our parents when debating. Unless you're particularly blessed, your friends, family, and bosses have no interest in seeing your dangling participle. Debates are fun but they aren't worth suspensions, firings, and comments from your mom about how much you've grown. 2) I know what you're thinking. "But Jake, I do all my debating alone! Must I still restrain my loins with pants?" To that I say, "My name isn't Jake, and yes." You see, without pants, here's what we've got:teenager + alone + internet access - pants = ??? Sorry but unless he has parental blocks on his laptop, that guy's not getting much debating done. RebuttalsPants pinch you: Wait, what? Dude, you're wearing them wrong.Nudity releases ideas: I've never received inspiration via my legs. Besides, ideas are about the last things to get released once the pants come off (see 2). Sources1. http://tinyurl.com...
Debating on Debate.org is better with no pants

Thanks to my opponent. Definitions: No pants: having nothing on but your underwear and maybe a shirt Now to my points 1: too much of a hassle 2: allows the freedom of ideas to be released Point 1: Too much of a hassle Pants tend to get in the way of becoming truly comfortable. Depending on the type of pants you wear, whether skinny jeans or slacks, when you try to bend your legs on your chair can pinch your skin. When one is stress they tend to cross their legs, and debating can be. Point 2: Allows the freedom of ideas to be released By releasing a layer of clothing on your body allows your ideas to come out which is important for Debate. org. The reasoning behind this is because it allows your closer body to be revealed to the outside world and thus connecting more with the world around and receiving new ideas. Conclusion Therefore having no pants helps you debate on debate. org by not pinching you as you sit in your chair, and by allowing your ideas to flow out better.
Debating on Debate.org is better with no pants

I agree with Pro on all points but one. This will be anything but a fun debate. Going pantsless, even during the seemingly innocuous task of debating on a website, is no laughing matter. I intend to approach this matter with the utmost seriousness and debunk what I can only imagine are the deranged utterances of a madman. My opponent's take on this resolution is dangerous for society and it ends here. It ends now.
Confederate flag should be taken down in public places

For my final debate I would like to start off by thanking my opponent for using his time to debate and also for stating a clean and appropriate debate.. So we have both stated our main points and now I have a few things to address that were previously stated in my opponents round 2 debate. My opponent’s first point was that the flag was a matter of perception, and that everyone views the flag in their own way. I can agree with that statement, however I don’t believe it is a strong enough argument to debate flying it in public places, because people who view it in a positive way can still easily fly it off their front porches and nothing can be said or done about it. However, unless the whole population feels that the flag is a good representation of them, it should not be flying in a public place or government building. My opponent’s second point was stating that people view the flag as a part of their “southern heritage” which once again could be shut down by the fact that not everyone sees the flag as that. Once again reiterating that even if some people are okay with the flag being flown, that doesn’t ignore the fact that there are still people who do not want the flag to be flown in a public area. Taking the flag down in a public setting does not ban people from glorifying it in their own homes. The people that want to fly the flag can do so on their own property and they just need to accept that unless the entire population feels that they are rightfully represented by the confederate flag, then it should not be flying in a public place. Period. And the last thing that I feel I should comment on is the statement that my opponent made saying“...most don't think of the Confederacy as a rebel nation that institutionalized and normalized slavery, but just a rebel nation.” Okay so the first comment I want to make about that statement is yes, I understand that many people who fly the flag do not recognize its true meaning. Which leaves people to think that if maybe people were more educated and knew the facts about what the flag really represented, would they view it the same? Would they still fly a flag that represented people who were willing to break away from America mainly to protect their “right” to own slaves? Even though some people would continue to fly the flag, many people strongly believe that the flag would lose a majority of it’s popularity. But even if some people chose to still view it as harmless, the government officials that ultimately make the decision cannot deny what it blatantly represented and the views from both sides of the argument. This concludes my debate, I would like to thank my opponent once again and I would like to thank anyone who has taken the time to read this debate and also thank whoever is planning to vote on this debate. Thank you all for your time.
The God of the Bible is Immoral

The god of the bible for starters is an advocate for slavery, (including underaged sex slavery) genocide, human sacrifice, and cannibalism just to name a few. You can find examples of these god given injustices in the following verses. SLAVERY Numbers 31:17-18 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. 1 Timothy 6:1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. Titus 2:9-10 Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things. GENOCIDE Deuteronomy 3:6 And we utterly destroyed them, ... utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. Deuteronomy 7:2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them. Deuteronomy 7:16 And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them. HUMAN SACRIFICE Judges 11:29-39 Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah ... And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering. ... And the LORD delivered them into his hands. And he smote them ... with a very great slaughter. ... And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances. ... I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back. ... And ... her father ... did with her according to his vow which he had vowed. CANNABALISM "And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat." -- Leviticus 26:29 "And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters." -- Deuteronomy 28:53" And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend." -- Jeremiah 19:9
Appropriating as your username the full name of a fictional person with whom you obviously disagree.

I cannot prove without question that God exists, and you cannot prove without question that God does not exist. That is why I don't think it can be resolved. I guess that my reasoning is this…. Being that I "buy in" to the idea that there is a God and that he created the earth, for me to go to heaven there are certain things that I believe I need to do or not do. It is my interest and my interest alone for me to go to heaven. I do not live for the sake of others or ask others to live for me. If I do something to help another, it isn't that I am sacrificing for the other person. I am doing it for me to get what I value. Therefore, it is not a sacrifice. I don't think that there is a contradiction between the main ideas presented in Atlas Shrugged and being a Christian. I believe that it all depends on what the individual values.