BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Obama.

Obama is doing good because a lot of people kill with guns right? He is also helping because someone might just send a nuclear bomb thinking it will hit the sea but it landed in Atlanta. Besides, why do you want like 5 guns? Are you just trying to look cool? If you are, I think you might be already broke. Also, like I said before, the president won't go in every house. People also think it's better to fight with words than guns right? So that means you don't have to shoot each other if your angry, just use words. Some people don't know that, so they just kill people. Take robbers for example, they might use up all their money to buy a gun so they can rob a bank. That's pretty stupid if you ask me. Last, you forfeited 2 rounds. Vote PRO. Thanks guys.
Obama.

Obama is good because what if someone just kills you.d Nuclear weapons or big and destructive, and can kill like 1,000 people in one hit. Also, why are you buying weapons? I think you mean robbing a home when you need a gun or so, but why do you want a lot of weapons? Are you just a assainator? Obama is doing good. I am enlighten you too. What if you were under a huge neclear bomb. Nuclear bombs are like small atomic bombs. Next thing you know you are already in the hospital. Besides, the president won't go in every house because that would take about a month. Also, you also forfeited this round. Please vote for PRO. Thank you
Pedophila shouldn't be legalized

I am assuming that my opponent believes that pedophila shouldn't be legal, so I am going to debate that it should be legal. deinition of pedophila (from urban dictionary)-When big buisnesses in the TV/Movies/Music industry try to get their cosumers aroused to increase sales by making sexy people seem sweet and tender and making them dress up and behave like schoolgirls/boys. Often times, instead of imitation, they'll use actual children. Point One- It is considered freedom of speech. Many court cases have made pornography considered freedom of speech. Pedophila could be another type of porn but pedophila is alot more safer. Anyways, companies have a right to post a sexy woman on a car and try to convince them to buy the car. Now I will refute my opponent's case. Pedophila is nasty: This is highly opinionated. Some people might enjoy Pedophila. Childrens' lives are ruined because of them: This statement needs to be backed up with proof. Point Two- It is the adult's right to submit their kid into that business. Most parents sign a form allowing their kids to paricipate in that event. If that is made illegal, that hinders their first ammendment right and the unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness.
Labor Unions: part II

I am sorry, but I can not post an argument. I have been way too busy with my classes (I'm in college). But how would you like another challenge? If I am not too busy, I will try to get one out soon provided you can post arguments quickly. If I can not find the time, I will have a challenge out the first weekend in May, and you can post arguments normally within the 72 hour time frame. Is that okay? Again, I am very sorry for forfeiting this debate. I look forward to debating you soon. P.S. Do you do religious debates?
Labor Unions: part II

For my Round 1 argument, I simply reinstate my Round 4 argument from our early debate and you will refute that in your Round 1 argument, and so forth. You need to have arguments against my earlier Round 4 argument in your Round 1 argument. Here is the link to our earlier debate: http://www.debate.org.... You specifically asked for me to challenge you again on this resolution. Why aren't you accepting this challenge?
Remove 'marriage' from government language.

Rules:-Please keep language simple, I don't like looking up more than one word per post.-This debate should not be based on semantics. Use comments if you think a person's statement could mean two different things and you do not actually know what they are trying to say. -No new information in the 3rd round. Just rebuttals/conclusions. -By ‘language’ I mean laws, issuing ‘marriage’ license, things like that.I'd like to start out by stating I am for 'marriage' being a religious unity. I state this because I have never been to a wedding, including civil ceremonies, that did not mention God. That does not mean they do not exist, but because of the statistics, I consider 'marriage' a religious thing.That being said, I see the religious stand on why same sex marriage (SSM) should not be allowed. I also agree with them. Which is why I think the word ‘marriage’ should be removed from all government language. I believe unities are vital for our society. When it comes to children, two parents are more often better than one (1). More so if one of them stays at home, but that’s not the topic of this debate. Well, why not just live together? Government benefits of course. Not just tax breaks, but also death benefits and other public benefits. I believe states are making their own civil union laws, but some believe these laws are still not equal.(2) In short, I believe ‘marriages’ are religious and religious unions should be separate from legal unions. (1) http://www.census.gov... (2) http://www.saltlaw.org...
Remove 'marriage' from government language.

I thank you for not giving up on this. I’m not the best at explaining my opinion. I’m hoping participating in these debates will help. Rebuttal to your definitionYour definition of marriage is a little lacking. You state the definition while concealing the implications of the word. History shows that marriage has religious implications. This is what I was implying in my first round. Because this implication is so deep in many cultures, the word can be given to religion. Add “in god’s eyes” if you like to the definition. I’m not really concerned what they do with it though. My argument about removing the word from all government is because of these implications. In short, I do not have to prove ‘marriage’ is religious. History shows it has religious implications. Rebuttal to ‘Understanding’ & ‘Non-Religious People Marrying’Those that want the right to be called ‘married’ are asking for that right because they do not have the same rights as ‘marriage’ in all government eyes. If they want to fight the church for marriage, they can. But it would have nothing to do with any of their inalienable rights. If we remove ‘marriage’ from all government, and put in ‘civil union’, everyone will now have equal rights. In other words, the government sees no ‘marriage’. So people can say whatever they like when they have their ceremony. In short, there are no longer legal benefits for ‘marriage’ only ‘civil unions’. Marriage is either religious or non-existent. It has no bearing on government issues. Rebuttal to ‘Name Change’This is a non-issue. A name change for a ‘marriage’ will now be a name change for a ‘civil union’. I repeat, everyone will have a ‘civil union’. I still say it is not hard to change your name. But that’s all opinion. Rebuttal to ‘Disadvantage’I believe my stance is clear now, therefore, your disadvantage only proves my case. Currently, being ‘married’ has an advantage over a ‘civil union’. This should not be the case where the entire government is concerned. I would also remind everyone that, like insurance, anything that uses the government to recognize a 'couple' would now also use 'civil union' because there is no such thing as 'marriage' to the government. ConclusionHistory shows us that ‘marriage’ is clearly tied to religion. If we remove the word from government, we are taking one more step in separation of church and state. This is one more step in equality in America. This allows for freedom from religion. It also provides equality in unions. (Not talking about worker unions) I would like to remind everyone voting, this is not a debate about whether or not gays should marry. This could merely be for people that don’t want their union to be associated with religion. I thank everyone in advance for voting.
Remove 'marriage' from government language.

I apologize to Pro, I was extremely confused and thought he meant something he did not. But that should not have a bearing on the vote for this round, the result should. I will now move on to some more informed argumentation. Now, Pro's basic argument relies on whether marriage is religious or not. Pro has not bothered to define marriage, so I will."1. : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law 2. : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage "(1)Does the definition include religion? No. "Marriage" is not a religious thing only. It's a symbol of being united to the person you love. Pro's argumentation falls apart from this point.Pro also contested my second burden for him, but failed to refute it. If Pro is going to call marriage a religious unity, he must prove that. He has merely stated his belief. I have provided a definition.Moving on to my Disadvantages.1) InsuranceI concede this because of a misunderstanding2) Name changeYou have to pay a fee of about 150 dollars and go before a judge, and do much more. It's harder. This point still stands.3) Non-religious people marryingThere's still the fact that they will not be called married. That's what they are fighting for: they want to be recognized as married, just like everyone else. -Understanding Pro's position-I am rather confused, and I believe you might be too, as to what Pro exactly wants to do. Does he want all the legal benefits of marriage to extend down to civil unions, and allow religious couples to at their wedding day also say "we're married"? Is he saying that there is currently two "levels" of being united: Civil unions which apply to same-sex couples, and marriage, which has more benefits than a civil union? If so, Disadvantage: Civil unions not always recognizedMany states don't recognize each other's civil unions.(2)Thus, the "marriages", or "unions" (whatever you want to call it) of same-sex couples won't be recognized in every state.SummaryPro has not proved that marriage is a religious unity only, and I have proved my side. The debate hinges on this point, if I lose this point then we move on and look at the other arguments, but if I win this point Pro loses. I've proved my side and thus Pro loses.There are also several disadvantages to Pro's side.Lastly, Pro's side is so undefined as to hurt debate. In debate, a vague position/plan/idea is worth voting against.Thank you, please vote Con.Sources:(1)http://www.merriam-webster.com...(2)http://articles.cnn.com...
Remove 'marriage' from government language.

Please try not to change the subject. Your 'extra' burden is like saying I have to prove what happens to a box if I suggest it needs to be moved from the doorway. I only need to prove it is in the way and needs to be moved. Not where it needs to go or why. As far as our debate is concerned the religious marriage can be privatized, or abolished completely, it does not matter.Because you have chosen to change the debate to 'Marriage should be privatized and religious only', your arguments are irrelevant.I am going to merely clear up any confusion that my first round may have caused.1. I believe in separation of church and state, which is essential for religious freedom in the United States. 2. I believe 'marriage' is a religious unity.3. I believe the national government should have a non-religious unity only. (Civil unity I believe it's called)4. States have these 'additional' civil union laws, which my second source shows is unequal to marriage.5. I believe a contract with the government helps keep people together, which is good for children. Source number one was the evidence for this.6. I believe the objectors of gay marriage have a leg to stand on because of their religious beliefs.7. I believe sexual orientation is personal and is no business of the government. I would like to address your disadvantages simply so you do not have to waste your time with them again.1) Insurance - As you put it, it is a legal spouse. Because the government unity (no longer being religious) can be 2 males or 2 females, the wording would allow for the 'spouse' to be any sexual orientation.2) Name Change - Is a simple process. Like a common Law marriage, some states (not sure about national government) even allow you to change your name with a signed and notarized affidavit.3) Non-religious people marrying - this is void simply because they want to be lawfully unified, not religiously. They will not get married, because it is religious. They will get a civil union with a ceremony they organize.The clear advantage of removing 'marriage' from government is that religions get their word the way they want it. As well as separating church and state just a little bit more. It is now on you to provide some real disadvantages or prove my advantages are wrong. I look forward to your second round.
Remove 'marriage' from government language.

Although the resolution is only to remove "marriage" from government language, Pro has taken an extra position. Thus, Pro has two burdens to prove.1. That marriage should be privatized. (Resolution)2. That marriage should be a religious issue only. (His beginning argument)Thus, if I disprove one of these, then I win the debate round. I will start by stating that Pro has really made no argument for privatizing marriage: burden 1. First, Pro stated that he believes marriage is a religious unity. Great, well even with the government regulating it, marriage can still be a religious unity. Second, Pro stated that same-sex marriage should not be allowed. But this is not a reason to privatize marriage. In fact, privatizing marriage would allow same-sex marriage. Finally, Pro stated that because states are making their own laws, there is inequality. But the fact is, states are the ones that are supposed to regulate marriage. This is not inequality! Many, many laws work the same way. Thus, we are left with no reason to privatize marriage. Pro already loses because he failed his burden 1. I'd like to also bring up a Disadvantage to this position: Insurance. One of the benefits of legally marrying is that your insurance is united with your spouses'. That way, you don't have to worry about dealing with separate insurance. Here's a second Disadvantage to this position: Name changing. One of the basic parts of marriage is that the woman usually changes her last name to match the male's. This is easy with marriage in the government, not so easy if not. Name changing would be a hassle without government-regulated marriage. Let's move on to burden 2. Once again Pro hasn't made much of an argument for making marriage a religious unity only. As I said, you can have a religious unity at the same time as a legal unity. Now, I would like to bring up a Disadvantage to Pro's position here: Non-religious couples would not be able to marry. If marriage is only a religious unity, then atheists wouldn't be able to marry. This is completely against how marriage works. In the end, we see that Pro's position is disadvantageous and that it is better for the government to have a legal form of marriage.
This crimescene would state: Illegal immigatation will likely cause america to explode

OMG! China is more spread out. They can handle that many peoples. Americas cannot because we arent that spread out. Canada? Heh yeah were talking bout america! I dont care about your rant that america is really ruled by reptillians. The ones who dont learn to think for themselves will be damned to repeat stupid quotes. The white people taught the indies how to hunt turkey (thanksgiving). They deserved to die because they attacked the white man. If you cant handle me at my dootist.
This crimescene would state: Illegal immigatation will likely cause america to explode

Chinas population = 1,355,692,576 United States Population= 318,892,103 China is a little smaller than the united staates in territory and hasnt been yet (being pushed down to the center of the earth causing it to explode). Do you think that everyboody wants to go to the united states? at least half od the people hope to make their way to canada, USA aint that great. Now it is not about placing United States in a Cage and being closed nside a wall. It is about hapling the world countries to improve so there is not so much immigration. Anyway most of the people who illegaaly immigrate to the USA is because they dont know what is in there and they think that there are better conditions and it is the land of the free but that is just an illusion. Past means sh**? The red skins didnt had any rules against immigration? The ones who dont learn their past will be damnes to repeat it. And no they werent "illegal" in the strict sense of the world but that doesnt make it good either. They were willing to accept the white people in their lands if they beheaved well with them and the earth and in turn the white people masacred them.
This crimescene would state: Illegal immigatation will likely cause america to explode

The US being created and funded by immigrents doesnt mean they were illegal. The red people had no laws so it cant be illegal immigration. And Im discussing now, current events! The past dont mean sh1t. THERE IS a reason why it would eslode. If we allow illegal immos in to the nations we allow more peoples in the nations. the more peoples there are the more likely one of those people is going to be a crazy demolitions expert. By extension the more illegal immos we allow, the more likely it is we are going to have a crazo demolotions expert. THe more likely it is for him to explode america! America is getting more and more people in there each day. If we have a ton of people on the surfice of american the more they will push down the surfice of america. The more people over time the more the surfuce of america will be pushed the the hot areas under the earth. Once we have too many people the surfice of america will be all burned and cause chemical reactions which will make it explode. It is simply science and math. If we allow illegal immos. we are allowing the destruction of america
This crimescene would state: Illegal immigatation will likely cause america to explode

Wassssup my glib-glops! After spending time in murica I see lots of cool things. Hot valley girls, ugly valley girls, hot southern girls, ugly southern girls, burgers, guns, baseball, american hop-hip, guns, Mcdonalds, but mostly i saw mexicans. I think america should raise up a 700 foot wall of ice to keep them out because if they dont america will likely explode!
Randomness

Well, that's harsh man! Thank you for creating this debate, you unworthy opponent! First of all, I would like to refute my opponent's statements. They said that unicorns are reAl which is proven through real unicorns created by Einstein. I disagree because of two reasons. One, they have no source. Two, I tried to find this theory, but it was nowhere to be found! Therefore, this statement is invalid. They also said that there would be a new era represented by video games controlled by unicorns. I disagree for the reason that this is an assumption backed by no evidence without a source. Therefore, my opponent has brought up another invalid point with no source that should be discounted. Thirdly, they questioned who would pick up the trash if everybody were billionaires. The answer is robots. If all people were billionaires, they wouldn't have maids and people working for hem, so the solution is robots. They also brought up a bunch of random things, hence the topic "Randomness" all backed by NO source and COMPLETELY fake! Alright, now I would like to answer my opponent's questions for me. 1. The apple is actually red, not 5. 2. Ok, this is an assumption, but when computers blow up, they go to computer heaven. 3. An eagle eats it's vegetables by biting, chewing, digesting, and pooping. Alright, now I would like to bring up a few random statements of my own. Blue whales are blue. Pigs oink. A mouse cannot carry a house, but 1,000+ mouses can. Razabella!
Randomness

Your welcome for refusing my challenge unworthy opponent. First of all video games are a symbol of the future. They obviously represent a new era in which people are not a live, but controlled by unicorns. If humans were turned into billionaires who would pick up the trash? And if trash was turned into humans who would feed the aliens? I don't know if its possible for a man to live after being hit by a bicycle going five miles an hour, but I think he would probably die. In a study by Mahatma Ghandi dinosaurs that do not have tails do not survive very long in the ocean. So dear opponent, before responding to my utterly profound statements of wisdom please answer these three questions: 1. Why is the apple 5? 2. Where do computers go if they blow up? 3. How does an eagle eat its vegetables?
Corporal punishment in the families!!!

Why is it today it is an abusive act while not that long ago you could of been whacked across the head very easily and that was the least they could do. Kids now a days think that it is OK to talk back and disrespect there elders or parents. That is why are society is so corrupt. Second Point:- There is a difference. There is a clear difference between clearly abusing your child and disciplining them. Discipline should involve a punishment backed by love, not an action taken out of anger. If you are hitting a child out of anger you are not disciplining them. Children do not learn from things like time outs, because there is nothing to associate to with misbehavior. Corporal punishment offers a quick stimulus that helps the developing brain associate misbehavior with pain. I was spanked as a child, not abused, spanked. I'm am thankful every time I think about it that my parents disciplined me properly. It has made me know how to act in public. Whenever we would be in a restaurant as kids, there would be screaming children all around, and my brother and I would be the ones sitting at the table eating our food. Again, I will clarify. Corporal punishment is done out of love and is solely for discipline of misbehavior. Child abuse is an act of aggression done out of anger meant to actually harm the child. There is a difference.
Corporal punishment in the families!!!

There was a time when hitting children over the head with metal implements was seen as ‘proper discipline’, while today we understandable that this is an abusive act. While I've seen children acting out in public, most of their parents have simply reacted to their actions with threats of them being spanked if they don't behave, proving how in effective spanking is because it didn't stop the child misbehaving in the first place. Most people I’ve seen use it only because they have poor parenting skills. This is no reason to hit a child. Children do not have to be threatened by their parents to get them to behave Corporal punishment blurs the line between 'abuse' and 'discipline' and allows people to justify injuring their children. It also breaches children's right to equal protection under the law.
Corporal punishment in the families!!!

In conclusion. allowing Corporal punishment against children is discriminatory against them because of their age as it denies them equal protection under the law. It can also subject them to cruel and demining treatment which violent their rights. I believe that it has no place in society as it can be detrimental to children for all the reasons outlined in my sources by: Causing low self esteem Making children feel lonely, abandoned or sad Teaching them to be victims Interfering with the emotional, intellectual and sensory learning process Increasing the risk of poor mental health in later life Teaches that violence is an acceptable way of dealing with violence There are less violent methods of parenting which are more effective such as positive reinforcement for disciplining children. Additionally, counties which have banned it such as Sweden which made banned it have experienced no negative effects from banning it, therefore there is no reason not to if it protects both children and society. Why should it be okay to hit a vulnerable child, when if the same was done to an adult you could be charged for assault?