BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage

Reproduction has nothing to do with the state granting marriage licenses. Many couples are incapable of having children or simply choose not to, and yet they are still granted marriage rights. Whatever the state's "interest" in granting marriage licenses may be, procreation is not an acceptable term of condition for allowing marriage in today's modern society. To do so would be state-sanctioned discrimination, which would be a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause, as well as a violation of common sense. The state DOES, however, have an interest in promoting loving, committed relationships that provide a strong family support system in which to raise children. Married gay couples provide an excellent community service by adopting, caring for, and raising the unwanted children created by irresponsible heterosexuals. And research shows that children raised by gay parents are every bit as successful in education as children raised by heterosexuals. [1] In fact, studies show that the only major difference is that children raised by gay parents tend to be more tolerant and open-minded. [2] Therefore, a logical person has to conclude that while granting marriage licenses to gays may not result in procreation among the involved partners, it will result in an equally loving, supportive and beneficial environment for children comparable to families headed by heterosexual parents. At one time marriage did not include blacks, however that has since changed as society evolved. Similarly, the definition of marriage has changed to include gays as well. To say that marriage is defined as one man and one woman is inaccurate as the definition has changed in many states and countries around the world. Denying gay marriage is based on identity, not conduct, and is an act of targeted discrimination based on who they are and how others assume they live. [3] Granting marriage rights to heterosexuals, while denying them to gays, simply based on the fact that they are different, is unconstitutional and a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause since both race and sexual orientation are a basis for minority group status in the United States and each constitute a master status. [4] Refusing marriage rights to gays is the equivalent of denying blacks the right to marry. Opposing gay marriage on the assertion that gays somehow don't fulfill the state's interest in child rearing is simply illogical. As homosexuals are just as capable of raising children as are heterosexuals, there is no legitimate reason to prohibit same-sex marriage. [1] http://news.stanford.edu... [2] Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience [3] Suzanne Goldberg, JD, Clinical Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, on PublicEye.org [4] "Race and Sexual Orientation" University of California
Gay Marriage

Homosexuals, like heterosexuals, neither chose their sexual orientation, nor should they be denied the same legal rights heterosexuals enjoy simply because they were born different from what is considered "the norm." Every respectable scientific organization in the world, including the American Psychological Association, says that sexual orientation is connected to biological factors and cannot be changed. Just as it is wrong to deny legal rights to blacks, women, and people born left-handed, so too is wrong to deny gay couples the legal equality and benefits that come with marriage. Opponents of gay rights are quick to point out how the Bible says homosexuality is "an abomination." However, in the time the Bible was written, an abomination simply meant "out of the ordinary." Since the Bible does not clearly condemn homosexuality, it cannot logically be used as a weapon against gays. Even IF the Bible did condemn homosexuality, gays would still be entitled to the same rights and protections granted to straight couples under the laws of the United States because of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Any attempts to outlaw or prevent gay marriage are unconstitutional since America is not a theocracy, but rather a Constitutional Republic, where the majority never decides the rights of minorities. This was made very clear on February 7, 2012 when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declared California's voter-approved ban on gay marriage (CA proposition 8) unconstitutional as it violated the Equal Protection Clause. As you can see, there is absolutely no acceptable religious or legal reason why homosexuals should not be granted the same marriage rights and privileges enjoyed by heterosexuals.
Gun control

Thank you for starting this debate. I have ten minutes to argue as you have set it. Gun Control does not mean getting rid of guns. Control means to exercise restraint or direction over. Would you be alright with a murder being allowed to buy a gun? The outright banning of guns would be bad in the situations you listed. Also getting rid of Gun control would be allowing a child to buy a gun. This would cause chaos in the world. In the end, there would be more harm than good. In this world we must have order; we cannot just allow anyone to get a gun. I thank my opponent for this debate and thank the audience also. Vote Pro Sources: (1). http://dictionary.reference.com...
Gun control

The use of Gun control is against the second amendment, whereas it states; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " (As told by ucla.edu) I will prove my case through two main ideals; Security and Safety First, I will discuss why security is a contributing factor to a nations welfare. If, during war time, the United states was invaded, it would be required for a civil defence, to maintain personal security and for defensive Gurriela warfare. Second, I will discuss my second value, safety. The use of firearms has been used in defense against another american in the past, when your life is in dangered, it may become required to use lethal force, in order to save yourself.
The Most Prolific Purveyor of Human Misery in History: The Insidious Evil of Christianity

First I would like to apologize as I usually do not log on to debate.org on the weekends as I do not have much time to do so. As such this will be not as well thought out or thourough as I would like.Part 1: Burden of Proof.A: The following is taken from the New Member Orientation. "The burden of proofBe aware that there are least four theories as to who has the burden of proof:1. Whoever is Pro.2. Whoever instigated the debate.3. Whoever wants a change in the status quo.4. There is no burden of proof. Whoever makes the better argument wins."Often 1, 2, and 3 are the same person, but not always.. 4 is usually only favored by novice debaters. Sometimes a debater calls himself Con, but is clearly the proponent of the resolution."(1)In this debate Pro meets the criteria of 1 and 2. It behooves my opponent to recognize that he holds the burden of proof.B: The resolution reads “Misery is a state of being, and no other single institution, nation or regime can match the totality of physical suffering, psychological damage and destruction of life caused directly or indirectly by Christianity.”Misery: Pro seems to have defined misery as “physical suffering, psychological damage and destruction of life.”Pro must fill the burden of proof demanded by the resolution. This burden includes 1: Showing that Christianity causes misery as he defined it.2: That Christianity has done so more than any single institution, nation or regime.If Pro does not meet this burden the resolution falls. This is a huge burden of proof to fill.I apologize but this is all the time I have. I will respond to my opponents round 2 and three next round as I am out of time. Thanks for you patience.(1) http://www.debate.org...
The Most Prolific Purveyor of Human Misery in History: The Insidious Evil of Christianity

Resolution: Misery is a state of being, and no other single institution, nation or regime can match the totality of physical suffering, psychological damage and destruction of life caused directly or indirectly by Christianity. Pro will argue in support of the resolution.Con will argue against the resolution. There are no restrictions placed on either debater as to methodology, other than staying within the parameters of the resolution. Claims of 'good works' are not relevant to this debate ... i.e. tying a man to a stake and burning him alive is not balanced out by providing a meal for 50 people. Round 1. is acceptance.Rounds 2, 3, are unrestricted other than noted above. Round 4. final rebuttal/close.
The term "Assault Weapon" is a liberal media created scare tactic.

Claims: 1. The term "Assault Weapon" is a term created by the liberal media to scare the general public into believing it's ultimate hidden agenda (gun bans). 2. The classification of a "Assault Weapon" is flawed and is based on looks and "scary features" instead of actual firearm capabilities. Rebuttal: 1. There are two major faults with this statement. a) The first is that "Assault Weapon" is a term made up as a scare tactic. The opposite is actually the case. Gun manufacturers and sellers originated the term. Eventually gun restrictionists picked up the term. b) Your arguement assumes that all liberals are for gun restriction. Speaking for myself and many liberals I know, I am all for gun rights in their entirety. The second amendment clearly protects that right. 2. This statement is correct for the most part. "Assault Weapon" does classify looks and features, but does not have the negative connotation (scary) that my opponent claims. After all, the term was originated as a way to sell weapons, not ban them.
The term "Assault Weapon" is a liberal media created scare tactic.

I propose the following arguments. 1. The term "Assault Weapon" is a term created by the liberal media to scare the general public into believing it's ultimate hidden agenda (gun bans). 2. The classification of a "Assault Weapon" is flawed and is based on looks and "scary features" instead of actual firearm capabilities. The purpose of this debate is to prove/disprove the concept of the "Assault Weapon". Good luck!
The term "Assault Weapon" is a liberal media created scare tactic.

I will attempt to make this short. Claims: 1. "[I]f the media uses guests to push their own agenda, then those guests are as much a part of the media as the people on the payroll." 2. Cre - ate. 5. ..."to give rise to" Rebuttal: 1. This is just blatantly untrue. There is nothing supporting this 'fact', and there can not possibly be anything to support this 'fact' because it is simply untrue. Suppose that the media used John McCain's words against him, or against conservatism. No one would then say that John McCain was a part of the liberal media. However, the 'liberal media' used their guest (John McCain) to push their own agenda. My opponent used a quote by Michael Gardner, President of NBC News (among others). Does that mean that Michael Garner is a part of the aaronr8684 media? Of course not, even though he used Mr. Gardner to push his (my opponent's) agenda (proving a liberal media created "Assault Weapon"). 2. The definition (5) in this context clearly means to give rise to as if from a beginning. Here is the definition of 'give rise to' and its source: "give rise to something to cause something to exist. Her experiences have given rise to the passion she expresses in her poetry. Stem cells produce more cells of the same kind — liver stem cells give rise to liver cells, skin stem cells give rise to skin, and so on. Related vocabulary: give birth to something" (Source: The Free Dictionary, Idioms, http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com...) Conclusion: It is quite clear that the statement presented by my opponent is proven to be false: "The term "Assault Weapon" is a term created by the liberal media to scare the general public into believing it's ultimate hidden agenda (gun bans)." The term "Assault Weapon" was created (given rise to [as if from the beginning]) by Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center. My opponent readily concedes that this is the case and the argument should end there, since the Violence Policy Center is not affiliated with the media. Instead, he contends that the fact that someone's arguement or terminology is picked up by the media to advance their agenda makes the original person a part of the media. This is very obviously not true. Despite having sources for many arguments (some irrelevent), he does not provide any for this last and crucial point. The day clearly belongs to CON.
The term "Assault Weapon" is a liberal media created scare tactic.

Claims: 1. We should debate the existence of a liberal biased media, or the existence of a conservative media in another debate. 2. Concedes that Josh Sugarmann isn't paid by the news media. 3. Just because someone is not on the payroll of the media, does not mean they are not part of them. 4. Alters the meaning of the word 'create' 5. The media "gave rise to" the use of "Assault Weapon" in the main stream media and in the public" Note: This debate is about whether the 'liberal media' 'created' the term "Assault Weapon" as a scare tactic, not whether they used the term as a scare tactic. Rebuttal: 1. Agreed. I'll allow you to draw up the debate guidelines if you wish. 2. Agreed. Josh Sugarmann is not on the payroll of the media. 3. With this definition, then George W. Bush is part of the media; John McCain is part of the media; and anyone else who goes onto the media to express his/her opinion, including gun rights advocates. This is, quite simply, not an accurate definition. The various parts of the media choose what and who to report. Simply being on, or having your views used on the media does not make you a part of the media. 4. 'Create', as defined by Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com... transitive verb 1: to bring into existence 2 a: to invest with a new form, office, or rank b: to produce or bring about by a course of action or behavior 3: cause, occasion 4 a: to produce through imaginative skill b: design intransitive verb 1: to make or bring into existence something new 2: to set up a scoring opportunity in basketball Clearly, 'create' means to begin, not to give rise to. 5. My opponent is correct, the media gave rise to the term "Assault Weapon". However, that is an entirely different question. "If I asked people who created the automobile assembly line, most if not all would say "Henry Ford" when in fact it was "Ransom Olds (Oldsmobile)". Don't believe me? Ask a couple people around you. That is because he took an original concept and expanded it so much that people assumed he created it and in a sense, he did." That does not mean that Henry Ford 'created' the assembly line, he merely picked up the idea and ran with it, as did the media with the term "Assault Weapon". The fact that people incorrectly attribute the creation of the assembly line to Ford does not mean that Ransom Olds was not factually the creator. Conclusion: There are too many rounds in this debate. I have clearly proven, with the help of my opponent, that the term "Assault Weapon" was in fact NOT created by the liberal media, but by Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center. This is the only fact necessary to prove that the term was not originated in the liberal media.
The term "Assault Weapon" is a liberal media created scare tactic.

I will only use this round to make a couple of statements and ask a couple questions of my opponent. My opponent assumes that a 'biased liberal media' in fact exists, despite no evidence supporting this assumption. There is an equally biased portion of the media with a 'conservative agenda'. However, this is not the topic on which we are debating. If my opponent wishes to shift topics that is alright with me, so long as he concedes the question at hand first. He may also open another debate on the existence of a 'Liberal media' with no existence of a 'Conservative media' and we can debate both. Putting them both in the same debate is too confusing, and facts for one do not support the other. Claims: All my opponent has done is attempt to prove that 'some' news is biased toward gun control. Rebuttal: This does not change the fact that the man who coined the term, Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center, is not affiliated with the media. Conclusion: Since the man who coined the term is not affiliated with the media, it cannot be said that "the term 'Assault Weapon' is a term created by the liberal media to scare the general public into believing it's ultimate hidden agenda (gun bans)." because it was instead coined by a separate organization with the not so hidden agenda of gun control.
The term "Assault Weapon" is a liberal media created scare tactic.

Claims: 1. The term was actually coined by Josh Sugarmann from the Violence Policy Center. 2. Pro-gun liberals make up a small minority of liberals. 3. [Original contention] The term "Assault Weapon" is a term created by the liberal media to scare the general public into believing it's ultimate hidden agenda (gun bans). Rebuttal: 1. I must concede this point due to a lack of readily available and reliable sources suggesting otherwise. 2. I counter that 'gun control liberals' do not make a majority of liberals, they are merely the loudest on this issue. Most liberals either support gun rights or have no opinion on this subject. 3. The person you cite as having coined the term, Josh Sugarmann belongs to the Violence Policy Center, which is an organization unaffiliated with the media. Therefore it is not part of 'liberal media' conspiracy to advance a hidden agenda (gun control). I challenge my opponent to produce evidence of his allegations that a 'liberal media' has a 'hidden agenda' for gun control.
The Browns clearly will not win a single game for the rest of the season.

They did not get whomped I watched the game they had a drive at the end of the game where they could have scored and were around the 10 yard line. And this team with a losing record that you talk about has a 2 time super bowl champion qb and the best rb in the league and the best wr in the league ao do not try and play them off as a bad team. You state that their chances of losing out are 15% so how can you say that they are clearly going to lose out? You just unraveled you own argument. Also they may have a decent chance of facing a team week 16 or 17 that has clinched a playff spot so it is resting its starters allowing them to win with ease.
The Browns clearly will not win a single game for the rest of the season.

You are right on that, but the Browns just got whomped by a team with a losing record! Also, they lost to 3 other teams that currently have losing records and 4 times against teams that currently have even records (same amount of wins and losses). Their chance of losing all 16 games has risen sharply, now about 15%, which this figure was about 3% just two weeks ago. But all of their opponents are playoff contenders, except for the Chargers, so these teams will play as best as they can to win their games. All of these teams are better than the Browns anyway, and they all have better rosters. You are right that an upset can happen at any game, but when a heavy underdog that is over by 15 or more points is playing, that team only wins about 5% of the time in the NFL. This underdog winning percentages are much lower in the NFL than in, say, the NHL. You're right that it's not clear yet if the Browns will lose every single game, but they have a very good chance.
The Browns clearly will not win a single game for the rest of the season.

Your source is outdated and the newest one has the bengals as the team they are most likely to beat, especially now that AJ Green is out for the season. Also you are not accounting for the fact that in sports upsets happen. The Browns lowest chance of winning is against the bills at 10.7 percent, but that bills team got beat up by the 3-7 jets and gave up 374 yards to Ryan Fitzpatrick who is now benched. Also upsets happen when you least expect them, take last year in the NCAA tournament. Michigan State the 2 seed was beaten in the first round by Middle Tennessee, which was picked in .5% of brackets. So the Browns are not "clearly" going to win a single game this season.
The Browns clearly will not win a single game for the rest of the season.

The Browns do have a chance to beat the Bengals and the Chargers, as they are not doing very well, either. But still, the Browns are dead last in the NFL rankings, and the Chargers and Bengals have still won 4 and 3 games, respectively. The Browns have an under 50% chance to win every upcoming game. The Giants, who the Browns are most likely to beat, with an under 35% chance, are posting a winning record, and the Steelers just blew the crap out of the Browns. The Browns' second most likely win is against the Bengals, and even so, the Bengals have a much better roster. In the game against the Chargers, the quarterback should do a lot better on the road, and the Chargers were 3-2 in their last 5 games. The Bills have an excellent defense, and the Steelers have beat the Browns their more than 5th consecutive time. That was the breakdown for why the Browns will lose every matchup. http://www.bettingsports.com... http://www.nfl.com...
Supporters of gay marriage and homosexuality are on the wrong side of history

I didn't present an argument, I posed a question. You still have burden of proof, having to show how "homosexual behaviour" is bad for people. I'm assuming you are speaking of anal sex, but that's not an issue with women in homosexual relationships and there are plenty of gay men who don't practice anal sex as well. It's also not uncommon for heterosexual couples to practice anal sex, and the health risks are not smaller for them. If you are speaking of some other aspect, please explain what you mean. My question was, if we can't discourage people from being homosexual, people are homosexual in Iran despite risking hangings, why discriminate against them? If there is any adverse effect of gay marriage, or simply acknowledging homosexuality exists, you need to show what those effects are.
Supporters of gay marriage and homosexuality are on the wrong side of history

Your entire argument is a red herring fallacy. You are arguing against a claim that I did not make. I didn't mention anything about gays not being around. I didn't say gays will not be in certain geographical locations. my argument is, the human anatomy does not sit well with homosexual behavior so therefore, supporting a high health risk behavior will fall on the wrong side of history. it's like embracing incest before knowing the health complications of incest or ignoring the health complications of incest.
Rapist should be given death penalty

Rebutals for your statements 1. Raping is a cruel and detrimental action from which the victim will experience hard time to eliminate the thought after being raped. He or she(the victim), therefore, will mentally be ill and their mind is destructed. so, he or she is just like a living corpse. compared to the effect of murder, raping has more detrimental effects, because murder only takes away one's life and after that it is done. 2. By conducting death penalty, there will no be more rapists. because they have known the consequence of raping. 3. As I mentioned earlier, rapists action is unforgivable this is the equal punishment for them because of the detrimental effects, such as being barren, suffering serious disease (HIV, AIDS for example). the victim will mentally suffer even though he or she can physically be cured. 4. What if your daughter for example is a rape victim. what is "just" punishment for the rapist?? What is just for you? I am convinced that you could say could " DEATH SENTENCE".