BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized in the U.S.

My opponent has failed his burden of proof because he hasn't refuted any of my contentions or central arguments. My opponent is said that should be allowed to practice what you believe. That's true to the point where you aren't engaging in a destructive behavior. Homosexuality is a destructive behavior. My opponent conceeded both my contentions. First, that homosexuality increases, STD's, destroys the immune system, and increases suicide rates. Secondly, that the legalization of homosexual marriage will encourage this bad behavior by normalizing it. Furthermore, at the point you redefine marriage for society, you open the door for the legalization of polygamy and beastality. if marriage is just a claim of "love", then what is to stop other destructive practices from entering society. Rebuttal "Saying that gay people shouldn't be married is like saying black people shouldn't be married." I have two responses 1.homosexuality is a behavior, being black is not. My opponent brought up no evidence to suggest that homosexuals are genially predisposed to their condition. But even if they were, homosexuality is still a behavior. Some people are genetically predisposed to have anger issues, but we don't want them giving into those urges simply because they exist. 2. This logic would legalize polygamy and beastiality. Using my opponents same logic, I could argue that saying a man can't marry an animal is the same as saying a black person shouldn't get married. this logic is faulty. "How does gay people getting married harm you in anyway?" I argued this in my conceded 2nd contention. Homosexuality leads to increased STD's, increased suicide, and damage to the immune system. Legalizing homosexuality normalizes this behavior and opens the door to other dangerous practices.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized in the U.S.

Freedom of religion is not exclusively to common religions. It is about what you believe in, that is your religion. As long as what you believe in isn't destructive like human or animal sacrifice, you should be aloud to practice what you believe in. If you believe that gay people should be married then you should be aloud to get married. Saying that gay people shouldn't be married is like saying black people shouldn't be married. And how does gay people getting married harm you in anyway. Why do you care if they get married if it doesn't effect you.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized in the U.S.

Thank you for the opportunity to debate. First of all, Pro has the BOP. They instigated the debate, and they are changing the status quo. *2 Contentions* Contention 1. Homosexual behavior is destructive A. Homosexuality increases STD's. according to the CDC "Gay and bisexual men are more severely affected by HIV than any other group in the United States". Furthermore "Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, young gay and bisexual men (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24,"[1] B. Homosexuality destroys the immune system by putting the body into unnatural positions that harm the body's interior. 617,000 people are dead because of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). Furthermore, the leading cause of AIDS is homosexual behavior among males. C. Homosexuality increases suicide rates. Many people in america say that the increase in homosexual suicide rates comes from gay bullying. However, the large majority of the problem comes from the behavior itself. Take Ireland for example. They promote homosexuality in their culture and actively support it. However, the suicide rates among the LBGT population are still astronomically high. In fact, homosexuals in Ireland are seven times more likely to commit suicide.[3] Contention 2: Legalization of gay marriage will encourage bad behavior Empirically, we see that the legalization of an activity in society leads to its normalization and adoption. If Gay marriage is to be legalized, it will have three effects. 1.First, it will circumvent traditional marriage which will destroy the family structure. 2. Second, STD rates will increase as homosexual behavior becomes more widely adopted and even taught in schools. 3. Third, it will serve as a gateway toward the legalization of other acts such as polygamy and beastiality. As soon as you remove the traditional definition of marriage, there is no stopping the legalization of atrocious sexual acts. *Rebuttal* My opponent says that legal policy cannot come from moral convictions. 1. My objections come from scientific data that shows the harms of legitimizing gay marriage 2. ALL laws come from moral principles. Laws that ban murder come from the moral principle that life is intrinsically valuable. My opponent says that gays and lesbians have the freedom of religion. 1. Freedom of religion does not include freedom of action. Islamic Extremists have committed terrorist attacks based on religious convictions. However they cannot justify their actions under "freedom of religion" 2. They don't have the freedom to change the definition of marriage, a term that has an understood meaning for hundreds of years. It is because homosexuality harms society, and because its legalization opens the door for other atrocious acts to be legalized, that I submit the Con option. Sources 1.http://www.cdc.gov... 2.http://politicalvelcraft.org... 3.http://seanduke.com...
In the future there will be no need for bsic technical helpers.

There will always be a need for basic technical help. Even the most technically savvy individual can do nothing for a problem which they have no access to the means to correct it. Also, the implication of this position would suggest that auto mechanics would not be necessary; this is clearly false. Computer technology advances much faster than automobile technology - where such technologies don't overlap - and no one can argue that mechanics are unnecessary for even basic maintenance tasks such as oil changes, and they're certainly necessary for most basic repairs. Furthermore, not every child takes an interest in technology, and those that do will not necessarily retain that interest into adulthood. There are plenty of middle-aged and younger folks who are functionally computer illiterate, despote having access to technology in their school years, either at home, at school, elsewhere, or some combination of the three.
In the future there will be no need for bsic technical helpers.

Children these days are learning to use computers, phones and anything tech so fast that I feel I can make this argument. In the future, there will be no need for basic technical help. Everyone will know why there computer is running slower and everyone will know what they need to fix that or even if it can be fixed You see, grandma won't be around in the future, and you know, she's the one that needs most of the help.
Resolved: The Death Penalty is a just punishment for convicted murderers/killers.

I affirm: The Death Penalty is a just punishment for convicted murderers/killers. [Definitions] Death Penalty: execution; putting a condemned person to death. Just: in accordance with justice, i.e. giving each their due. Punishment: 1. the practice of imposing something unpleasant or aversive in response to an unwanted or disobedient behavior. 2. The act of punishing; penalty for wrongdoing, especially for crime. Convicted: declared guilty of a crime in a court of law. Affirmative Burden: To prove that the death penalty is a JUST form of punishment. I.e. prove that the idea of the death penalty gives each person their due. Negative Burden: Same thing. *I will let my opponent present his/her arguments first, since he/her is the guest. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
The Following Reforms Should Come To Pass

Unfortunately, I doubt it would be so easy to create an online system to send tax revenue to each citizen's chosen areas. The Health Care online site was a huge fiasco, as would any website that gets 300 million visitors in a short period of time. Also, the problem with waiting until people file taxes to distribute that money is that Congress and the President must decide on a budget in advance. Government-funded agencies rely on the promised amount of money. If for instance, Congress allots money to conservation efforts but the people's taxes come in and not enough chose to give their money to conservation, National Park workers won't get paid. The majority of our income taxes goes to health care, defense spending, and social security. http://www.nbcnews.com... Is that how Americans would allot their money? If not, a lot of government-funded organizations would essentially be run on popular vote, which is not stable at all. People won't want to work in those jobs since they might get laid off or have to take a pay cut in any given year because they are not assured of funding. And government programming would quickly devolve. I suppose this leads into Pro's next rebuttal, that the American republic is fatally flawed. If we gave (or tried to give) Americans the absolute choice of deciding where their money goes, what is the point of having our government agencies after all? It would be simpler to eliminate the middleman and have people spend their money how they wish. However, this seems uncomfortably close to anarchy, and Pro neglects the checks on politicians that prevent blatant lies. The politician you mention who deceived voters, Dave Wilson, was running for a seat on the Houston Community College Board of Trustees. He didn't really think he'd win but after he did, he stated that "Every time a politician talks, he's out there deceiving voters". http://www.businessinsider.com... And this may be true to an extent, but political parties keep candidates in line with certain values and hold politicians to some standards when voting. For instance, I'm sure Mr. Wilson will not be re-elected (and even now his opponent is contesting the election) and this is hardly the next Presidential candidate. Federal government officials are generally subject to much more scrutiny, though we do have an impressive number of malingerers and deadbeats currently in Congress. Obviously, I'm frustrated with the system too. But the proposed reforms will not make things run more smoothly, they will add another problem.
The Following Reforms Should Come To Pass

First, I'm sure they can think up some form of online system to distribute the tax money to different areas conveniently. Now, as for what you said about a republic, I see one flaw with this system. Politicians may lie or not be completely clear about their stances. For instance, Obama's approval rating is currently low. Many of the people who disapprove of him now probably voted for him in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections. If I had enough money to become a politician, I could lie to the American people and say I was a Liberal, getting elected for Senator or Representative in a Blue State. Then I'd carry out Conservative policies, and my supporters would've all voted for me believing that I was a Liberal. If you had enough money, you could do vice versa, convincing conservatives you were a conservative and then carrying out liberal policies when you got elected. Recently, a republican won in a democrat area by misleading the local black community into believing he was black. You never truly know for sure what a politician, Liberal or Conservative, has planned until he or she gets elected and gets the opportunity to carry out his or her agenda. This is what I believe to be a problem with the American republic system.
The Following Reforms Should Come To Pass

The Following Reforms Should Come to Pass in the United States: If you're Pro-Life, and you state this on paper when you pay your taxes, the government will not spend your taxes on funding abortion clinics. If you're anti-war, and you state this on paper when you pay your taxes, the government will not spend your taxes on funding the military. If you're an environmentalist, and you state this on paper when you pay your taxes, the government will not spend your taxes on oil rigs or pipelines. Pretty much if you object to something the government's doing and you state it on paper when you pay your taxes, the government won't spend your taxes on that thing. Your taxes will be spent on something else. Of course, it shouldn't be that you're exempt from any taxes. These are reforms that I believe should come to pass in the United States. Accept this challenge only if you're willing to debate for all three rounds.
Lone survivor is better than American Sniper

I find American Sniper to be a good, emotional film, and given recent events, it's given a more emotional feel, however, I think recent events help that. I do believe that Lone Survivor was a slight bit better, though. It kept me at the edge of my seat the entire time and made some people around me cry a lot more than in American Sniper. I do not take anything away from either film though
Lone survivor is better than American Sniper

I would probably still pick Lone Survivor. I had more emotions with that. That movie gets us attached to many people, most of them end up dead. The character who was the Lone Survivor saw his rescue Chopper (my cousin played the pilot of that helicopter) blow up. I felt a lot of suspense at the top of that film when the radios went dead. I also felt conflicted when they ran in to the herders like the characters. I wondered if it would be right to kill them. I do appreciate both films though. Both have inaccuracies for dramatic purposes but they are great films
god

There is no such way to argue such a thing without proper evidence. Our notions are whatever we make them out to be. Our moral, spiritual, and sociological ideologies can't, nor ever will define such a thing. However, we base our entire our lives off of our own beliefs, and this is what makes god real. Imagine billions of the smallest stars in the middle of the universe. Now imagine the light that surrounds them. We are those stars, and our light is created by our soul beliefs. No, there is no such way to argue fact with feeling. But the larger majority of people in the world will say otherwise. Thus it is then not a matter of fact and opinion, but rather statistics.
Monogamy as an excuse for child abuse.

Congratulations you're the first person I've seen put a fallacy in the debate title itself. Loaded question. The words abuse and excuse are mutually exclusive. Abuse by definition is unjustifiable. This is not the debate that I suggested. What I said was monogamy causes child abuse, but a cause is not an excuse, for example, drinking causes car fatalities but that does not excuse them. I cannot argue this point as you've worded it because it is in contradiction. I will give no further arguments. And accepted merely to point out your error and to reassert my claim that monogamy is a chief cause of child abuse, not an excuse for it. I suggest you rechallenge me. And I suggest that when this debate concludes no one vote.
Monogamy as an excuse for child abuse.

Monogamy does not cause child abuse. Whilst I agree that child abuse is more likely to be reported when there are more people involved in a childs' life, this paints the picture that monogomy is isolation, which it is not. Monogamy is the custom or condition of having only one mate in a relationship, thus forming a couple. Most importantly, monogamy is a choice we have complete control over. Unfortunately abuse of children is seen all to often and there are way to many excuses are available to the sick individuals participating. Adding monogamy to the list of excuses is a travesty! If you choose to be with a person and you agree to be monogomous, you do not have the option to later blame frivilous or abusive activities on your monogomous relationship. We are given the choice to be honest about our preferences and as with other choices given, we are responsible for those choices. Furthermore, being monogomous does not mean being isolated. Being afraid of your spouse, or feeling worthless has nothing to do with child abuse and in fact, most child abuse is ignored by spouses due to disbelief or ignorance. I am curious to hear exactly what realm of child abuse you are considering wen you say monogomy contributes. Lack of self control, poor decisions, and sick *&@!s contribute largely to child abuse. Lets not give people another reason to take frustration out on our children.
Resolved: Affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions.

>>> The flaw in the argument of my opponent here is that my opponent is assuming both "affirmative action" definitions (both in this debate as well as the example case given) to be exactly the same. The definition of how affirmative action SHOULD be used, as I have insinuated throughout this debate, may differ from how it has improperly been used in the past. <<< All I must prove in this debate is that affirmative action should not be used in college admissions. This can be any form of affirmative action. My opponent is conceding to my side of the case by saying that one form of affirmative action SHOULD NOT be used. >>> To get a credible definition of affirmative action, I used Wikipedia <<< What an oxymoron. ANYONE can post to wikipedia, including the guy at the end of the block with a bong all day holding his hat out for money. I would be wary of wikipedia. In fact, the very page on wikipedia my opponent has cited has these problems: It is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. may be able to help recruit one. Tagged since May 2008. An editor has expressed concern that the article is unbalanced. (These are copied right off the site.) >>> Minorities have suffered less opportunity than the standard Caucasian in the Untied States. It is fair to admit them based upon racial diversity over a Caucasian <<< So you're saying two wrongs make a right? We were unfair to them so they can be unfair to us? An eye for an eye will make the world go blind. >>> One hundred years ago it was not legal for women to vote in his country. Does that mean it was unethical for them to pursue these rights? Seemingly, my opponent is using a circular argument, extending that something is wrong only because it is illegal, yet citing not reason as to WHY it would be "illegal" in the first place. <<< It was ethical for them to pursue these rights. However a woman SHOULDN'T have voted before the new law was passed. She would have been arrested. So I'm saying affirmative action shouldn't be done for 2 more reasons. 1.) it is unconstitutional 2.) It is inherently wrong. >>> Ergo, affirmative action may still be just. <<< My opponent is losing faith in his arguments it seems.
Resolved: Affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions.

Here go the rebuttals. I still maintain each of my arguments from Round 1 as well. "Affirmative action is merely discrimination in reverse. There is the case of Barbara Grutter, who was turned down from the University of Michigan despite being more qualified than the minority groups who were admitted due to a quota. " Not necessarily. Given that minorities are often underrepresented at college institutions, as well as the fact that many people of different ethnicities ARE indeed qualified, more racially and gender-oriented accuracy in college institutions would only be for the better. This is not to say that less qualified candidates would be admitted. Rather, diversity would be used a tiebreaker during the college admissions process. That is how affirmative action SHOULD be used (see debate resolution). And thus, the example provided by my opponent fails. "Affirmative action tends to only benefit the high-standing, wealthy members of the minority group who are being "benefited. "" Please supply some evidence to verify that claim. The more qualified candidates would be the ones benefited, by the definition of affirmative action. "There may be potential for more cultural diversity, but it rarely surfaces. Minorities are usually resented for being there. They are seen as being given a handout, without earning it. Resent gets rid of any possibility of cultural enrichment. " Again, please supply some evidence of that. And because only the equally qualified or more qualified candidates would be entitled to affirmative action as described, there is no "not-deserving" factor. "How often are there extremely similar candidates with the same GPA, equally active in the community, went out for the same sports and were just as good at them, got the same scores on the ACT and the SAT? " How often an event may occur is irrelevant, as long as it remains possible. Given that it is possible for two or more extremely similar candidates to apply to college, the argument still stands. Granted, this is statistically more probable at larger state universities, for example because of the larger yield of students applying for spots. "Not to mention it is unconstitutional. " Firstly, how is it unconstitutional? Secondly, I would like to point out that whether or not it is "constitutional" or not is also largely a red herring. A debate with the word "should" in the resolution as used in this debate directly implies change the possibility for change of the current system, depending on the outcome of the debate. Affirmative action leads to higher levels of diversity in colleges, more equal opportunity for people of minority-status and women, and ensures less discrimination in the college admissions arena. I look forward to the remaining debate.
Resolved: Affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions.

I look forward to debating this topic on the side I actually believe in this time. >>> Affirmative action provides fairness in college admissions <<< Affirmative action is merely discrimination in reverse. There is the case of Barbara Grutter, who was turned down from the University of Michigan despite being more qualified than the minority groups who were admitted due to a quota. Affirmative action tends to only benefit the high-standing, wealthy members of the minority group who are being "benefited." >>> First, it produces a larger yield of diversity in the campus. More diversity means more opportunity for cultural interaction and learning of other ethnicities, promoting the educational environment. <<< There may be potential for more cultural diversity, but it rarely surfaces. Minorities are usually resented for being there. They are seen as being given a handout, without earning it. Resent gets rid of any possibility of cultural enrichment. >>> Second, it creates more equal opportunity for minorities and women in college admissions, fields as to which they are often underrepresented in society today. <<< It does not create equal opportunity, It created unbalanced opportunity. minorities are being let through without qualifying, destroying any incentive to try and achieve and punishing the really qualified minorities by causing them to be hated by their white male peers. >>> Third, in the case of extremely similar candidates vying for a specific spot in admission, affirmative action allows for colleges to favor diversity, while also generating an appealing candidate in other regards such as academics. <<< How often are there extremely similar candidates with the same GPA, equally active in the community, went out for the same sports and were just as good at them, got the same scores on the ACT and the SAT? Almost never This is an impractical law that promotes inequality and racism in America and gives Blacks an easy pass. Not to mention it is unconstitutional. I look forward to the rest of this debate