BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homosexuality is completely natural and normal in humans and thus should be accepted into society

I don't know how I changed the definition of nature. a different wording DOES NOT mean a different definition. It still says the same thing. I have never debated my opponent on any topic aside from this particular debate, so I am unaware if my opponent uses any sneaky underhanded tactics that some of the people I have debated in the past use, but it would seem this is the case. The reason I chose the particular wording from Merriam-webster.com, was simply to provide a source. I could have very well used the other wording, however I believe a source should be cited. My opponent does not do a good job of defending the claim that I CHANGED the definition. I NEVER said that homosexuality is normal in SOME humans albeit abnormal still in all humans. When you look at the DNA make up of apes (chimps and bonobos most notably), it is very similar to human DNA[1]. So one could assume that because chimps and bonobos engage in homosexual activities regularly[2], that it must be normal for humans since they are so closely related, right? Wrong. As I stated, Humans (most), unlike animals, have the cognitive ability to discern normal from abnormal. Just because there is a minority that cannot discern normal from abnormal, does not make this statement any less true. My opponent seems to want to confuse my argument. "eating their own young or cannibalizing each other" is the same thing. Why did my opponent repeat himself. Cannibalization of young, weak, and/or elderly is a common trait in many species[3]. More than 1500 species, infact. So for my opponent to claim that it is only in a SELECT population of animals, is a stretch. The same with coprophagia (eating of feces, which I also mentioned. my opponent failed to refute this). This happens in the animal kingdom.[4] It is normal in the animal kingdom. Does that make it normal in humans? Well, 2 girls 1 cup not withstanding, of course not! Like wise cannibalization of young happens in the animal kingdom, but does not happen commonly in humans. By this process we can determine that just because homosexuality happening normally in the animal kingdom, that it does not happen in humans. In humans, it is abnormal. I had defined regulate (correctly) as "to control or maintain". An argument could be made equally for the maintain part as the control part. All that aside, this debate is not about population control, therefore, my opponent's argument is invalid. Anything my opponent said after this point is invalid due to this 1. http://news.sciencemag.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org...(zoology) 4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Homosexuality is completely natural and normal in humans and thus should be accepted into society

The resolution, "homosexuality is completely natural and normal in humans thus should be accepted into society," is actually three separate propositions: two of which are ontological and one of which is normative. Indeed, homosexuality is completely natural in humans. We find that in the animal kingdom homosexuality has been observed among several species of animals. Homo sapiens, animals in their own right, have demonstrated the existence of homosexuality. The presence of homosexuality in the homo sapien species, like other species, is prima facie evidence of the "naturalness" of homosexuality. Furthermore, genetics has shown that sexuality has strong biological influences through various genetic information expressed in humans. Homosexuality is also normal. The instigator failed to provide a definition for normal, which I shall provide from the same source, Merriam-Webster"s Dictionary. Normal is "usual or ordinary, not strange." The normalness of homosexuality is not measured in social definitions of what is acceptable. It is measured by established patterns of behavior. Because homosexuality continues to occur in nature, it is ordinary and usual. It is not a behavior that infrequently occurs or defies the organization of erotic relations between humans or animals. The fact that it happens, and happens regularly, makes it normal. Finally, homosexuality should be accepted into society for several reasons. First, sexual activities, which are natural, are meant to regulate population growth and mitigate the exhaustion of natural resources. Sexual activities, which are normal, ensures predictability on a large-scale basis. Secondly, sexual practices that seek pleasure are acceptable forms of sexual conduct, because they too are found in nature. Same-gender sexual activity then would be an acceptable form of sexual conduct. Lastly, accepting sexual conduct into society places various social constructs onto such conduct. Underlying sexual conduct informs social organization such as relationships, and same-sex couples seek the same meaningful relationships as heterosexuals, whose underlying sexual conduct has been validated.
Evolution & Catholicism Are Incompatible

In the Sacred Books there are many passages referring to science or history where manifest errors are to be found. But the subject of these books is not science or history but religion and morals. In them history and science serve only as a species of covering to enable the religious and moral experiences wrapped up in them to penetrate more readily among the masses. The masses understood science and history as they are expressed in these books, and it is clear that had science and history been expressed in a more perfect form this would have proved rather a hindrance than a help[...] Such, Venerable Brethren, is a summary description of the apologetic method of the Modernists, in perfect harmony, as you may see, with their doctrines - methods and doctrines brimming over with errors, made not for edification but for destruction, not for the formation of Catholics but for the plunging of Catholics into heresy; methods and doctrines that would be fatal to any religion. [These] partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church's open enemies; they lie hid, a thing to be deeply deplored and feared, in her very bosom and heart, and are the more mischievous, the less conspicuously they appear. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, nay, and this is far more lamentable, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, feigning a love for the Church, lacking the firm protection of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, vaunt themselves as reformers of the Church[...] - Pope Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis P1: The belief that the Bible contains scientific error is heresy. P2: The Bible must be thought to contain scientific error to reconcile it with the Modern Synthesis of Evolution. C1: Roman Catholicism & the Modern Synthesis of Evolution are incompatible. [N]o one, relying on his own skill, shall - in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine - wresting the Sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to[...] the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. - Council of Trent P3: The Fathers were unanimous in that the Genesis account of Creation took place within 1 literal week. C2: Arguing that the Genesis account of Creation took longer than 1 literal week defies the consensus of the Fathers. P4: Defying the consensus of the Fathers requires defying the decree of the Council of Trent. P5: Defying the Council of Trent is required for a Catholic to subscribe to the Modern Synthesis of Evolution. C3: The Modern Synthesis of Evolution & Roman Catholicism are incompatible.
god is information

"they are opposites"Matter and information arent opposites, matter and anti-matter are opposites. http://en.wikipedia.org..."to believe in santa clause is the same as beleiving in the bible"Thats Weekly Stupid worthy material right there. " try to mention a difference from believing in santa and believing in the christian god"Well for starters Christianity goes into FAR greater detail on how people should live their lives than Santa Claus does.... Also its accepted by everyone that Santa Claus doesnt exist whereas the existence of God is still up for debate..... And lastly there arent many whackjobs claiming to be the son of Santa Claus yet there are probably several hundred who believe that they are the son of God....."god is informaiton, informaiton is nothing, it Means anything i imagine is god"That first claim isnt valid, that second claim is misconstrued, and the conclusion based off of those last two things is beyond stupid.
god is information

they are opposites, so it is necessarily information or matter, true false or truth, existence.. to believe in santa clause is the same as beleiving in the bible, if you are not good santa dosnt come with presents, so he creates your World by that belief. just try to mention a difference from believing in santa and believing in the christian god god is informaiton, informaiton is nothing, it Means anything i imagine is god, as i can beleive whatever i imagine anything i believe goes to imagination, as belief is false, i can never believe in reality yahwey is a caracter in a book, i can believe in
god is information

"the opposite of physical is mental, and if god is not physical right now, god is not matter"Just because something isnt matter, that doesnt mean that it therefore is information. "santa clause is god, No religion in the world follows such an assumption and there is no way for that to be proven true"unicorns is god" Unicorns cant be God because unicorns are plural, you would have to say that unicorns ARE God, and whether or not Unicorns are God is an entire different argument. "superman, World creators"Superman is a comic book character.
yo mama jokes

Yo mama so dumb she went to the dentist to get a bluetooth. I told her she was getting one for her birthday and her birthday was right around the corner, and she went looking for it.Yo mama so ugly, hello kitty said goodbye.Yo mama so old she knew burger king when he was a prince.Yo mama so fat and old when God said, "Let there be light," he asked your mother to move out of the way.Yo mama is so fat that when she went to the beach a whale swam up and sang, "We are family, even though you're fatter than me."
yo mama jokes

Free style Round: Maximum of 5 yo mama jokes. Yo mama is so ugly that she threw a boomerang and it wouldn't even come back. Yo mama is so fat that she walked into the Gap and filled it Yo mama is so stupid that that she tried to put M&M's in alphabetical order! Yo mama is so ugly, she turned Michael Jackson white! *sorry for the racist one. Plus one against MJ Yo mama is so stupid that she put on bug spray before going to the flea market.
Evolution isn't true

I have to say, Immediately after I saw this title and your name next to it, I rushed :) 1. Humans did not evolve from 'monkies'. The process of evolution was guided over an extremely long course through the process of natural selection and mutations. 2. Now to refute your second argument, although reworded:'We have never seen one species become another species' This is not true. We observe this sort of thing on a daily basis. We recently observed a subspecies of salamanders that underwent various changes in the course of their journey.[1] After a small group of the salamanders had reached a certain point, they met with the original kind again, unable to mate. This is what's known as a 'ring species' If you're planning on saying 'if humans are still monkies, why can't we mate with them anymore' please don't, as it's obvious from this example why that's a bad argument. They also just recently found a fish developing legs somewhere off the coast of Australia, just to show that evolution is constant.[2] Sources: [1]http://evolution.berkeley.edu... [2]http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
The Bible contains controdictions and "bad" things.

You know what I know what's right so I don't need to debate. I can't save anyone only "plant the seed", only god can save you. So me debating what change you my brother." So basically by refusing to debate and offering a rebuttal and not arguing for your reasons you concede. By not debating you know that I'm right and your wrong and The Bible is false. Also it is very hard to read something that took you too long to type. Thank you for proving my point.
Animal Testing

My opponent wrongly defines Utilitarianism, but I have correctly defined it from JS Mill in my opening arguments. We can see that since Animal Testing maxes out the ultamate utility in the issue we can see that it is indeed a just action as more Sentient Beings derive a greater pleasure from this than not. So even if a few animals die in the process it is justified. My opponent has taken the generic statistics out of context when they reported that 92 out of 100 fail. Though this is not true, as it is really that 94% that make it out of testing works with humans [1]. Where my opponent had actually taken the numbers out of context was taking testing results from Phase 3 specifically and comparing it with 19 tests (1.2/19.4=6.2%) which would translate into a 93% failure rate. Now taken out of context we can see that applied to this entire thing makes it seem terrible, but the fact is really the opposite as it is simply that the rate is extremely higher than that and when it is made out of animal testing we can see a 94% success rate [1]. My opponent brings up what they think is a failure rate, but that is simply the failure to predict all of those sideeffects and if you observe much of my opponent's sources you'll see that they are from PETA which has been nutorious at twistsing stats and this is obviously seen as my opponent's side affect argument was from a select group of failed expierements. These stats should be thrown out of the debate.My opponent doesn't refute my rebuttals on the Organ chip, but instead throws up a Red Herring, stating that animal testing doesn't do this, so...now what? The point is my opponent has dropped this argument and even if animal testing isn't 100% perfect we can still see that it has a better effect as it has the entire system to interact with eachother while the organ-chip cannot produce the same effect. My opponent has completely dropped my argument on how all of the animals benefitted from animal testing do to a series of animal diseases being cured. With that I thank you and please vote Pro!Sources1. (http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk...)
Animal Testing

Utilitarianism- whether actions are morally right or wrong depends on their effects. In this case, the actions taken on animals being tested are morally wrong, not only because innocent animal are being tortured, but because the results taken from the animals can't be guaranteed to be the same in humans. "The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality." -Arthur Schopenhauer. Animal testing is not only bad science, but it's wasteful and archaic. The Food and Drug Administration reports that 92 out of every 100 drugs that pass animal tests Fail in humans. Animal experiments prolongs the suffering of people waiting for effective cures by misleading experimenters and squandering precious money, time, and resources that could have been spent on human-relevant research. The world doesn't need another eyeliner or mascara. "The time that a mouse lives"which is about two or three years"is about seventy years less than it requires a human to develop some of these disorders," says Dr. Christopher Austin, director of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Austin says researchers try to manipulate mutations to make their effects even more severe, but "because you have to speed it up to make it happen much faster, you think maybe it"s not terribly surprising it would not be predictive." A neurologically complex disease like schizophrenia is hard to model in an animal in the first place"you can"t ask a mouse questions, after all"so testing if a drug reduces symptoms is even more difficult. "The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but "Can they suffer?" -Jeremy Bentham Another study examined six drugs which were already known to cause certain side effects in humans. The study determined that animals correctly predicted 22 side effects, but incorrectly identified 48 side effects that did not occur in humans, and missed 20 side effects that did occur in humans. This means that the animal models were incorrect 68 out of 90 times (76% of the time). My opponent says that organs-on-a-chip won't work because it can't predict what the human nervous and immune systems will do, but neither can animals. Animal tests can never be 100% accurate because we have different anatomy and biochemistry. Organs-on-a-chip will tell us what happens to our organs when given a drug. What we should do then is take the drugs that don't do harm to the organs and give them to Willing humans and see how it reacts to their immune and nervous systems. "If we cut up beasts simply because they cannot prevent us and because we are backing our own side in the struggle for existence, it is only logical to cut up imbeciles, criminals, enemies, or capitalists for the same reasons." -C.S. Lewis. 1. http://www.peta.org... 2. http://www.peta.org... 3. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Animal Testing

My opponent has ignored my first contention on Utilitarianism. With the fact that animal testing increases the amount of pleasure for all sentient beings as this has this takes into account all of the animals and humans combined. Both sides have benefited completely and even if a few animals die, it is justified as it increases the pleasure for all Sentient beings. Notice that the difference between Sentient and humans. This takes into affect that animals are beings helped in this testing as they have recieved a huge amount of benefits. DUe to that. It wouldn't regard the injury that would occur as Animal Testing would be just.My opponent brings-up that chimps cannot attrack AIDs, but this is not true as recent studies have found that they ARE able to attract these dieseases. [1] As for the "success rate" argument, we can see that my opponent is only selecting small areas from the testing process. We can see that at the end we arrive at an 83% chance of a success rate which is a great deal higher than the numbers that my opponent is stating. My opponent brings up alternatives of these computer chip organs. There is little to zero chance of these likeness as when looking at comparison to a living being to where we need to observe key things like the effects on the nervious system and immune system. [2] If we created a drug without going through living beings testings then we are more likely than not to come up with another Thalidomide Tragedy which we need to avoid here. Another key thing we have to look at is the effect on the human organs. How the drug or cosmetic effects blood flow or other blood factors are extremely key to look at and if we use simple tissue we would be over-looking this fact? [3]Sources1. (http://www.nature.com...) 2. California Biomedical Research Association, "CBRA Fact Sheet: Why Are Animals Necessary in Biomedical Research?," ca-biomed.org (accessed Oct. 15, 20133. Kara Rogers, "Scientific Alternatives to Animal Testing: A Progress Report," britannica.com, Sep. 17, 2007
The meaning of life

You bring up good points; points that I'm sure anyone who is reading this could easily wonder. First off, you say that by stating "No matter who created us, we were created for a reason. " meaning that I presuppose that we were created by a creator, and that that creator had a reason for creating us. However, I did not exactly say that the creator had them self had a reason to create us, only that there was a reason. I could just as easily refer back to the common belief that "everything happens for a reason", whether it be known to us or not- which in itself could be a whole other debate. Also, perhaps it would be better if I worded it such as "No matter who (or what) created us, there was a reason/purpose- known or not- for that creation. " Also, you say that such is invalid evidence to support my conclusion. However, that is simply a matter of opinion. we could just as easily be debating over whether or not God himself exists and neither could propose as 'perfect' evidence, even if we used the Bible itself. Also, you say that I presuppose "That it is 'obvious' that there is more to life than repeating a daily schedule". However, that's not exactly what I mean. You see, the daily routine itself could play a huge part in giving our lives meaning, I simply mean that it is not the only thing in itself giving meaning to our lives, but rather playing a role in the meaning. And so it is obvious that the alternative to my definition of the meaning of life is not at all to repeat a daily schedule. However, once again, the alternative to the meaning of life could be an entire different debate. And you mentioned my saying that "Any religion's ideas about the meaning of life can easily go back to this simple sentence. .. " and feel that I did not provide support for that resolution. Well, here is an example of what I mean. In Christianity, the meaning of life is to fulfill the purpose God has set out for you/the path of life he wants you to take. Which, quite easily, is a way of saying that each individual has their own meaning to their life, which, if there were no people, there would be no purpose/meaning to life, therefore living is giving life meaning. And now for the 'core problem. ' You ask "What argument can be provided that will cause one to believe, through evidence and logical reasoning, that the resolution is true? " Well, I could easily ask you "what argument can be provided that will cause one to believe, through evidence and logical reasoning, that the resolution is not true? "