BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Being gay is a learned behavior

1) Back to the love argument....as I previously stated, you love your family members WITH A DIFFERENT KIND OF LOVE than a love that you would show to someone who you might be marrying in the future. And just because two men do something physically together to show their love does not declare homosexuality. What about back in the old days, when it was considered highly unethical to sleep with someone before you were married? You would show your love in other different ways, be devoted to each other not physically, but emotionally like taking them out on a date or bringing them flowers, etc. If two men were in love with each other, that already makes you homosexual. If a guy kisses a guy, yes, that would be considered homosexual, but he HAD to be attracted to him first before or else he would have no impulse at all to kiss another guy of the same sex. It is the emotional attraction that declares whether or not you are homosexual. See, according to you, you are homosexual ONLY if you physically show that. Well, what if a guy has sex with another guy but is attracted to girls? That wouldn't make him homosexual, because he has no emotional attraction to other men. 2) And for this argument, you made no response to my previous argument so I'll post it again. People like Harvey Milk, who truly believe what they stand up for, are not afraid to show their true feelings toward each other. Many notable people were hated on because of their beliefs, like Nelson Mandela. They could choose to be straight, but they truly love people of the same sex so they don't want to. It would be like giving up my teddy bear and instead going for a Chris Brown CD so I wouldn't be embarassed by my teddy bear. If I truly and deeply loved my teddy bear, I wouldn't care what anyone else said. I would just stand up for my cause. (oh by the way, the teddy bear was an example.)
Resolved: Being gay is a learned behavior

"I didn't wake up one day and say 'Hey lets be gay' I grew up fighting the fact that I was gay because I didnt want people to tease me for it" ~ Rosie O'Donnell Argument 1) Emotinal attraction does not declare homosexuality. Males loving males IS not what declares homosexuality. For example, If I love my father...does that make me gay? Of course not! If two best friends (of the same sex) love each other, does that declare them homosexual? Of course not! It is when these two friends (of the same sex) take a step forward into the physical attraction relm and decide to kiss/touch each other that we then declare them homosexual. You're arguing that there's a difference between loving, and being in love. Lets use examples in other emotions or states: -Is there a difference between hating someone and being in hate? -Liking someone and being in like? -Being lazy or being in a state of laziness? Love is love! The only difference that seperates the two is what you do physically!! =======> Back to homosexuality. The only thing that would declare homosexuality in the 2 best friends loving each other, would be what they decide to do physically. You can not choose who you are sexually attracted to just as you can't choose to be a boy or a girl. For example, I could make myself have sex with animals (GOD FORBID) but I couldn't make myself sexually attracted to animals, I would have to have been born with the sexual attractiion towards them. [Just because you are sexually attracted to someone, does not nessicarily mean that you love them] I'm not accepting the love argument. You have to prove it to me in a different way with something a bit more tangible. Argument 2) What i'm saying is, is that if people are not born gay and they can choose. Why would someone choose a lifestyle of oppression and descrimination when everything they could want (since you say they can choose then they are equaly as happy with both sides) is on the other side, plus they would have acception and applause. For example, Why would you choose to go to hell to get some ice cream and some pizza, if the exact same pizza and the exact same ice cream is in heaven? YOU WOULDN'T.
Resolved: Being gay is a learned behavior

Okay, I will make my responses to your arguments in number format just like yours. 1) Just because you are sexually attracted to someone, does not nessicarily mean that you love them. Also, the term homosexual is not used to describe people who are physically attracted to each other. It is when you have strong emotional feelings toward each other that it would be considered homosexual. And about your claim that men are allowed to be attracted to each other, they are. But you wouldn't fall into love with someone that's in your family, or your closest friend, would you? That would be wrong morally, and cases like these are very rare. (an example would be like me falling in love with my mother. That's not gay, but morally wrong.) 2) And yes, people choose to live a life of "being blatantly disrespected, oppressed, and descriminated against" because they want to. People like Harvey Milk, who truly believe what they stand up for, are not afraid to show their true feelings toward each other. Many notable people were hated on because of their beliefs, like Nelson Mandela. They could choose to be straight, but they truly love people of the same sex so they don't want to. It would be like giving up my teddy bear and instead going for a Chris Brown CD so I wouldn't be embarassed by my teddy bear. If I truly and deeply loved my teddy bear, I wouldn't care what anyone else said. I would just stand up for my cause. (oh by the way, the teddy bear was an example.)
Resolved: Being gay is a learned behavior

I have broken the arguments into numbers for further clarification. 1)Loving is not sexuality. If a man has another loving relationship with a man, that does not make him gay. It's actually a normal occurance. Men are allowed to be emotionaly attached to other males. For instance, Father-Son relationships, brotherly love, and even best friend relationships. When you step over emotional feelings and go towards physical attraction, that is when the term "homosexual" is in use. One can not control who he is sexually attracted to. For instance, if I wasn't born attracted to elephants or dogs, I can not make myself sexually attracted to them. I could make myself have sex with them (GOD FORBID!!!), but not make myself be sexually attracted to them. 2) Why would so many people decide to lead a life of being blatantly disrespected, oppressed, and descriminated against if they could choose to be the opposite? They wouldn't....
Resolved: Being gay is a learned behavior

Being born gay is not an instinct. You are not born with the thought of loving your mother, for example. You love her because of the fact that she cares for you when you are hurt, calms you when you are angry. Love is acquired first through the process of friendship, and as you develop a strong trust and bond between yourself, then you begin to love. Any type of love is formed this way, whether it is gay love or straight love. Love is an acquired behavior, not an instinct, as love cannot be taught. If two people of the same sex meet each other and after getting to know each other slowly develop feelings for each other, then they begin to feel love. You can't fall in love with a person of the same sex once you meet them, which further supports my argument that love is an acquired behavior.
Should the United States (have) intervene(d) in Rwanda? (See further details below).

I would just like to rebut some of your arguments in Round 3. This will have to be quick, I am going to a physiotherapist later. Not all foreign intervention works1) The cost on the locals in Panama and Yugoslavia were large, meaning that foreign intervention is also hardest on the locals. The Yugoslavia war also caused a different war, the Kosovo war.2) The Bosnian genocide is still going on (as of 1994) despite US intervention in Yugoslavia. KoreaNorth Korea recently refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, meaning that they might develop nuclear weapons to attack the south with. It is still an unstable place. VietnamFactions of one part of the country (Vietnam had communists in the north, Rwanda has Hutus in the south) attacking the other (democrats in the south, Tutsis in the north). These factors are present. UTFThe fact is, Somalia is still unstable despite US intervention. IraqDesert Storm was a success for the West, but it still made the Middle Eastern region unstable. PTSDThe fact is, PTSD would have been massive with soldiers maybe seeing Hutu mobs attacking them with machetes. If PTSD gets to one solider, it can severely drop the morale of other soldiers, and morale is a factor of success in warfare. ConclusionSorry that this was a short argument, I am really in a rush. Call me a pacifist, but there has not been a single year of peace in the world since WWII. There is no need for another war in a far off land to America. Once again, thanks for doing this debate with me.
Should the United States (have) intervene(d) in Rwanda? (See further details below).

RebuttalsThe United States is morally obligedWhat my opponent has said is that killing is wrong, so the United States should send in soldiers to kill people, instead of sending in aid workers to help the victims.Also, my opponent said if the conflict escalates then more lives could be lost. Who said that the conflict would escalate? And if it did, why wouldn't the African Monetary Union, with Rwanda as a member state, put large sanctions on the Hutu government?The United States is legally obligedFrance, a country that was a victim of the Holocaust, would not agree to genocide.Also, if there is a legal obligation to stop genocide, why hasn't there been an intervention in North Korea, and more specifically, the concentration camps discovered in 1990, where Christians, Buddhists, the disabled, Japanese soldiers, South Korean soldiers and American soldiers are being tortured and publically executed? If this isn't on the same scale as the Rwandan Genocide, it must be bigger (It's bigger, but that information hadn't been released in 1994). Why was Egypt the only country to step in during the Nigerian Civil War, where 1-3 million of the Nigerian Igbo population were slaughtered by Hausa and Yoruba soldiers? The genocide is likely to escalateA good point, but don't forget that some African countries wouldn't want the same violence in their countries, and they might even stop it on behalf of the United Nations. Such an escalation will likely be detrimentalIt isn't called the domino effect, it's called the domino theory, and the word theory implies that it is just a hypothesis or scenario, not a fact. And if it did happen, it was caused by the United States in the partition of Korea. And it didn't even happen to the extent that they thought it would in Asia. No government has even hypothesised that it would happen in Africa either, so it isn't a valid excuse to intervene.And if it did escalate, especially into Zaire, then their sizable military would be able to stop the threat by its own.I still maintain that there is no reason for the United States to intervene in Rwanda. Thank you for your time.
Should the United States (have) intervene(d) in Rwanda? (See further details below).

Let's go. I appreciate that the Rwandan Genocide was a tragedy for the Tutsi people, but I also have two main reasons that the United States shouldn't have taken part in the Rwandan Civil War and Genocide. Not all foreign intervention worksI have four examples of this, all of which include the United States. Korean War - After 3 years of fighting and 40,000 deaths, North and South Korea are still divided at the most militarized border in the world. Vietnam War - 58,000 casualties happened for the US to lose control over Vietnam completely. Vietnam remains a communist nation today. Unified Task Force - This was a US mission into Somalia when the civil war had just started. The US left Somalia with no stability, and to this day there is no legitimate or recognised government in Somalia. War in Iraq - Sure, Suddam Hussein lost his dictatorship over Iraq, but the US forces who left in 2011 left Iraq in a completely worse state than it was in 2003. Nearly 100,000 American lives were lost in these 4 wars alone, all of which failed to achieve their objective. Now imagine what would happen if the US got into a war with the Hutu, who had similar guerrilla tactics to the Viet Cong. Soldiers probably wouldn't want to fightWe saw this in the Vietnam War, the US troops got so demoralised that they didn't want to fight any longer. This was partly caused by the guerrilla tactics that the Viet Cong were using (and don't forget that the Hutu's, seeing how to win a war against the US, would probably use similar tactics), and partly because they were fighting in a war in a far off land (Vietnam is a similar distance away from the US as Rwanda is). Also, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is one of the most painful things that a human can get, and the most common way that people get PTSD is from traumatic events during times of war. I remember seeing a documentary when a soldier was talking about an event that happen during the Unified Task Force mission in Somalia. A soldier is one of the hardest jobs to have, you have to be one of the toughest people in the land to get it. This man was one of them, and he was weeping uncontrollably on the camera. It isn't just the cost of the war on the governments, and the political careers of the people who start it. There are people who have to carry out the orders, and fight the war. The personal effects of these men would scar them for the rest of their lives, and the people who see them would definitely be less likely to support the war. I am under no doubt that this would have happened in Rwanda. If soliders happen to see the actual genocide taking place, they would have a lot of PTSD. At the time of 1994, the United States had never entered a war knowing about the genocides going on. ConclusionThe effects of war aren't just political, they are personal as well. One bad experience, and a lifetime of sadness for the soldier and his family. It is for these issues that I believe that the United States were right to stay out of the war in Rwanda. Thank you for reading this argument.
Should the United States (have) intervene(d) in Rwanda? (See further details below).

I need to test a debate case I have been working on, and, in doing so, am going to use a format not common to DDO. This case is time-space, meaning that neither side can use arguments that involve information beyond the information available at the time this debate is set.This case is also opp-choice, meaning that my opponent, in his first round, shall choose which side to debate on. Thus, ignore the normal Pro/Con designations. I shall also be arguing in parliamentary style, meaning that arguments involving source material that would not be "common knowledge," (known as the New York Times standard), are banned, though I will allow some flexibility with this. The full resolution: It is April 20, 1994. The United States now, unequivocally, knows that a full-scale genocide is taking place in Rwanda. With this knowledge, should the United States unilaterally intervene in Rwanda to stop the genocide and restore peace?Caveats: - The United States knows that around 300,000 Tutsis have been killed thus far. - The rebel RPF has taken over around 1/5 of the northern territory in the country, and has been against intervention. - The United States will unilaterally intervene with a force of between 5,000 and 10,000 soldiers, which will take between 3 days and a week to fully deploy. - The United States will intervene neutrally, operating on behalf of neither the Hutu-led government or the Tutsi-led rebel RPF. - United States' soldiers may only engage with either side if killings are either being witnessed or about to occur. Structure: Round 1: Accept, and state positionRound 2: Constructive material (no rebuttals)Round 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Conclusion (no new material, other than responding to new material from Round 3)I hope you all enjoy this case, and I hope whoever accepts has interesting arguments, as I need input to better my case. Thank you, and good luck!
Blogger Threats

The occasion requires little space to refute the claims of Pro. As such, my opening argument will be short. ----------- I stand in firm opposition to the resolution, that Hal Turner has violated Title 18, United States Code, Section 115. ---------- I understand "Title 18, United States Code, Section 115" to mean the statute quoted by Pro in his opening statement. The full text of the statute can be found directly below. (. http://www.capdefnet.org...) ====== Pro alleges that Mr. Turner's blog posts of June 2, 2009 and June 3, 2009 are in violation the aforementioned statute. However, any attempt to apply the statements to the statute will show these allegations to be false. ====== Burdens applied ====== Intent is very important when determining a "true threat". In order to win this debate, Pro must prove that the defendant, Mr. Turner, intended to carry out the alleged threats. I will show that this is an impossible task. ====== 1. Statements Lack Intent ====== While Mr. Turner's aforementioned statements appear to be harsh and somewhat abusive, they do not constitute a direct threat by Mr. Turner to any judge, generally or specifically. Let us examine the alleged threats of June 2 and June 3 of 2009: 1. June 2, 2009: In this blog post, Mr. Turner expressed his belief that certain judges deserve to be killed. 2. June 3, 2009: In this post, the defendant expressed his opinion that certain judges on the 7th U. S. Circuit Court needed further lessons in jurisprudence. In neither of these instances (quoted in Pro's R1, and linked to above) did the defendant express an intent to "assault, kidnap, murder, or attempt or conspire to kidnap or murder, or threaten to assault, kidnap or murder a member of the immediate family" of any judge or official. Since there is no expression of intent by Mr. Turner to commit any of the actions provided for in 18, USC, Sec. 115 it cannot be concluded that he violated said statute.
Blogger Threats

Is Hal Turner guilty of threatening three federal judges? Yes, I say! This article caught my attention the other day. http://www.twincities.com... After some research, I concluded that the case is debatable. Below my initial argument you will find (1) the criminal statute allegedly violated by the defendant, and (2) a statement of the facts (see Complaint and Affidavit). Initial Argument: On June 2, 2009, Turner posted the following statement on his website. The statements show his desire and intent to kill the judges: "Government lies, cheats, manipulates, twists and outright disobeys the supreme law and founding documents of this land because they have not, in our lifetime, faced REAL free men willing to walk up to them and kill them for their defiance and disobedience. Thomas Jefferson, one of our Founding Fathers, told us "The tree of liberty must be replenished from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots." It is time to replenish the tree! Let me be the first to say this plainly: These Judges deserve to be killed. Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. A small price to pay to assure freedom for millions. " Here is a statement expressing a threat: "Shortly thereafter, a gunman entered the home of that lower court Judge and slaughtered the Judge's mother and husband.[1] Apparently, the 7th U.S. Circuit court didn't get the hint after those killings. It appears another lesson is needed. " http://www.usdoj.gov... __________________________________ (1) Complaint and supporting affidavit - http://www.usdoj.gov... (2) The statute allegedly violated by Turner: ï¿½ 115. Influencing, impeding, or retaliating against a Federal official by threatening or injuring a family member (a)(1) Whoever— (A) assaults, kidnaps, or murders, or attempts or conspires to kidnap or murder, or threatens to assault, kidnap or murder a member of the immediate family of a United States official, a United States judge, a Federal law enforcement officer, or an official whose killing would be a crime under section 1114 of this title; or (B) threatens to assault, kidnap, or murder, a United States official, a United States judge, a Federal law enforcement officer, or an official whose killing would be a crime under such section, with intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with such official, judge, or law enforcement officer while engaged in the performance of official duties, or with intent to retaliate against such official, judge, or law enforcement officer on account of the performance of official duties, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). _____________________ (3) The word 'threaten': Definitions of 'threaten'. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Hillary should be in prison

The greatest thing about this country is that we have the right to free speech, to bear arms and the right to due process. We cannot start a lynch mob to go after someone because we believe they broke the law. When all the evidence is laid out, we will see what happened. I do not agree with many of Hillary's political polices, but that does not mean we can simply demand she should be in prison because of that. We need to allow the justice system to do their job during a very heated political season and not allow rhetoric from both sides to cloud our judgement when it comes to our basic liberties and demand someone to put on trial for something we may not know many facts about.
Atheism is an irrational stance on God

brontoraptor is trying to argue that “atheism is an irrational stance on God.” In Round 1, he defines god as “the creator of our reality” and atheism as “claiming that a god doesn’t exist.” In Round 2, brontoraptor talks about all the psychological benefits of religious belief; how it’s great for meeting the “Hierarchy of Psychological Needs.” Guess what? Reality doesn’t give a sh*t about your psychological needs. Richard Dawkins says, “The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” If that’s TRUE, then atheism is perfectly rational. This debate is about whether it is rational to claim that a God doesn’t exist. brontoraptor hasn’t given us a single compelling reason to think atheism is irrational. Christianity makes you feel better, therefore atheism is irrational? Wrong. Bad argument. Atheists are hostile towards Christians and friendly towards Muslims, therefore atheism is irrational? The premise isn’t true. Even if it was true, how is it therefore irrational to believe (or claim) that a god doesn’t exist? Bad argument. Atheists are “negative people” therefore atheism is irrational? Wrong on multiple levels. Bad argument. brontoraptor has offered us nothing but a hodgepodge of irrelevancies. On a side note, atheism is not a “psychologically destructive state of mind.” But reality may be disappointing to those who are used to believing in fanciful stories to make themselves feel good…i.e., Christians.