BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Civil Unions are the Current "Separate But Equal"

In the first half of the debate my opponent claimed: Homosexuality is a choice. Likened drinking milk or juice. Civil Union is the state's oppressive agenda to keep gays from marriage. In the second half of the debate my opponent claimed: Homosexuality is not a choice. Civil Union is the result of the Gay right's movement. My opponent is confusing the debate, jumping from one root argument to the next. What is the voter supposed to understand? Is homosexuality a choice (like a drink preference), or is it rooted in childhood development? Is Civil Union the brainchild of an oppressive Government or was it created, pushed and maintained by the Gay rights movement? I do not wish to sound condescending (I really do not), but my opponent has absolutely no idea where the roots of homosexuality lie, or why civil union exists. I find that strange, since she confessed herself to be gay. I find that a true, self-identified homosexual has decades of experience, reflection and understanding to fall back on. The gay rights debate is often clouded by the "flavor of the week" homosexuals that call themselves lesbians after listening to Katy Perry's "I kissed a Girl and I liked it. "I made several points throughout this debate: Homosexuality is not synonymous with the race struggle. Homosexuals are free to vote and often carry the majority. Homosexuals have preferable alternative to marriage, which would allow them to live at peace with a conservative majority that desires to keep marriage an institution of the heterosexual family. The gay rights movement designed civil union as the fair alternative. It was they who created this compromise. Homosexuality is generally not a choice and can be traced to childhood development. Many couples (gay or straight) are abandoning the ancient matrimony and embracing civil union as the new standard for marriage. Restrictions already exist for marriage (You can't marry relatives, other married people, etc. ). Marriage has been heterosexual for all of recorded history, there is no crime in maintaining a tradition and protecting with laws, as long as a fair alternative exists. We live in a democracy and the voting majority has decided to protect marriage from changing. As "oppressive" as this might sounds, it is fair. The country voted. It would only be oppressive if the people couldn't vote on the issue, or if homosexuals only where barred from voting. It's simply not the case. My opponent carried the burden of proof. I have answered all of her claims and provided sufficient sources to back my arguments. I have broken my opponent's root arguments that civil union is a state created oppression and that homosexuality is a free choice.
the pocket watch argument against evolution is flawed

Theta-pinch I think you missed the point the pocket watch may not be biological but it was created we know how it was created and we know why and possibly where it was created. Everything we know so far has a beginning and a end human animals cells atoms matter and even the Big Bang(I'm not saying I think the Big Bang happened by the way) are whole universe had a beginning the rules of nature says that everything must have a beginning and a end. So my point is that the cells let say of a lizard to evolve the cells have to be their in the first place. We know that cells split apart from each other so there must of been a original cell and a original atom that caused the Big Bang. We know how cells multiply so it couldn't of just existed because because we know.that a cell has a beginning and a end. So for the Big Bang to have happened it would of had to been outside of our laws of natures many it would of have to not have a beginning. The Big Bang now must be outside our laws of nature because nothing can come fro. Nothing unless it does not play by our rules. So tell me which is more plausible that a random explosion that breaks all of our laws of nature creates earth the universe plants animals and humanw or supreme being that created us and whole universe with intent and plan. Also how long would it take if you took building materials (atoms) and flew up in a helicopter and randomly drop the building supplies of a squares what is the chance that that building supplies bacome a life sized. Replica of the Empire State Building screws in the right place working elevators windows in the exact place. So how long would it take for a cells to mix together and make a human being or even something close to it.
the pocket watch argument against evolution is flawed

Oka so it looks like most atheist will deflected this argument and say it is flawed by saying that we know and some have seen the development.Well this is a completely different argument.This is it: A pocket watch is not alive or biological; because of that it cannot mutate or reproduce meaning it cannot take part in natural selection, because it can't take part in natural selection, it can't evolve. All living things on the other hand CAN reproduce and mutate and therefore take part in natural selection, and therefore CAN evolve. The flaw is that a watch cannot reproduce and mutate which is required for evolution; so the pocketwatch and the organism are fundamentally different in a way that precludes that analogy.
the pocket watch argument against evolution is flawed

Oka so it looks like most atheist will deflected this argument and say it is flawed by saying that we know and some have seen the development. But this arguments is not flawed at all if a pocketwatch fell into the hands of a remote tribe on and island whould that tribe think that the stopwatch came from nature I don't think so they would think that the pocket watch was made do you see what I mean I think anyone even if he hardly knows anything about science or religion would know just by glimpsing at what nature can do would know without a shadow of a doubt that the advanced watch was made by someone or something.
Funny Rap Battle Challenge

You hit on men by doing some odd square dance But get turned down for looking like Sponge Bob Square Pants He gets involved with gay sex and loves when it gets hot He only says my family tree is "straight" 'cause he's pissed that's he's not I'm so big downstairs any girl would have to lubricate the poon Your such a pest when you enter buildings they fumigate the rooms You're so ugly you should be forced to lose your face and soon Every pimple you have looks like a blue inflated moon If you lifted your arm it would smell like sh*t on a farm People would drop dead, it would cause all your visitors harm So you spewing those rhymes is stupid I'd rather ruin lawns than ruin my life like you did
Funny Rap Battle Challenge

Great disses there, NOT, you f*cking amateur, How's your sister? It's been a while since I have mentioned her? Oh wait, I remember, she is riding on your d*ck F*cking incestous relations, man you make me feel sick. But I'll give you this, you must be royalty, divine, 'Cause I checked your family tree and all I found was a straight line. You are just as inbred as an Austrian duke, Just look at our chin man, no way you ain't Habsburg. Man, I can diss you from the sunset to the dawn, So just f*ck off and go back to ruining lawns.
Funny Rap Battle Challenge

You dissing my lawn care thinking your words are wise But check your mom's eggs... I know how to fertilize She actually started a charity for the obese But cheated and used the proceeds for goat cheese Growing up in your house? I wonder how sh*t it felt Your daddy use to beat you with a Hello Kitty belt Your sister would give you wedgies and call you a dork She is so fat, she swallow's the food along with the fork Your rap skills are lacking and you know you are a fan of me You suck bad, like every female member of your family Kikiki leaches on anything he can grab on to So just your back on rap, like how your dad turned his back on you
Funny Rap Battle Challenge

Yo' wassup R Thinker ninety one nineteen These are 'bout to be the greatest burns that you eva' seen. There are very few things that can be so obscene As a man who publicly admits that he's a part of TruGreen I tried your services before, and they are pretty crap Almost as crap as your ability to rap. So erase all the lines that you wrote on your papers Cause your bars are just as good as your retarded landscapers. Truth is the cry of all, but game of the few, So better start crying 'cause it's game over for you.
Legally Raising The Minimum Wage In The US Is Pointless

You make a very strong argument, and I actually agree with you about the fact that the Government doesn't openly debate and address the issues of companies moving off-shore to take advantage of lower labour costs. Based on your arguments, you make a good point: would the minimum wage even matter if the most productive industries are being moved off-shore? That's a good question, and it seems that you've addressed this issue very deeply with clear analysis. It certainly gives me something to think about. I also recognize that the way to deal with the issue of companies moving off-shore can be quite contentious. Should the Government actually prevent companies from moving off-shore? This would be beneficial in reality, and the most effective means of achieving this would need to be done on a more global scale where the EU likewise prohibits companies from moving off-shore. Competition and the free-market have won out in this instant, and whilst we could hope and pray that Governments would do something like this, it's highly unlikely, and I think you realize this as well. Whilst the economy is in this shape, however, there is still the lingering issue of the minimum wage. As you rightly pointed out, business would, in theory, increase their prices to compensate for the increase in labor costs; and this is seen in countries with high minimum wages. I know from experience that prices can only be increased so much. In a competitive market, firms are competing with either other for markets, so there is an incentive for businesses to try and have as competitive a price as possible. Prices don't go up in accordance with wage growth, and neither does wage growth increase with cost of living prices. It's not that simple. What actually ends up happening is that businesses need to take more out of their bottom line in order to meet the increase cost of labor, and of course this affects how business-friendly a jurisdiction is, or why it's harder to succeed in some jurisdictions that others. The biggest blow is on small businesses, I admit. Ultimately, what drives prices down is competition, the effect of which is greater than labor costs. Supermarkets like Aldi, Lidl and Costco have entered high-wage markets and played a role in injecting competition into those markets to the extend that the former oligopolies have had to restructure their prices; and this has taken place despite the fact that the minimum wage is comparatively high.
Legally Raising The Minimum Wage In The US Is Pointless

The real question here should be, regardless of anything else, what effect the minimum wage has from a policy and macroeconomic perspective. Despite you argument, you have failed to address a simple point: what is the alternative to a minimum wage? I assume, based on your comments in the first part, that you advocate a market-based solution when determining the minimum wage, for the purpose of maintaining the profits of businesses in an ever-increasing competitive global economy. If your view is of the above, then you need to address the issue (which you didn't address in the first round) about the 'race to the bottom.' If there's no minimum wage, and we wish to have a market solution instead, how do we prevent the foregoing situation? You mentioned that the biggest issue is the lack of jobs, particularly in manufacturing. The fact is that there will always be unemployment, not to mention under-employment, and not to mention those who have given up looking for jobs. I agree that the more jobs there are, the better; but this isn't so clear-cut. Jobs for whom? University graduates? Construction workers? Waiters? It's not about the job, so much as it about the fact that 'work should pay'.
The Obama Care bill should NOT have been passed

You were really "fully shocked" to hear me say that this bill was not a decision open to the public? Did anyone go to the polls to vote on the Health Care Reform? Because if so, I clearly missed it (by the way, I would have voted 'yes'). The only thing the American people got to vote on was who we wanted to be our next President (Obama WON! :P ). This bill DOES NOT effect 100% of the American people. If you already have insurance, then you don't need this government health care. If you don't already have insurance and don't want "Obama Care", then go buy insurance! This bill is just for protecting those Americans that do not have or cannot afford insurance. How is that a bad thing? Because your taxes will help pay for this "Obama Care"? Very little of your taxes will go to this, and besides, your taxes already go towards things you might not approve of or want them to go to. Get over it. Lincoln is dead and has been for quite some time now. If he was alive today and repeated his comment, well, I'd kiss you. If you do not want to live in a country where the government "dictates" rules to the people blah, blah, blah...then move. How have you lasted the last 30 years in this country? Because there are laws left and right, all day long, telling Americans what they can or cannot do. That's why we have police, they help enforce the laws. "An interesting point in this bill is that some congress members and their staff will be exempt from participating in Obama care. (http://www.thefalseoswalds.com......) If this bill is so wonderful and if the voice of the American people should not heard, why is it that congress and their staff are not fully participating?!?" Nobody HAS to have this "Obama Care", as you call it. Go get Liberty National or Blue Cross. Maybe the folks in Congress can afford other insurance. If you can afford it, why would you get government health care? That's just stupid. "The fears you listed are well thought out and accurate for a number of people. Some you left out would include this bill costing the American people lots more money and putting our country even further in debt. It also will force the American public to actually purchase items from a private industry in order to be a citizen of the country without crime or punishment. The premiums will go up and this will not give incentive for people to live a healthier life and take better care of themselves because someone else will be paying for their mistakes." I thought I already explained this in R1? http://www.whitehouse.gov... "The information my opponent continue to promote show the gross exaggerations that are being rumored around the media. The truth is, this bill will actually cause an increase in taxes to the middle class. This bill will raise taxes on more than 40 million Americans (http://www.nrsc.org......). Experts agree that under Obama care, premiums will continue to climb. (http://www.buzzle.com......)" I believe you have that backwards. My source is http://www.whitehouse.gov... That's the WHITE HOUSE, not Fox News or buzzle.com Here's another one to look at: http://democrats.senate.gov...
The Obama Care bill should NOT have been passed

If the health care system has been 'broken' for 'quite some time', why is everyone freaking out because Obama is fixing it? President Obama has completed a task that had been worked on by seven Presidents before him. This reform was not a decision open to the public because it really doesn't matter what you think about it. People that are afraid of change always focus on the negative aspects. I don't quite understand people's negative outlook on this topic, though. Is it because they think it will change their choice of doctor? Is it because they think their coverage at work will change? Is it because they think their premiums will go up? Is it because they didn't get to vote on it? Is it because they've only heard half the story? Is it because they don't want to spend their taxes helping out the poor and 'lazy' (as I have heard from several people)? Or is it because you just really don't know how to feel about it? Health reform will make health care more affordable by promoting the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history, reducing premium costs for tens of millions of families and small business owners who are priced out of coverage today. This helps 32 million Americans afford health care who do not get it today-and makes coverage more affordable to many more. Under the plan, 95% of Americans will be insured. It sets up a new competitive health insurance market giving millions of Americans the same choices of insurance that members of Congress will have. It will end discrimination against Americans with pre-existing conditions. Have you ever been denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition? It's not good. And, it puts our budget and economy on a more stable path by reducing the deficit by more than $100 billion over the next 10 years by cutting government overspending and reining in waste, fraud, and abuse. Why are people scared of this?
The Obama Care bill should NOT have been passed

I would like to say a few words here before starting my opening argument. I respectfully request that only an American Citizen please join this debate on the 'con' side. I have nothing against view points from other countries on health care, but with a bill where American tax dollars are being used, I find it to be a more honest debate between two citizens directly effected. If I could have, I would have voted No to this bill and look forward to debating with someone who would have voted yes. (http://www.examiner.com...) Thank you. On to the topic: My contention is that the health care system in America is and has been broken for quite some time now. It is an important topic but not more important than our economy, jobs, etc. This bill was very politically motivated and rushed though without getting all the facts ahead of time. It is a simple case of throwing money after a problem and hoping some of it sticks. This plan will cost even more money than expected and will not cover ever single American. Health care reform is an important issue but there should have been a smaller and more controlled plan proposed rather than this monster overhaul of health care. Aside from this bill costing more money and putting America more in debt, there is also a problem in terms of the government controlling yet another aspect of American lives. The main argument against health care is against the insurance company, but this bill will effect the doctor's jobs far more than the insurance companies. Additionally, this bill has a lot of special exceptions and deals for certain people and states as well as additional government take-overs that are not related to health care. This alone makes this bill unfair for the American people as whole. Again, we need health care reform. Every American should have the right for some sort of basic coverage of their health. This plan does not do that, it is not opening a small door for the few uninsured to walk through and have some basic access. It is taking over the whole industry and making decisions for the industry which it has shown a very poor track record of doing in the past. It comes down to this simple point. If I had a vote on this exact bill, I would have voted NO. I welcome my opponent to share his or her thoughts on this issue next. Again, I request that my opponent be a citizen of the United States and is someone who would have voted Yes to this specific Obama Care bill. Thank you.
is killing few people in order to save many people wrong

Nelson Mandela killed 130 people during his time in the Umkhonto we Sizwe. A whole nation has now been saved. More people are happier, in peace, and more importantly, not suffering. By being inactive to preserve this morality, you are possibly letting people suffer, and you said "never", so inevitably letting people suffer. Life isn't quantitative, but the amount of people suffering is, and failing to stop more people from having the right to peace, to preserve this morality is the greater evil.
is killing few people in order to save many people wrong

It is never morally permissible to do evil that good may come of it. Human life does not have a quantitative but rather an absolute value. Every individual human being has an infinite dignity and value and so cannot be bartered or compared with others. An individual may give his life sacrificially for the life of others, but no one has the right to take a life, howevermany lives may be saved by this action.... fro all friends...this is my projact at my college..so please help me out ,wating
Tournament Debate: Gun Rights

I accept.I will just make a few clarifications for this debate:1. We are discussing whether we should tighten or restrict gun control (relative to the current degree in the USA), Pro does not need to argue for no restrictions on firearms and Con does not need to argue for total restrictions on firearms.2. BoP is shared.3. No semanticsIf Pro would like to dispute the above, then I invite him to PM me and I will consider the amendments.Over to you, Vox Veritas! :)
The US should authorize the construction of the Keystone XL crude oil pipeline.

Second round is constructive only (no rebuttals). Third round is constructive and rebuttals. Fourth round is rebuttals only (no new arguments). Fifth round is summary and impact weighing. Please keep content organized, appropriate, and respectful. Use correct grammar and spelling. Ad hominem will not be tolerated. A forfeit means a win for the other side. I will define in the second round and set up framework. Thanks, and good luck! -Lulu P. S. Feel free to leave constructive criticism in the comments. Voters, give reasons for your decision.
Animal Hunting should be banned

We will be able to prove it if we try to stop hunting, but we haven't tried. Thus we may never know. The animals that are currently on farms are not endangered, and that is why we have them there. I'm talking about animals that are highly endangered, and may go extinct before they are recognized. There are less than 700 Pangolins, there are less than 3,200 tigers left, and there are 29,000 Rhinos left today. These places to hike, bike, and more would still exist. You just deter the biggest, and more dangerous, animals from finding their way on to those areas. The funds generated for hunting help pay for these lands, then that means no real funds go towards more important things like schools, roads, and other public necessities that the U.S. government is always trying to find money for. Hunting, tracking, killing, and disturbing animals in Their environments is not a good step towards keeping endangered animals alive. The tiger is a predator that if it were not hunted, it would be able to expand its population. Biking is a sport, football is a sport, basketball is a sport, many more thing are sports. Hunting is killing. Killing is meant for survival, not for sport.