BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay marriage has to be legalized

This should be interesting. BURDEN OF PROOF As the instigator, and the one making the positive claim, Pro has the full burden of proof in this debate. It is her job to demonstrate that gay marriage has to be legalized. She has to show that it's impossible for marriage between two same sex people not to exist. As Con, I don't have to demonstrate why gay marriage can't be legalized. All I have to do is cast doubt on Pro's arguments. WHAT WE'RE NOT DEBATING As my opponent has so eloquently pointed out, we are NOT debating if gay marriage SHOULD be legalized. As she said, my opponent specifically didn't use the word "should" when constructing the debate resolution. She, in fact chose the phrase, "HAS to be legalized". With this in mind, voters should ignore any argument Pro offers that supports the idea that gay marriage SHOULD be legalized. Contention One: Pro is unable to offer us any good reason to believe that gay marriage HAS to be legalized. Nothing HAS to happen or exist. Nothing HAS to be made legal or illegal. Murder and rape don't have to be illegal. It may be in societies best collective interests for this to be, but it doesn't HAVE to be so. The very fact that murder hasn't always been illegal proves this. In the case of marriage, there are several other possibilities that could happen instead of gay marriage being legalized. It could remain illegal, for example. Another possibility is for all marriages (gay or straight) to be made illegal. The very fact that gay marriage hasn't always been legal proves that it doesn't HAVE to be legalized. I turn it over now to my opponent.
Gay marriage has to be legalized

Gay marriage has been an issue in the United States and many other countries ever since people discovered that gay people does, in fact, exist and want the very basic right of committing to who they love. Why this is still something which is necessary to discuss, I think is strange considering how far humanity has gotten but clearly, not all see reason quite yet,, so now I would like my word in the matter. Yes, I think gay marriage has to be legalized, and I choose the word 'has' rather than 'should' because it is a thing that NEEDS to happen and preferably soon! What I do not understand is, why it is so hard for some to accept that gay people have feelings in the same ways as straight people. They just love someone of their own gender, who just so happens to also be equally human. Gosh, I barely know where to begin. First of all, why is it that the concept of love does not include everybody? Are homosexuals suddenly less in the eyes of others because they have a different sexual orientation? For anyone who can answer, I also very much would like to know what gives you the right to decide on their behalf. Why does it bother you so that they are happy? Isn't that a good thing, human happiness? Isn't that what we strive for everyone to have? I think it is horrible to hear so many stories about gay people getting hunted down and cursed at and even killed, yeah you heard me, KILLED because they love someone! What kind of thinking and state of mind is that!? Gay people are sinning, apparently. Since when was love ever a sin? Someone explain to me because I have a very hard time seeing why this is such a problem. And for the matter, slurs targeting sexuality and painting being gay or bisexual as something bad is even worse. You never hear people going around and saying 'oh that guy is soooo straight!' because he has a lot of muscles and wears a sweater, do you? Then why is a man in a tight shirt and styled hair suddenly gay, and more importantly, why do people snicker and whisper at it? Why does it have to bother you that your neighbour or fellow student or workmate, friend, family member, or the stranger on the opposite site of town is gay? Leave them the hell alone to live their own lives. That such hate can exist towards something so wonderful is beyond me, so please, someone tell me what this sick idea is all about. I am all ears.
Should we be worried about cell phone raiation

I think we should be worried about the rise in brain cancer and phones the numbers of cancer and phones have been connected even though they'er funding ran out for research does not mean they found a yes or a no they found leads that say a lot though they found a increase in brain tumors after 10+ years of heavy use ( one call per a week) and a lot of people make more than one call a week that is not the even the tip of the iceberg, so tell me what you think.
cell phone use in class

There are already books and computers in the room. Not only are they better, but more efficient. A phone however not only distracts people in class, but the person they are talking to on the other line. Furthermore, not all phones can be used to research. In fact, plenty of phones can't even access the internet. I ask you know, can you acces the internet on this phone? Cell phone use in class also endagers the owner to lose it, considering it is so small. Students are already distracted as it is, adding phones into the situation would make things worst. This is why cell phone use should not be permitted in class.
Human technology is over powering children's lives we should have less technology unless important

"When I said the part were I'm on the computer because I have nothing else to do is saying I need to change and do something more productive with my life." my opponent clearly feels that debating is unproductive and has disregard this site's validity as a productive means of intellectual conflict altogether which is not only disrespectful but outright ignorant."Things like technology (though CAN BE USEFUL at some times like work) ISN'T USEFUL." this is self-contradictory to the extent that I needn't explain it."I find it that I'm not leaning toward the cons side more like I'm trying to make a change in my life." this is my opponent's personal feeling. It proves nothing."But then people like you get in the way of making these changes." Personal attack on the speaker.
Human technology is over powering children's lives we should have less technology unless important

When I said the part were I'm on the computer because I have nothing else to do is saying I need to change and do something more productive with my life. Things like technology (though can be useful at some times like work) isn't useful. Like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram it is more of a "hey you look at me and like this" It isn't going for "hey lets make the world a better place." I find it that I'm not leaning toward the cons side more like I'm trying to make a change in my life. Have a better future. But then people like you get in the way of making these changes.
Human technology is over powering children's lives we should have less technology unless important

Essentially my opponent is arguing (ironically on an entertainment debating site) that the only technological facilities we should have available are those that are important to business or formal education alone.The reasoning offered is that pro tell us as if in a dramatic monologue to "Look at me I'm on a computer right now (be)cause I have nothing else to do." Unless pro is literally a robot designed purely for the purpose of computer use then they definitely have something else to do but chose to use the computer for their own entertainment, in this case it was in the form of debating.If pro did truly have nothing else to do than use their computer this would be a point in favour of con because poor little pro would have nothing to do without such technology.I have yet to see a single effectively reasoned contention for pro.
Human technology is over powering children's lives we should have less technology unless important

I think computers, apple products, Microsoft software, and stuff like that are making teens (and sometimes adults) to connected to this kind of stuff. I mean look at me I'm on a computer right now cause I have nothing else to do. for this reason I think the production of these electronics should get lower. These kinds of thing affect kids health and there learning. Sites I get some information from http://www.arhsinflight.com... http://herndon.patch.com... http://www.doctorsolve.com... http://news.cnet.com... http://www.californiateenhealth.org... http://reviews.cnet.com...
Transgender students should be allowed in their identified sex's bathroom

Transgender people should not be allowed to use the bathroom that they "identify" as for 2 main reasons. The first is that it is reinforcing the delusion that they are of a different gender, and secondly how would you feel if your daughter was using the bathroom and a pedophile came in and started staring at her but you couldn't make him leave because "he has the right to use the bathroom he wants."
Transgender students should be allowed in their identified sex's bathroom

Transgender people should be allowed in the bathroom. I strongly support my claims becaus i think that people of the transgender community should not have to feel held down by the restrictions of bathroom usage. It is not fair for these innocent people to have to use the bathroom for the sex that is imprinted on their birthcertificate, and not by what they truly are at soul, at spirit. They should be allowed to use any bathroom they want because it is their right.
Is the Qu'ran scientifically proven

With all respect to my opponent, I am simply beating a dead horse. That being said this will be very brief . . .He completely ignores my argument that by dispreving his hypothesis, I disprove the validity of his experiment, and hence disproving the "findings."My opponent would have you doubt that Barack Obama was elected president. He would also have you doubt that the Children's Crusade happened. Actually, according to my opponent, nothing you cannot prove through direct "hands-on" empirical evidence is valid. I have backed up my statements and claims with valid sources, hence they stilll stand.He has failed to even attempt to disprove my Children's Crusade example and as such I will not provide any more evidence backing it up, wikipedia is a valid source according to DDO so deal with it, the child met and fulfilled all requirements of the challenge, and as such disproves the vey broad hypothesis put forward.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------You must prove that the Qu'ran is scientifically proven to be inspired by God. This means you must follow the scientific method. That being:Formulate hypothesisTest hypothesisFormulate theoryTest theoryFormulate Law or conclusion(the above is how it was laid out in my 5th grade science book, an apt description for the "level" of intelligence this debate requires) I provided historical evidence (Children's Crusade) and modern evidence (Barack Obama's election) that the hypothesis was indeed incorrect. If the hypothesis fails, then the conclusion (in this case that the Qu'ran must be inspired by God) also fails. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For the benefit of my opponent I will lay it out even simpler.1) Formulate hypothesis: It is humanly impossible for a person/s to inspire enough people to follow him/her to conquer a nation by using humanmande speech/literature that goes against the likes and beliefs of those people."2) Test hypothesis: It fails on account that by "humanly possible" it means in all of human kind is this possible. I gave to examples, whether you agree with the historical evidence behind my examples is irrelevant, by the rules of DDO they are not only viable but also reliable.3) Never gets here and as such the theory, much less the law, that the Qu'ran is inspired by God should never even be proposed.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------again, vote con, simply out of the fact that I have literally nothing left to say beyond what has already been said. I cannot believe that Pro hasn't brought any new points to the table in 4 rounds, he attempted one rebuttal of one of my arguments and decided to ignore the rest. After i refuted his rebuttal he ignored the refutation and simply restated a point I already refuted without attempting to explain why it is still valid. He was refuted fullly and never even attempted to recover.
Is the Qu'ran scientifically proven

Firstly, I will not argue whether there are errors in the Qur'anNow for my rebuttal,I will begin at the hypothesis:This does not really prove anthing. Even if I could not find another human being who accomplished this (there are many) all it would prove is that Muhhammad was the first human to accomplish said goal. It is akin to stating that,It is humanly impossible for a country to set off a nuclear bomb, America set of a nuclear bomb, therefore America gained the ability to set off a nuclear bomb via something not human.Dont get too caught up on the above syllogism, its purpose is to merely show that IF someone is the first to accomplish something, it doesn't necessarily mean they were divinely inspired and there is no proof that humans are unable to "inspire" others to follow them.The Experiment:No problem with thisThe Conclusion: This is only a valid conclusion if I cannot provide a single example of a human being who inspired enough followers to "conquer" the street he lived on.And so we come to the meat of my rebuttal,In 2008 we had what I like to call a Presidential election in America. During this election the African American voting percenage surged "Blacks ages 18 to 29 increased their voter turnout rate by 8.7 percentage points, from 49.5% in 2004 to 58.2% in 2008" http://pewresearch.org...; So, Barack Obama managed to garner 8.7% extra black voters in his election, this is 8.7% that usually would not have voted and I guarantee this number is greater than the average number of people living on "the street he lives on." Not only that but he used his ability to gather the masses together to win the election and ultimately "conquer" America (albeit he didn't break nearly as many laws as Mohammad in doing so).Lets go back a little further into history to an event commonly called the crusades. Namely, the childrens crusade. Modern scholars believe that a boy (age 12) named Stephan Cloyes gained popularity amongst the common folk and lead them towards the Holy Land. He had at its peak nearly 30,000 followers and number that dwindled greately before he even started his journey. How did he gain all this support? By claiming he had a letter from Jesus to the king. So, by the words of a 12 year old boy tens of thousands of people gathered together for a single goal, as ill fated as it was the even is remarkably similar to that of Mohammad.History is FULL of examples of ordinary people rising up and gathering others to their cause. In both these events the experiment was a success, and unless you are willing to acknoweledge Allah's hand in the childrens crusade, and the 2008 presidential election you my good friend have been refuted.
This House Would Ban The Shi'ite Practice of Self-Torture On Ashura!

Shalom Alecium! Resolved: This House Would Ban The Shi'ite Practice of Self-Torture On Ashura! I mean absolutely no disrespect to the person of any Shi'ite. I do however hold that this aspect of their religion is absolutely disgusting, and perverse. This 'matam' should be banned as a punishable offense. This by no means implies anything about a Shi'ite, nor about their person. It is not disrespect (for I hold in the greatest of regards) Hadhrat Ali, Hadhrat Hassan, and/or Hadhrat Hussain (Radhiatallah Anhum). 1. First round is for acceptance only. 2. Forfeiture leads to an instant loss.
Online debating is as good as traditional debating (two people standing and debating)

Hi, I've realized that I'm busy at the moment, so I'll have to forfeit all of the remaining rounds of my debate. This is a very interesting debate, and I'd like to do it again when I have more time. I'm very sorry about this. I would encourage the voters not to vote since you wouldn't be voting on my debating ability but instead just on the fact that I forfeited.
Online debating is as good as traditional debating (two people standing and debating)

Online: connected to, served by, or available through a system and especially a computer or telecommunications system (as the Internet) Traditional debating: Two participants who are physically present at the debating venue. Each side makes verbal arguments for/against the topic. - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - My opponent has written about the benefits and the drawbacks of online debating. He is arguing that online debating is as good as traditional debating.I will argue that online debating is superior to traditional debating. I accept all points in favour of online debating expressed by my opponent. Some other advantages:1.Online debating allows people separated by vast distances to participate.This allows for a greater variety of opinion.2.Since the points made by each side is easily accessible(incase of text based debating/recorded video and audio debates), the participants and judges can easily refer to the points made. There is less scope for ambiguity. A debater is not burdened by having to remember all the points to be made. This gains significance in long debates which must address a variety of points.- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - Rebuttal:1. Visual perception of opponent:My opponent has only considered the text form of online debating. It is possible to conduct a debate in which both participants can view each other using tele-conferencing technology.2.Experienced Judges:My opponent has made an unjustified claim that the judges in real life are more qualified a judge who gives his opinion online.A judge can always give his opinion online, it is wrong to claim that the value of his opinion wuld decrease simply because it is given online.3.No possibility of forfeitThis is an incorrect assumption. There is nothing to prevent an opponent from walking away/forfeiting in the traditional form of debating.Furthermore, sometimes an person forfeits because he is convinced by the opponents argument. It is more difficult to do so in a real life debate.
Online debating is as good as traditional debating (two people standing and debating)

Online debating is as good as traditional debating. One example of how this is the case is this site. I've had excellent debates on this site, and I've also seen fantastic debates on this site. This proves how online debating can be as good as traditional debating. Some advantages to online debating are there's more time for both Pro and Con to write their arguments. They're also not speaking the debate, so it also allows for more to be said. Finally, online debating allows for more freedom in choosing the topic, position, and when it comes time for voting, it allows for a greater variety of opinions for that. However, it's not better because in real life debating it's nice to be able to see the opponent. There are also probably more experienced judges. Also, there is no possibility of forfeit. Overall, there are some advantages and some disadvantages to both styles, and therefore, online debating is as good as debating in real life.
The Earth is more flat than it is spherical.

The opponent's impassioned ideas on the nature of the Earth, specifically with regard to its shape, have inspired me to challenge him to a debate. In an attempt to be as fair as possible, I've worded the resolution in such a way that neither side has to prove the Earth is precisely "flat" or "spherical", as such perfect solids don't exist in the real world. Rather, I'll be arguing that the Earth is mostly spherical and my opponent will be arguing that the Earth is mostly flat. Rules are standard, including a shared Burden of Proof. The content of Round 1 is up to the opponent. Either a) He can present his first argument now or he can just accept and I'll begin with the first argument in Round 2. I'll be approaching this debate with the utmost empirical and scientific rigor, which I know the opponent will appreciate. I hope that he accepts and I look forward to getting this ball rolling. No pun intended.
The Earth is more flat than it is spherical.

Thanks again con for this invitation to once again prove that the earth is flat. I have to say this is the weakest argument both for the spherical earth and against the flat earth I've ever been a part of. You completely turned the whole debate into one about graVity, and an equally weak one at that. Gravity is entirely dependent on the earth being a globe, and the entire Heliocentric model. Even you say "if it exists" when talking about it in the final round of this debate. I hope this is an act, I clearly proved that the earth was flat with 3 empirical evidences, and disproved every "proof" brought up. Just going over some of the last rounds arguments:"I believe my opponent has "canned" answers for most of these issues that do not stand up to serious examination"How can you have canned answers for issues against the mainstream? As I said before, there are hundreds of proofs of a flat earth, and against a spherical one. There are about 12 for a spherical earth. that is canned. I thought that "serious examination" was the whole point of this debate? I mean, I "seriously examined" your evidence. I spend thousands of hours of research for and against the flat earth, comprise a few that are impossible to debunk and I have canned answers? "It seems I did explicitly drop bringing up the "sun's linear reflection on water" argument..."Yes you did, and also the distances sighted argument, and flight paths argument, all of which are empirical proofs for my side."The opponent has decided to both make up definitions and make up known physics"How do you make up "known physics"?https://www.google.com...https://www.google.com...Note: No mention of the word "gravity" until you expand the alternative definitions tab. Since con has graciously given his "evidence" of gravity, which is neither practical, repeatable, or empirical, and I have empirically proved that the earth is flat, without and rebuttal or evidence contrary to my claims, we must apply Occam's Razor, which is defined as:Principle established by the logician William of Ockham in the 14th century. Like the Principle of Parsimony, this theory states that one should not make unnecessary assumptions and that the answer to a problem is often the simplest. It is the basis of methodological reductionalism and applications of its principles are commonly used in modern strategy and economics.Do we assume that graVity exists, as my opponent claims? Go to the Wikapedia page for gravity and find the word proof. This is an unneccasary assumption, when we have empirical proof that the earth is flat, and none contradicting it that can't be easily explained away. Since my opponent has dropped all arguments for a spherical globe, and has not refuted any claims for a flat earth, this should be an easy vote.