BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Legalization of gay marriage

My opponent rightfully says our nation was founded on Christian principals, but he also says we have evolved beyond that. I can't argue that many people don't care all that much about the old principals any more. So if an organization evolves beyond the principals upon which their laws are written, what are the laws worth? They are outdated. How do we decide what our new principals are that determine our new laws and rights? Different principals would mean different rights, so this must be determined. In the case of homosexuality, it was determined that they are no longer immoral deviants by a change in general public opinion, and no transcendent principal was used. If the swaying of public opinion is all that is needed to determine morality and principal, the outcome is naturally that no rights are fundamental, nothing is foundational, and everything is morally relative, depending on public opinion. We are no longer a Republic built on law, but a Democracy built on public opinion. Oh no! The slippery slope fallacy? Not really. Back up and see how this started. It goes back WAY farther than the 1960's, and far deeper than sexual preferences. The principals on which our law and order are founded are considered outdated and discarded. (We evolved beyond our principals, remember?) Without the principals, the laws that allow law enforcement to impose order are irrelevant, and some of them realize that, because they don't really take the principals these laws are based on seriously. This law, and that law are ignored by courts because they're outdated. From a more ignorant time. So law enforcement is lax in providing order. (This may be part of the reason so many cops like to take advantage of people's ignorance of their right to be free from unnecessary search and seizure to go through your car without a warrant. Constitutionally, you have no obligation to consent.) Individuals don't care to provide proper order in their own lives. Our new ways and principals are better. So what great new principals are they based on? Apparently, if you can sway enough people to your way of thinking, that makes you the Transcendent One of Principal. Until your influence wanes, and the masses follow someone else. It's not that allowing gay marriage will lead to other things, like bestiality. When we ignored God, we ignored the transcendent principals given by the only transcendent and wise God. Ignoring that kind of advice leads to every wrong thing. Slippery Slope? Nope. More like kicking the chair out from under the hang man, it just takes a moment for your body to stretch out and your head to be pulled along with your feet, and you realize this is not a good thing. Unreasoned obscure tradition (inertia) is pretty much the only thing keeping the noose from getting too tight around Uncle Sam's neck. Gay marriage, just like many other things, should not be legalized and accepted because the only good source for moral principals, and the judge of us all, says we should not approve of what he tells us is evil.
Legalization of gay marriage

I will keep my opening statement short and simple. The main opposition to gay marriage at the moment is the Church. While I am aware our nation was founded on Christian principles, we as a civilization have evolved. Our Christian ancestors also believed in owning slaves up until the reformation. It took many years, and long hard battles but finally people of a different skin color had the same opportunity as others. When Martin Luther King was fighting for civil rights , it was not simply limited to skin color(while that was the primary issue of the time). The fight for civil rights is that all men are created equal regardless of skin color, race, sexual orientation and even religion. When we limit a gay couple from getting married we are discriminating against them and this is a civil injustice. The only argument that can be made against this is when you accept that marriage is a union that was founded by the church, but it is much more than that now. Even if gay couples were granted a civil union, and had the same rights as married couples we are still discriminating against them. While marriage is a church institution it falls in some regards into state matters, because marriage has to be recognized by the government. We have adopted separation of church and state for a reason, so that religious beliefs do not hinder matters of politics. Denying someone the right to be married because of their sexual preference is discrimination to the highest degree, and is a civil injustice.
girls no poop

This should be a full forfeit of points, so I'm only going to argue the original resolution, and not your changed one. I also ask the audience to forfeit points to me. Argument 2: Women must $hit If a women doesn't crap, then they will die. If women die, then they can't reproduce. If they can't reproduce, then people aren't produced. If people aren't produced, then humanity dies. Do you want humanity to die just so women can't crap? . http://www.mindbodygreen.com...BOP FILLED BITCHEZ
girls no poop

This debate is not debating the fact that girls should not be allowed to physically poop but it is simply debating the fact that we should not hear about girls poop. Not only does it "gross out' males but it also make the girl sound gross and discussing and I don't like using this word but it make her sound like not the "norm". This sort of thinking form men could also really lower the self esteem of this girl, witch make me very sad when people do not have confidence in themselves. Also from a perspective of a female.
Affirmative Action is Fair

In his famous "I Have a Dream Speech", African American Civil Rights Legend Martin Luther King Jr. said "I look to a day when people will not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of the character". King's vision is completely fair, as it is judging people by who they are and what they've accomplished, not their genetic makeup. However, Affirmative Action is the complete opposite of that, as those who come from races which are considered under represented at a certain school or workplace have higher chances of being admitted or hired than those who come from races which are considered over represented. As far as admissions to top universities in the US go, Asian Americans are the most discriminated against. This can be demonstrated by the research of Princeton Sociologist Thomas Espenshade and researcher Alexandria Walton Radford. Their research showed that Asian Americans needed SAT scores of 1550 (this study was conducted back when the exam was out of 1600) to have the same odds of making a top private university as European Americans who scored 1410 and African Americans who scored 1100. (1) Essentially, Asian Americans who put in more work and accomplish more may be rejected simply because their race makes up more of the racial makeup of top universities than it does of the total American population. Another major issue with Affirmative Action that makes in unfair is that many people from under represented races have more opportunity than many people from over represented races. Going back to the university admission example, due to Affirmative Action an African American who comes from an upper class family and top end high school will still have an advantage over an Asian American who comes from a lower class family and low end high school. This is even worse, because someone who already has more opportunity has a higher chance to succeed then someone who probably had to work extra hard to get to a similar position. 1: http://www.boston.com...
Whether 18 year olds should be able to drink!!

Ummmm....... you should know what I mean when I said that I mean 21 year olds + can be just as immature as 18 year olds!! And why are you called an adult if you can't even drink?! If you look up sevays they will tell you that when you tell 18 year olds they can't drink it makes them want to do it even more cause they think it makes them look good so if we told them that 18 year olds are aloud to drink there would probally less of them would drink and get into car accidents!!!! Also there are dumb cops out there that I've seen watch an under aged drinker get wasted and didn't do nothing about i I know not all cops do that but some do so it must not matter much if they do!! and you can't just blame all the 18 year olds for a fews mistakes!!!!!!!!
Whether 18 year olds should be able to drink!!

To start off I would like to look at her opening argument. "Yeah I know most drunk drivers that got in accidents are under aged but you can't blame all the 18 year olds I know a lot that are very responsible and could handle this responsibility! ! just because a few aren't doesn't mean anything! !! !" In this part you contradicted yourself. At first you said "Yeah I know MOST. .. " and later you said "just because a FEW". Most and Few are two different concepts entirely. And based of your "most" statement, you would want "most" people to get injured or killed as long as the rest can drink at 18? Also do you think that there are 18% more people 21+ that drive drunk than 18 year old's because 21 is the legal age limit to drink? Or that some people follow the law and don't drink untill they are 21? So it makes since that 18% of drunk drivers are 21+ because they are many more 21+ drinkers than 18 year old drinkers. In a recent study in New Zealand the drinking age was lowered from 20 to 18 in 2000. The study found that the rate of traffic crashes and injuries increased 12% for 18-19-year-old males and 14% among 15-17-year-old males comparing the four years before and after the United State's legislature lowered the drinking age to 18. For females, rates rose 51% for 18-19-year-olds and 24% for 15-17-year-olds. The study estimated that 400 serious injuries and 12 deaths each year among 15-19-year-olds could be prevented if the country raised their minimum legal drinking age from 18 to 21. This study took place in New Zealand but experts say the same thing or worse could happen if we lowered the drinking age here in the U. S. A. paraphrased from----(. http://hubpages.com...)-- The thing that most people tend to not think about is that teens tend to abuse alcohol no more than people that fall in the age category of 21 to 40 year olds. But when you take into account that teenagers drive more miles than older drivers do, the statistics show a higher rate of alcohol-related traffic fatalities for teenagers than older groups. "One reason is that 18-year-olds might not be mature enough to drink responsibly. At the age of 18 we are not yet mature enough, we just stepped out of high school and are preparing for college. At 18 they have the responsibility to vote, start getting their credit, and start becoming an adult. Trying to become an adult is a big responsibility, and putting alcohol in their hands will only make it a little more difficult to do. At this age they are still trying to have fun, enjoy life, and explore adult hood. Why should we put alcohol in their hands to let them maybe destroy their or someone else's future. " copied from--(. http://hubpages.com...)-- Sources: . http://hubpages.com...
Whether 18 year olds should be able to drink!!

Of course they should!! When you turn 18 you get called a adult but you get no responsibility!! WOWW you can drive and smoke! Whopde Friggin Do! If you can smoke why can't you drink?! Yeah I know most drunk drivers that got in accidents are under aged but you can't blame all the 18 year olds I know a lot that are very responsible and could handle this responsibility!! just because a few aren't doesn't mean anything!!!! Also there are more 21 year olds + than 18 or younger drunk drivers 18 % more!! So try toppin that!!!!!!! (:
Protestantism is heresy.

I was talking about Catholicism because i wanted to outline just a few points on why Protestantism was formed. I should have made my main point more clear. Protestantism is not heresy. I was trying to get across that people who call themselves protestants, these self proclaimed sub units of the entire movement are involved in heresy. But when you look at what the movement is, what it represents, it represents separation from the catholic church, not a new set of doctrines. The objective of the protestant movement was completed, and rightfully so. There is no council, or president of the Protestant movement. Each denomination under the movement acts independent of each other. So in contrast to the southern baptist movement churches, who all move dependent on the Southern Baptist Convention, all protestant churches are either independent, or dependent upon their own authority. An example of this is the Jehovah Witnesses do whatever the watchtower tells them to. They think it's the holy spirit. So Protestantism is not heresy, People who are heretics have taken the name, but they are not actually protesting anything. In fact many "protestant" churches think that its ok to attend any church including the catholic church (which is a debate in itself). But if you strip the movement down it is core belief, and meaning, it is not heresy. I can say a bunch of non sense about the bible, then claim I'm a protestant. Does that make Protestantism heresy? no that makes me a heretic.
Protestantism is heresy.

I re-read your r1 argument. I don't see what the Catholicism's heresy have to do with Protestantism's heresy. Both are heresy the way I see it. I meant in today's world that Protestantism is heresy. I'm not talking about the past. I should have made that more clear in r1. I am very present originated, I sometimes forget the past even exists. I could research a bunch more and make a counter argument, but I will concede that Protestantism was at one point in time not heresy. Yet, you reinforce my original idea that Protestantism is heresy, implying that today Protestantism is heresy. Thanks for the debate was interesting. Had no idea that a Pope of the past wore a fish hat symbolizing a pagan God. Good debate.Red herring below, should have no impact on debate.Off topic, I don't see praying to a saint as a violation of Deuteronomy 18:11. As for my personal beliefs, I don't put much stock in belief. Instead, I put stock in knowledge and searching for the truth, whatever that is. " 9“When you enter the land which the LORD your God gives you, you shall not learn to imitate the detestable things of those nations. 10“There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, 11or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. 12“For whoever does these things is detestable to the LORD; and because of these detestable things the LORD your God will drive them out before you. 13“You shall be blameless before the LORD your God. 14“For those nations, which you shall dispossess, listen to those who practice witchcraft and to diviners, but as for you, the LORD your God has not allowed you to do so." I don't see praying to the dead as casting a spell of any kind. Personally, I never pray to any entity other than God or Jesus Christ. Ever since reading about Satan's rebellion, I fear praying to any person regarded as a saint, simply because that person may not be a saint. You wouldn't pray to Jack the Ripper would you? Well how do you know that saint x is really a saint and not an evil villain? http://biblehub.com...
Protestantism is heresy.

I did not say you are correct. Protestants were called that because they protested the Catholic church. So back when they were called protestants for a good reason, they were not heretics. You didn't specify which time, so i choose one. The reformation is what they are best known for, and they were not heretics then. I'm guessing you are catholic. So lets look at when a protestant meant most to a catholic. The protestant movement is a Godly one. I'm just saying that many people under that movement have become liberal. But the movement in itself, as a statement to defy Catholicism is very correct. Not heretical.
does 0.9999999.......... equal 1

Your math argument 1: 1 divided by 3 is not a correct value and here is why. The answer resorts to infinity? Why? Because there is no answer that satisfies 1 divided by 3. This is why when you multiply it by 3, you get 0.999999......, not one. Your math argument 2: 1-0.9999...... does not equal 0. it equals 0.0000000....1. We call this number infinitesimally small. But it still is above zero. Your math argument 3: Suppose we used your exact same algebra on an equation with infinitely many 9's going off to the left. x=..........99999999999 Multiply both sides by 10 10x=............9999999990 But look at that. ........999999990 is the original x value minus the last 9 10x=x-9 9x=-9 x=-1 So this equation is telling me that .......999999999 equals -1. Do you believe that? Most people think that the first equation is fine, but then they look at the second equation and think what I did is ridiculous. But it is exactly the same mathematics so you can't just pick and choose when it is right and when it is wrong. If you believe 1=0.9999... then you also must believe that ......999999=-1. But let's make matters worse. Let do an equation with infinitely many 9's going of to the right and left. The equation looks as follows: ........9999999.99999999......=x We multiply both sides by 10 ........99999999.9999999......=10x But look. ......999999.999999 is the original x value. x=10x subtract x from both sides 9x=0 x=0 So this is telling me that ....9999.99999.... equals 0. Honestly, do you believe that? The same mathematics is being applied to different circumstances and because it cannot be false in some and true and others, you must choose to either believe all cases have a meaningful answer, like -1, 1, or 0, or there isn't a meaningful answer because we have the concept of infinity in each equation.
does 0.9999999.......... equal 1

Pro's also going to provide definitions.While I consider myself a science guy, I'll dabble with maths here and there.I'm not British, I just like calling math "maths" sometimes.I request that voters use the Opt-In voting standards and moderators remove crappy votes.Definitions0.999... - denotes the repeating decimal consisting of infinitely many 9s after the decimal point (and one 0 before it) that represents the smallest number no less than all decimal numbers 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, etc. shown to equal 1.https://en.wikipedia.org...equal - be the same as in number or amount.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...1 (one) - the first number of the infinite sequence of natural numbers.https://en.wikipedia.org...*Resolution*I'm attempting to affirm the resolution that 0.999... equals 1.I will use 3 mathematical arguments to do so.*Maths Argument #1*Take the number 1 and divide it by 3.You in fact get a repeating decimal of infinitely many 3s after the decimal point = 0.333...If you multiply 0.333... by 2, you would get 0.666...So it should follow that if we multiplied 0.333... by 3, we should get 0.999...This means that dividing the number 1 by 3 and dividing the number 0.999... by 3 are exactly the same.This is because 0.999... = 1.*Maths Argument #2*Any number subtracted by itself is zero.3 - 3 = 02 - 2 = 0and 1 - 1 = 0When you subtract 0.999... from the number 1 the answer is 0.000...Why?Well, let's look at smaller 0.9 decimals.1 - 0.9 = 0.11 - 0.99 = 0.011 - 0.999 = 0.001The amount of 0s in the answer's decimal increases along with the amount of 9s in the decimal being subtracted from 1.In fact, the only time a 1 appears in the answer is when there's an *end* to the amount of 9s in the decimal being subtracted from 1.Well, 0.999... has *no end* to its 9s so when you subtract it from 1, you get,1 - 0.999... = 0.000...The zeroes in the answer's decimal are infinite and 0.000... = 0This is because 0.999... = 1.*Maths Argument #3*Algebraically if we make x = 0.999..., you cannot distinguish between 1 and x.For the following proof, x = 0.999...Let's take x and multiply it by 10.10x = 9.999...So, when we multiply 0.999... by 10, we get 9.999...Well, 9.999... is just 9 + 0.999...So we can simplify 9.999... to 9 + x.Therefore 10x = 9 + xSubtract x from the right, and then from the left, and what remains is9x = 9Divide both sides by 9 and x = 1.If you make x = 0.999... which we did, it's indistinguishable from making x = 1.This is because 0.999... = 1.*Conclusion*For reasons #1, #2, and #3 above, 0.999... = 1 and I request that opt-in voters pay close attention to the definitions provided 1st round by Pro.Con?
does 0.9999999.......... equal 1

Honestly, do you believe that ....999999=-1 The equation is paradoxical because it would seem to prove that multiplying a positive number by 10 results in that number minus 9. That is what happens when you mess with infinity. You get answers that don't make sense. My point is not that ....9999=-1, my point is that whenever you have a number that resorts to infinity, you get strange answers. Just like how you get a strange answer in the equation that says 0.9999...=1. But if you believe that 0.99999.... equals 1, then you must also believe that ....99999=-1. But if you believe that ....9999 equals -1, then you are telling me that at the end of time 9+ 90 +900 +9000 +90,000...... equals -1. I don't think anyone believes that, I don't believe that. Questions you asked me: 1. 1 is not an incorrect value. When you divide it by 3 however you don't get a correct value. 1 is technically made up of 3 incorrect values. That doesn't mean 1 is an incorrect value. If I multiply 2 negatives together, the answer isn't negative. 2. see 1. 3. No, I cannot give an example of when this happens. However, the only reason it happens here is because we apply infinitely many of something to the equation. THIS ISN't A CORRECT VALUE. My point in this debate is that when you apply infinity or infinitely many of something to an equation, you get strange answers. Hence why you get the strange answer of 0.9999..=1 I have one question for you. Where along the line of 0.9999.... does it suddenly equal 1?
does 0.9999999.......... equal 1

Your first argument: I never said that 0.3333333.... is not a rational number. I said it is not a correct value of 1/3 because it resorts to infinity which means there will never be an answer that satisfies the expression of 1/3. Infinity isn't a real number. It is the unsatisfied answer of an equation. Your second argument: You said that 1-0.9999999999999999999.......... equals 0.0000000.......... There is still a 1 at the end of it. But it is being pushed back by infinitely many nines. Just because you will never find it, does not mean that it isn't there. That is why it is infinitesimally small. Your third argument: Here is an equation that proves that .....99999 times 10 equals ....999999-9 ..........9999999999(10)=.........9999999999-9 Simplify ..........99999999990=..............999999990 They are exactly the same, this proves my case. Let's rewrite the equation x=.........9999999 10x=.........999990 I have already proven that ..........9999999999(10)=.........9999999999-9 10x=........99999999-9 Look at that. ........9999999 is the original x value. 10x=x-9 9x=-9 x=-1 We can use this same algebra using a different equation. .....9999999.99999999......=x We multiply both sides by 10 ........99999999.9999999......=10x But look. .......999999.9999999...... is the original x value. x=10x 9x=0 x=0 It is the same algebra you used. You either believe it or you don't.