BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Straight marriage should be legal.

I HAVE THING TO SPEAK: I started trolling this debate because I thought the resolution was a bit ridiculous, but if you would like, Pro, I would start the debate over and properly debate you this time. I thought of a way I could argue this from the Con side. Only if you please, of course. Obviously I would appreciate it if voters either didn't vote or voted for tie because I want to redo this, but if you are a strict, straight-nose, bible-thumper, does-what-his-momma-told-'im, wad of a person that's cool too. Sorry I ruined your debate! :( Forgive me? :) (P.S. Did you really think my argument was funny? Yay)
Straight marriage should be legal.

Con is correct in that I have failed to include the definition for 'straight'. It was an outlandishly hilarious argument, though, and put a smile on my face, as I'm sure it did others. But since con has not provided arguments for me to rebuttal, this as far as I shall get, unfortunately. I will proceed to ask this same question with the exact same point point I had (save for adding a definition this time, of course) if you wanted to see where the argument would have gone...
Straight marriage should be legal.

Thank you for all your argumentations Pro. Only one problem. You didn't do definitions! No matter, I will take up this cross and provide some for are mutual benefit. DEFINTIONS:My opponent is a very clever man. He used a very complex coding system to try and trick me in this debate! Unfortunately for him my eye is quick and my wit is sharp, I did not fall for his vicious ploy. Behold:Straight: What do you think this means? Straight as in direction? As in sexual orientation. Nay. It utilizes a code almost impossible to detect. The code is as follows:A-NB-ZC-EbolaD-AmE-To BeF-ObamaG-FH-EI-IJ-CreamK-TL-THM-TheN-Central African RepulbicO-The number eP-NewfoundlandQ-8x squaredR-NS-JT-E (althought the second time it is used, it acts as an F)U-Ron PaulV-White Atheist Libertarian (Everyone on DDO)W-Why? X-Egg HelmetY-HAMASZ-Every other letterIf you decode the word 'straight' you will find it comes out to Jennifer. Very interesting. So what, this says Jennifer Marriage? That seems unlikely. Then, using my hacking and computer skills, I found a website created by my opponenent that clearly outlines another decoding device! Here is the link: . https://www.wwwdotcom.com...You can clearly see from this website that marriage=lawrence. Also interesting. Therefore. Straight marriage is code for Jennifer Lawrence. So the debate is Jennifer Lawrence should be legal. Hmm, this doesn't make any sense. Wait, I just figured it out. Maybe he forgot a space! Making this 'Jennifer Lawrence should be le gal. (My opponent is apparently a classy Frenchman! )Now to debate the topic at hand: Jennifer Lawrence should be le gal. Let me explain what le gal is. Le gal is a Svandish term for "the most good woman. " What determines a good woman? Well, in those times it was primarily beauty and reproductive capabilities. Now it means something more like beautiful, elgant, intelligent, and what have you. Now, my opponent is proposing that Jennifer Lawrence lives up to these expectations. No way! This is preposterous! Le gal must be a girl of ultimate beauty and elegance! No offense to Jennifer Lawrence, but she isn't LE GAL. Just look at this scandelous picture! Jeez, Jennifer! That is unbecoming of you! You are clearly not le gal. Just look at her strange eyes. And her distorted, bird-like cheekbones. And her weird little perky chin. She still has baby fat. Not le gal material, that's for sure. And this one: Jennifer Lawrence is a troll! Note the strange down-turned grin and the eyes that are larger than a frightened bull frog. And her chin fat. It is all bunched up. Material for le gal? I don't think so. Who would be a worthy le gal then? Well, I have a few examples. .. Debatability:This girl would make a fine le gal. Just take a look at this picture: Daaaammm! Yu fine grl! Jus look a tha bod! OOOOOOHHH! Need I say more? AngelofDeath: Awww! It's a kitty! In a pile of marshmallows! That is beautiful! That is elegant! That is the definition of le gal! Fabulous! Character limit reached.
Straight marriage should be legal.

Excuse spelling please as I just broke my dominant arm, and am typing rather slowly. On to the debate. I believe straight marriage should be legal because (1) it is natural for a man and woman to be together. From the beginning of civilization they have been wanting to be mutually connected or, in today's terms, married. 2. Deducting from genitalia and genitalia functions, one can see how a man and woman should be together as well. One would one be eliminating the obvious normal connection otherwise. And if it was illegal and looked down upon by society in the future, where would children come from? A man and woman would feel shamed for having intercourse and possibly a baby. So, in conclusion, I believe straight marriage should be legal.
We Shouldn't have homework!

I agree. Debates are awesome! In formal debate, titles are preferred over names. Thus, I have chosen to refer to you as "Pro". I appreciate your anecdote. The classwork you have to suffer through is deplorable, but it is not reflective of good homework. As you said, "The worksheet is not homework in any case, it is just classwork." Now, if classwork is truly the problem, why are you abolishing homework? That's called a non sequitur (i.e. logical fallacy) But, as I have consistently maintained, good homework exists and ought not be abolished. Maybe your school is simply dysfunctional when it comes to assigning proper homework? Even so, one grievance is hardly enough to merit the abolition of all homework in all schools across Earth. After all, I would submit that many student actually learn from good homework. In short, your experience is irrelevant compared to the myriad of other experiences. That said, I have shown the value of good homework and have discredited the significance of your anecdote. No, you will not be able to provide additional evidence because Round 3 is already over. Thanks for the debate; let the voters now decide! - Mr. Speaker
We Shouldn't have homework!

I love debates, ever since I read the Theodore Boone series, but it's weird to have someone refer to me as 'Pro' .... Just call me Dragon! Anyway, homework is a waste, what value does it hold??? I mean we sit there for 7 hours at a desk... My teachers generally try to avoid giving homework, but my math teacher gives us more than we can handle. Being a doer-learner, when she basically sits there and solves the problem and asks us if we got it wrong, I don't have the opportunity to actually DO anything. Therefore, when she assigns homework, I have NO IDEA how to do it. When we go over it in class the next day, she gets mad at me for not understanding it. The worksheet is not homework in any case, it is just classwork. However, I have never been homeschooled, so I have lots of problems with certain things my parent's can't help me with. This is all I can provide right now, my laptop is about to die. I will provide more evidence in round 3.
We Shouldn't have homework!

This is why I love debates! Arguing over something! Yay! Anyway, These websites are where I found my evidence. http://www.livescience.com... http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org... http://www.alfiekohn.org... While it is true kids would rather avoid their families, most kids have parental time limits on their computer, making it so that they can only be on it for a short period of time. Their parents then make them come have family time. I am a middle schooler, and I am one of those kids with a short attention span. It is SO HARD to concentrate, when you have a sibling running around the house screaming. Even when she's not around I still have trouble concentrating. I have to take a break and play a video game, or ride my bike before I go back to it. I myself am a doer-learner. I was in enriched math last year and I am in standard this year. This means I already know how to do the things my teacher is teaching. Generally, I have already finished the worksheet and have to wait for everyone else to catch up. I don't know where you do/went to school but we waste time checking it in class. This is just from where I have grown up, but I have found it to be generally the same. We never have homework that lasts more than one night, the ones that do take more than one night, we call those projects, and they are usually due separate from homework to be entered in a contest. This is why homework is not needed.
The Supreme Court Proceedings Should Be Televised

First, I would like to state my narrowing. I would like to narrow this topic to state supreme courts, because it is already favored by 34 out of the 50 states. Now I would like to state my plan. Supreme court proceedings will be only on cable, on a pay per view basis, 5 dollars per proceeding. This will go to governmental funding. Also, supreme court proceedings will only be directly televised if there is direct permission from the people in the room. If there is no permission, names will be changed, and faces will be blurred. Now I would like to state my points. First, these proceedings play a huge role in people's lives, and if we want, we can know what is going on. This will increase political awareness, which many people need. According to c-span.org, 5 out of the 9 Supreme Court Justices say that the supreme court proceedings should be televised. Politics affects everyone in the United States. In a positive or negative way, it determines everything important in the world. Secondly, Supreme Court Proceedings should be televised because it can be used for educational purposes. People in law business can use this for real world examples. According to the University of Pennsylvania, the use of media for education is strongly encouraged. This is an added bonus for education. Judges will know this is for education. Therefore, they will not be pressured by people on television watching them. Lastly, the televising of the supreme court proceedings abides by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. The first amendment states that there is a right of press, and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or the press"- The Constitution. Televising the supreme court proceedings is still within the limits of the law. Therefore, it is of extreme importance that the citizens of the United States have the right to view state supreme court proceedings. Now I would like to go over my points. First, viewing the supreme court proceedings plays a very important role in our lives. Second, these proceedings can be used for educational purposes. Lastly, supreme court proceedings should be televised because it is within the limits of our law. Our forefathers of the United States.....237 years ago.........had a vision......that one day......people would be allowed......to view supreme court proceedings on television. Thank you.
Theism is a Superior Wordview to the Belief in atheist Dogma:

The belief in God in the way that Pro has described it is logically impossible. Argument 1 - Pro claims that God is loving of all humans. However, how can one believe that God is loving in the world in which we live? Every day, people are tortured in the Middle East. People are killed for things such as their sexuality or their religion. Women are oppressed, and many countries are at war with each other and terrorist groups such as ISIS. In addition, many babies are born with irreparable birth defects, such as anencephaly (1). These babies will die soon after they are born, despite having never committed any wrong action. Are these babies loved by God? Does God show his love through vicious murder? God is omnipotent. This means that, at any time, God could stop all of these horrible things from happening. However, instead, he chooses to watch them happening and do nothing about them. A truly benevolent God would never do such things. Rebuttal 1 - Pro also claims that "it is impossible for any entity to be the source for any quality unless it possesses that quality itself." However, this is clearly false. Pro gives the examples of "intellectual phenomena such as logic or reason" as things that cannot be created by something that does not possess them itself. However, the basic laws of physics prove this to be false. The first unicellular organisms had no "logic or reason". However, as unicellular organisms evolved, they became more and more complex. Eventually, neuron cells developed. As neural networks expanded, they allowed for complex chains of electric impulses to be sent through an organism. Once you achieve a sufficiently astronomical number of neurons, such as the 100 billion in the human brain (2), logic and reason are perfectly possible. The argument of "something from nothing" is, so far, the only argument that Pro has presented. Since I have refuted it and presented my own argument of benevolence in such an awful world, I have sufficiently proved that Theism is not a superior worldview. Sources: (1) https://www.cdc.gov... (2) https://faculty.washington.edu...
Theism is a Superior Wordview to the Belief in atheist Dogma:

Regarding the atheistic inability to apprehend certain facts about God's position as the source for existence, it is impossible for any entity to be the source for any quality unless it possesses that quality itself. No food that contains no iron, for example, can possibly be a source of iron. Similarly, no entity that contains no personal characteristics, no intellectual phenomena such as logic or reason, no love, and no life of its own, three qualities that the atheist believes the universe lacked at some point, could possibly be the source of such qualities in any other entity, regardless of how comparatively small or large that entity is. The believer in atheist Dogma believes that the universe is the source, however, and that belief is 100% illogical. We are faced with the following two mutually exclusive world-views: 1. We Theists understand that God is the Original Archetype, or source, for all observable phenomena, including intellectual phenomena, such as reason and logic, and emotional phenomena, such as love. He is infinitely complete with eternal life of His own, and He possesses both personal and impersonal characteristics, as well as love, eternally. This is a logically sound account for life, for logic and reason, for love, and for all personal and impersonal observable phenomena. 2. The believer in atheist Dogma believes that God is not the original personal archetype. Instead, the atheist attributes this role, using varying semantic constructs, to "the universe." Unfortunately, the universe that the atheist claims supposedly gave rise to life, logic, reason, love, and all personal characteristics was, according to the believer in atheist Dogma, supposedly devoid of all these phenomena at some unspecified time that he theorizes is prior to the hypothetical advent of such phenomena. The atheistic claim is logically unsound when it comes to accounting for clearly observable life, clearly observable intellectual phenomena such as logic and reason, clearly observable love, and clearly observable personal phenomena. CONCLUSION: Therefore, we Theists' world-view is logically superior to that of the believer in atheist Dogma, and any truly unbiased and logically savvy party must necessarily accept this fact. Lack of scriptural or logical refutation of these facts shows acceptance by any and all who post in this thread.
Theism is a Superior Wordview to the Belief in atheist Dogma:

FULL STOP: "The "belief in God" which you have specified is comprised of the word "Theism" " Actually, you are right about that: I used the wrong word for what I was trying to describe, and you correctly called me out on it. I was not expecting that, and I have to congratulate you for your acumen. Because this point is so central to my argument, and because you have truly crushed me on this point, and I have no counter-argument to your statement regarding belief in God, I honestly have no choice but to forfeit this entire debate to you: You win! =) I repeat -- you win this debate. What I will do, however, is re-word my argument, fixing it so that it does not include any explicit or implicit reference to any "belief in God," because I actually have no beliefs. After I re-word my argument, I will start a brand-new, different debate, which will be along the same general lines, except without the word "Theism." I will upload the edited version as soon as the site authorizes my account to upload another debate challenge (probably later today, or perhaps early tomorrow morning). I also have to congratulate you for making me realize that I am not a Theist -- which comes as a bit of a shock to me -- because, as you implied, being a Theist would entail holding a belief of some sort, which I definitely do not. I have been referring to myself as a Theist for decades, but I was wrong about that all along! Thank you for your correction of my error, and congratulations on being the only person on this site (so far) who has actually been able to defeat me in a debate! Please watch for my updated version, which will most likely be uploaded later today, or perhaps early tomorrow morning. The new one will be undefeatable, actually, so please stay tuned! It has truly been a pleasure debating you -- and losing! Maybe, if you're willing, we can debate again some time. =)
Theism is a Superior Wordview to the Belief in atheist Dogma:

Someone wrote: "The belief in God in the way that Pro has described it is logically impossible. I have not described any supposed "belief in God," so that is nothing but a straw man logical fallacy on your part. "Argument 1 - Pro claims that God is loving of all humans." No I didn't, so that is a second straw man on your part. "Every day, people are tortured in the Middle East." Without God, torture could not be objectively wrong. " People are killed for things such as their sexuality or their religion." Without God, killing could not be objectively wrong. " Women are oppressed, and many countries are at war with each other and terrorist groups such as ISIS." Without God, oppression, war, and terrorism could not be objectively wrong. " In addition, many babies are born with irreparable birth defects, such as anencephaly (1)." Without God, being born with a birth defect could not be an objectively bad thing. " These babies will die soon after they are born" Without God, dying soon after birth could not be an objectively bad thing. "Are these babies loved by God?" Yes. "Does God show his love through vicious murder?" No. "God is omnipotent." You are correct about that -- thank you for your agreement and support, and God bless you! " However, instead, he chooses to watch them happening and do nothing about them." No he doesn't. "Rebuttal 1 - Pro also claims that "it is impossible for any entity to be the source for any quality unless it possesses that quality itself."" Thank you for actually quoting me correctly, for just this once, instead of dishonestly strawmannirg me, as you did above. " However, this is clearly false." No it isn't. " Pro gives the examples of "intellectual phenomena such as logic or reason" as things that cannot be created by something that does not possess them itself." No I didn't, so that is yet another straw man logical fallacy on your part. "However, the basic laws of physics prove this to be false." No they don't. " The first unicellular organisms had no "logic or reason". However, as unicellular organisms evolved, they became more and more complex." No they didn't. " Eventually, neuron cells developed." No they didn't. "The argument of "something from nothing" is, so far, the only argument that Pro has presented." I did not present such an argument, no: That is yet another straw man logical fallacy on your part. "I have sufficiently proved that Theism is not a superior worldview." No you haven't. You lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
Music Censorship

Yes, that may be what the artist feels - but what if somebody listens to lyrics and acts on what it's advocating? Many people wish to live the lifestyles of their favorite artists; they change their styles, they change their personalities, and they can alter their beliefs if they wish to live like their favorite star. Can't this put certain groups in danger if song lyrics advocate for their harm? Therefore, simply turning the channel or changing the song does not solve the problem if your life is put into danger. Now, you say that, originally, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" was "Life, Liberty, and Property." I don't see how this changes anything; if it was edited for the Declaration, it must mean that the founding fathers wanted a specific emphasis on this subject. It's not a matter of changing the channel to listen to what you want and to shut out what you don't agree with. If songs advocate for violence against anyone, than it is putting their physical condition and safety in danger. If we have a right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" why is it right to put people in fear by advocating violence against them?
Music Censorship

Correct, that's all true as well. No one is forcing anyone to listen to any type of music. As for me, I couldn't tell you any lyrics from any Metallica, SlipKnot, KISS, or Jay Z song all because I don't like the style of music and I don't like what they believe in. So, if I was a homosexual, I probably wouldn't listen to songs bashing what I believe in. If the song would have lyrics "advocating the lynching of a black man, or bashing of a homosexual", then that is just what the artist feels. For example, I am a Christian and I believe in ONE god and I do not agree with Kayne West saying in a song "I just talked to Jesus." and saying "I am a God". So, because of him saying all of that and going against my belief's, I will not listen to his music because he believes in something I do not. Furthermore, the original quote was "Life, Liberty, and Property", by John Locke and it was later replaced to "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" in the Declaration of Independence. For the record, I do not think Kayne is a god, what so ever.
Music Censorship

Yes, that's very true. The main reason, though, for censorship is to protect groups of people prone to violence. If a song has a lyric advocating the lynching of a black man, or the bashing of a homosexual, than they would live their lives in fear. According the Declaration of Independence, we shall have "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." If you have to live your life in fear as a result of offensive, violent music, your right to the "pursuit of happiness" is being obstructed.
Music Censorship

We are speaking about the government controlling what we hear in music, such as the FCC. It is a parents job to control what their kids are involved in, not the government's; however, unless parents make their kids live in a bubble and never associate with people, their kids WILL hear profanity and vulgar language and everything that the FCC and other government organizations are trying to block out from people. I go to school every day and hear the F bomb dropped several times a day plus I hear people talk about their girl friend or boyfriend and what they done over the weekend. I personally don't want to hear it but I CAN'T censor it out, and neither can anyone else.