BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage

Thank you for your response, Pro.Firstly, I would like to point out that these hypothetical five men would be producing that much sperm over a lifetime. A lifetime is a very long time. Would it not be problematic if there are more lesbians/bisexuals overwhelming the number of sperm that men produce over a few months? There are about 158.3 million women in the United States (1), and like you said, Pro, 2% of the women are lesbian/bisexual. However, this 2% is still too large for the very few numbers of men all around the sperm banks. Let me just set up a mathematical proportion to display the problem of the sperm donation argument. So, how would 5 out of 100 men (counting all the sperm banks) be able to satisfy the demands of about this many women in the entire nation? Remember, this is considering that 5 out of 100 men only make 2,625,000,000,000 sperm over a lifetime. I repeat, would it not be problematic if the number of lesbians/bisexuals wanting sperm donations overwhelm the number of sperm cells (keep in mind that it takes many sperm cells to penetrate an egg)? As I previously said, the screening process could take from weeks to months for the donors to pass the test. Are the lesbians going to wait for the 5% of the applicants to donate more sperm? Yes, Pro, I am saying that preventing homosexuals from gay marriage benefits them. This is because gay marriage would open up the pathway for more depression, regardless of the levels of tolerance in the social environments. I think it is absolutely okay for me to be saying that they should not be allowed to marry. I know they have done nothing to hurt me, but that is not relevant. The point here is that our society should not be brought down because of their "love" concerns. If you are still sticking to that opinion, then again, I say that you are exaggerating your stance. Are they somewhat mentally demented and incapable of reasoning? Also, I have indeed said that homosexuality is a danger to society. However, not tolerating a lifestyle is different from not tolerating a person. One could tolerate a drug addict, but still hate the drug-addict lifestyle. To sum it up, homosexuality must be dispproved (not homosexual people, but the lifestyle) because of the increased depression, substance abuse, and the potential danger it poses to society. I must point out that Con has dropped a lot of points. In fact, he never answered my question about the validity of pedophilia. The G-spots are there in the anuses of males for the purpose of stimulation. However, that does not have to lead to anal sex. A man could have his spouse stimulate the spot by fingering it to intensify sexual activities (2). Please do keep in mind that I did not answer the previous questions because they were directed to the voters, not me.Once again, I would like to thank Con for this debate. Sources:1. http://www.infoplease.com...2. http://www.askmen.com...
Gay Marriage

I believe that people who take an extremist stance against a group of people who have done absolutely nothing to them is some what mentally demented and incapable of reasoning. Christianity considers homosexuality a sin which I'm assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) is the only reason that you, GOP, are against gay marriage; because of your faith. But let's put religion aside for a moment and think of the actual consequences of a homosexual couple getting married. If you think about it, it's very similar to a heterosexual marriage. The only difference is that two people of the same gender are getting married rather than a man and a woman. Love is love and can come in all shapes and forms. It has in fact been scientifically proven that people who are gay were born that way and that it is in their genetics. Psychologists also report that therapy to try and convert a gay person into being straight only makes the patient feel even more insecure about their sexuality and does more bad than good. Gay marriage being legalized only has one significant consequence; gay people getting married and being happy. And isn't that what God wants? For us to be happy?
Antitheism is justified

As my opponent has the burden of proof, and to avoid an extra round, I'll allow her to go first, but I'll set some basic framework stuff here. To give everyone a bit of background, I'm a reasonably proud atheist myself, but I'm a supporter of religion in most of its forms. In general I will argue that most religion has really good outcomes, and that a minority's interpretation of a religion having bad outcomes does not justify opposition to the religion as a whole. My opponent's definitions are all correct, but I'd like to also define "justified" in this context as "having good reason". I don't think that will be a major point of contention in this debate, but it's worth noting for voter's sake. The rules all look pretty good to me. I may use other forms of evidence in this debate than those my opponent specifically enumerated as I don't believe my opponent intended to be too restrictive with this, but it will all obviously be shown to reach my conclusions. With that in mind I look forward to a fun and interesting discussion. Good luck!
Antitheism is justified

Antitheism is the key to keeping religion in check. If no one speaks up against dangerous doctrines in the Koran and Bible, it will continue to have a grip on the world and people will follow it blindly. Antitheism as defined by RationalWiki is: "outspoken opposition to theism and religion"http://rationalwiki.org.... It is not hatred of theists, desire to kill them etc and not all atheists are antitheist. Some are indifferent to religion, others see it positively, and their are antitheists such as myself that see it as detrimental. The list is endless. Faith is "firm belief in something without proof/ complete trust. Both definitions will be used in this debate. The focus will be on Islam and Christianity as they are the most popular religions today and therefore have the most influence and power. Rules No personal insults No profanity No plagiarism Everything has to be backed up with evidence a quote with citation or a paraphrase with a link to evidence And their must be a analysis connecting your evidence to your argument I hope we both have a exciting debate ahead!
in an all out battle Rock Lee would deafeet Shikamaru

First, my opponent reminds us that this is an "all out battle", thus suggesting that the two contestants would be going "all out. " I agree with this, but my reason for doubting that Lee would use the eight gates is because the technique could kill him (or perhaps kill Shikamaru). Lee could still go all out (as in, try his hardest) without having to use the eight gates technique. RE: "Even if he didn't get that power built up then he would still know how to find the weakness in Shikamaru's jutsu. That weakness would be the suns place in the sky, it maters because the shadows could be long or short if its morning, noon, or night. The best time for Lee would be around noon, because the shadows would all be the same short length. It would be at that time that he would use the hidden lotus which would then have Lee coming out on top and winning the battle against Shikamaru. " I wasn't under the impression that this was the kind of battle where both contestants would have the ability to attack at any time period of their choosing. If this is the case, then what is the stop Shikamaru from simply hiding during the times at which he is at a disadvantage? Furthermore, if Shikamaru were to have this battle take place in a forest (a place where shadows are readily avaialable even during the noon), Lee attacking during this time would prevent Shikamaru from using his shadows. Finally, given that my opponent has implied that both contestants can attack at the time of their choosing, Shikamaru (with his 200+ IQ) could simply take as much time as he neeeded to develop a plan as well as a trap . We must keep in mind that it was because of being able to plan that he beat Hidan (the S rank criminal of the akatsuki. In addition, he possessed superhuman strength/dexterity as well as immortality) due to having such an advantage. Surely he'd be able to beat Rock Lee (a ninja inferior to Hidan as well as someone who Shikamaru has had more than enough time to understand in terms of abilities) if he had the same advantage. CONCLUSION: Given that Lee would have to leave himself open to an attack while using the Eight Gates (Shikamaru could siimply immobolize him with his shadow jutsu), given that Shikamaru could simply remain in a forest when dealing with Rock Lee (in order to insure that there would be shadows nearby) and given that my opponent suggest that both contestants would have the ability to decide when to attack (this specifically works in Shikamaru's advantage since skills in regards to preparation between battles has enabled him to defeat one of the most dangerous ninja's in the Naruto universe), I believe I've successfully demonstrated that Shikamaru would defeat Rock Lee in an all out battle. Thanks for the debate. :D
in an all out battle Rock Lee would deafeet Shikamaru

As the title of the debate stands this would be "an all out battle" so that would mean the two people in the battle would go "all out". Thus under these circumstances Rock Lee would in fact go "all out". So if Lee would use the eight gates and in some way get the correct amount of power built up then he could obliterate Shikamaru in an easy way of physical destruction. Even if he didn't get that power built up then he would still know how to find the weakness in Shikamaru's jutsu. That weakness would be the suns place in the sky, it maters because the shadows could be long or short if its morning, noon, or night. The best time for Lee would be around noon, because the shadows would all be the same short length. It would be at that time that he would use the hidden lotus which would then have Lee coming out on top and winning the battle against Shikamaru.
in an all out battle Rock Lee would deafeet Shikamaru

RE: "You might say that Shikamaru would use Sadow Possesian Jutsu on Lee making his tijutsu tottaly useless but Lee would be able to block this because he would see the hand sighns and smash Shikamaru before he could use the jutsu. " Although Rock Lee is fast, the question is whether or not he is quick enough to attack Shikamaru before he uses his Shadow Possession technique. Taking into account that he defeated Hidan (a S class ranking criminal shinobi who is a member of the akatsuki) while being able to use his shadow possession technique, it's highly doubtful that the current Shikamaru doesn't have the physical assets which would be needed to perform a jutsu against someone of Rock Lee's speed. Though even if speed is a problem, Shikamaru could simply use a shadow clone jutsu to distract Lee while he performed his Shadow jutsu; while Lee attacked the shadow clone, Shikamaru would perform the proper hand seal needed and would have Lee completely immobilized. RE:"Another plus is that Lee has the correct training to use the Lotus jutsu and the traning needed for the opening of the Eight Gates. " This is true, but in order to use the eight gates (which he definately wouldn't use against a fellow comrade such as Shikamaru), he would need to momentarily gather energy as was the case when he thought Gaara. This would render him defenseless and would allow Shikamaru to immobilize Lee. In addition, with Shikamaru's new onslaught of techniques from Naruto Shippuden (such as being able to use his shadow jutsu in the form of tendril like attacks) as well as his IQ of 200+, Lee would be at a drastic disadvantage in terms of being unable to use ninjutsu/genjutsu as well as possessing average intelligence. Shikamaru may be of inferior physical stats, but with a techniques like his shadow jutsus, physical strength becomes irrelevant given that he can negate it with ease. Thus, I shall now wait for my opponent to make his R2 response.
in an all out battle Rock Lee would deafeet Shikamaru

Rock Lee would kill Shikamaru bacause of his superier speed and tijutsu. You might say that Shikamaru would use Sadow Possesian Jutsu on Lee making his tijutsu tottaly useless but Lee would be able to block this because he would see the hand sighns and smash Shikamaru before he could use the jutsu. Another plus is that Lee has the correct training to use the Lotus jutsu and the traning needed for the opening of the Eight Gates.
god is either exceedingly stupid or he does not exist

Listen, I tried okay. I really tried to stick this out, but you really are impossible to work with. I was nice, I still will be nice, but this has gone off from trying to prove a point and has become you just making fun and arguing as much as possible. I could waste hours of my life arguing to no end, but I must wish you well and hope you come off this anti-Christian hate party you have. I don't know if something happened between you and God, but this type of hate just isn't normal. Whatever it was, clearly it has made you this way. Good day.
god is either exceedingly stupid or he does not exist

I am not going to be countering a single point in your debate because it has nothing to do with whether God is intelligent. Here is why. God not loving doesn't mean He isn't intelligent, but He does love. John 3:16 "For God so loved the world He gave His one and only Son that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life." God sacrificed His own son, so we do not have to suffer the punishment of sin. Why give punishment in the first place? Well why punish children? To make sure they learn, to teach them what is right, and because what they do is wrong. Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord." God clearly states what our punishment will be, but he also gives us a way out. Many verses you provided were part of an old covenant. Not old testament, but covenant. This covenant was made between Abraham and God on Mount Sinai with the ten commandments. Back then, there was no savior and paying for sins was done by sacrificing a clean animal. Jesus took Himself and became the ultimate sacrifice and His blood washed away our sins. This is explained in detail here: https://lifehopeandtruth.com.... Matthew 5:17: "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill." Jesus made it to where the laws before his crucifixion and resurrection are not binding to our fate after death. That explains how your verses prove that God is intelligent is having punishment. Without punishment, you cannot learn and grow, but I showed that it doesn't matter now that Jesus is here. Now, your verses have nothing to do with His intelligence. How does any of it prove He is stupid? I'd say looking at science proves His brilliance. The complex structure of a human body, down to the DNA, the perfect placement of Earth against the sun, the way the world works with the circle of life, the beauty of nature in the fall, etc. Just look outside to see how smart He was in creating everything. Last, but certainly not least, your grammar and spelling are pretty bad, I'm sorry. Also, the topic makes no sense. If He does exist, then according to you how stupid are we for being made by a stupid God? You also seem to have made this just to slander one group of people and then make it impossible to lose for yourself since no creationists are allowed in. Just guaranteeing victory? Highlights: How do your verses prove stupidity? What does that make us? Why make this debate? What are your motives? What goal do you have?
god is either exceedingly stupid or he does not exist

Let me remind everyone why I dropped out. It was because I have never met a more hateful, egotistical, and closed minded person so far on this site and continuing would be a waste if my time. Every argument I have and any evidence I shared was completely ignored, and I just wanted to cut it off. He is welcome to ignore me, but the people are to decide who wins here. Again, my opponent is extremely unpleasant to debate with and I do hope an admin on this site brings him up to date on what is allowed, because he has harassed and ridiculed anyone who disagrees with him do far. God bless you all, including my opponent, and go have a wonderful summer. Thank you.
I can't decide whether to be for or against abortion - Convince me to be pro-choice!

I'll leave the voters to decide whether it was a concession in my opinion it was but I will focus on rebuttals and a conclusion in this round.Rape I view this as another concession by my opponent. They have stated that they aren't against abortions for women who are victims of rape. This was not mentioned in the resolution or when I accepted this debate. You cannot say abortions are only necessary in some cases. You are only ever Pro or con the resolution. You can't argue against the death penalty and then say that it's only okay for the worst criminals to have the death penalty, a debate does not work this way. 1% is 14,000 rape related abortions. My opponent says that they are pro abortions for rape victims but then says that they do not know why we are still talking about this. TeenagersDue negative influence from the media children varying from as young as 11 can get pregnant from cases other than rape. Some areas do not find that Sex education is morally correct for children under a specific age and so it is not done. This can lead to children having sex (although it is not common under the age of 12). My opponent has failed to respond to my statistic that: Ninety-five percent of women who have had abortions do not regret the decision to terminate their pregnanciesConclusion To conclude this debate I believe that I have won for the following reasons. Arguments: Con essentially concedes and even if you do not view that as a concession then if you look back at my opponents argument for round 2 you will realise that, that wasn't much better than forfeiting. No arguments were stated - only questions. Here is a quote from my opponents argument: "I agree that if the pregnancy is dangerous for either mother or child, there should be no question as to whether or not she could have an abortion."My opponent says the same thing about the issue of rape here: "I think I have clearly stated multiple times that I am not against abortions for women that have been victims of rape."Conduct: It is also interesting to note that my opponent copy and pasted a lot of his arguments from this website and did not quote them: http://www.angelfire.com...Here is an example: "Also, I think it is interesting to mention that in Victims and Victors (Acorn Books, 2000), a book written by David Reardon, Amy Sobie, and Julie Makimma, 192 women were interviewed."Spelling and Grammar: TiedSources: As well as Con's sources being bias - they have also copy and pasted a lot of their argument (as stated above in greater detail). I think that it is clear, for these reasons and more, that the proposition has won this debate.Sourceshttp://www.angelfire.com...http://www.debate.org...;
I can't decide whether to be for or against abortion - Convince me to be pro-choice!

I don't know whether it is a concession, I have never in this debate implied that I am against abortion for victims of rape or mothers whose health are in danger, and if you mean that I am admitting that abortion is okay, that is not what I was doing at all. There are plenty of people who think abortions should only be done when in extraordinary cases, such as risk of health or life or rape. Medically speaking there are a lot of things we do that are only okay in some scenarios, that doesn't make it okay to do in general. Rape: I think I have clearly stated multiple times that I am not against abortions for women that have been victims of rape. I have however provided information to show you how rape is not a relevant issue to the debate. 1% of abortions are due to rape, that means 99% of abortions do not - and since I don't oppose the 1% you continue to talk about, I don't see why we are still talking about that. Teenagers: I don't see how a 12 year old could get pregnant unless it was due to rape, furthermore you listed this argument under 'teenager' even though a 12 year old is a child, not a teen. I don't know what to answer to the rest of your comment here, since you spend most your effort on repeating what I said.
I can't decide whether to be for or against abortion - Convince me to be pro-choice!

I just wanna make clear that I am not against abortion for women who are in danger, and pregnancies that are a result of rape. I just wanted to show you the statistics, on how small this minority is, and that they are not the real problem here. Regarding rape: You said statistics will increase soon because rape is an increasingly worrying issue - However over over 50 per cent of women that got pregnant as result of rape DID NOT choose abortion as a solution to that. Rape may be an increasing issue, however since the vast majority of rape victims choose other solutions, it is simply not an issue regarding abortion. Sources: http://articles.latimes.com... This source claims there are over 32,000 rape related pregnancies each year in the states. Source: http://www.angelfire.com... This source claims there are 14,000 abortions done to terminate pregnancies caused by rape each year. Meaning over 50% of the rape related pregnancies were not terminated. Also, I think it is interesting to mention that in Victims and Victors (Acorn Books, 2000), a book written by David Reardon, Amy Sobie, and Julie Makimma, 192 women were interviewed. These women had had abortions after they became pregnant from rape. Nearly all the women said that they regretted the abortion, and over 90% said they would discourage other rape victims from choosing abortion. Regarding teenagers: They could be bullied? I hardly think terminating a pregnancy because you might get bullied is a rational solution. If that is the only problem here we need a change of attitude in our society, and I think we should work on that instead of encouraging abortion for young children. Many doctors agree with me when I say biologically a woman is in her best shape to have her children from age 17-25. We should forget our social standards that you start your family in your 30's, where your chances of having unhealthy children are increased by 5 times or more, by the way. Change the attitude, don't kill human beings. Furthermore you seem to have a lot of sympathy with young teenagers getting pregnant, however no mercy whatsoever for the child growing in their womb? How does that makes sense?