BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Polygamous Marriages

Well that's an unfortunate forfeit. I'll just summarize here, then.To conclude, I'm winning on the framework level that love is the basis of marriages and it's what we ought to use to justify which couples/families are deserving of eligibility for marriage. Since there's no reason to believe that polygamous families cannot love one another, then there seems to be no reason to preclude them from marriage for any reason. I'm also showing why his view of marriage as a contractual thing to prevent excessive paperwork in the future is problematic, meaning that the only way to view marriage as a concept is coming from the Affirmative.If I'm winning this then the rest of the debate becomes irrelevant. It doesn't matter, at that point, what practical problems there could be or how the definition of marriage would differ. If they love one another, then why ought we deny them the chance to make things work? But even if you look to the pragmatic problems presented by the negative, then there's still no place to negate. I'm giving you sufficient defense to each response against polygamous marriages and showing why none of the objections raised are actually valid objections or reasons why we ought to deny them the chance to marry. This means that regardless of what framework you evaluate marriage under, I'm showing you that there are no compelling reasons to deny polygamous families the right to marry. As such, the resolution stands.
Polygamous Marriages

Okay I'll be totally honest and say that I'm kinda lost here. I think we've reached a dead-end, so I'm just gonna go ahead and give the debate a turn, if I lose points for this, so be it. Do you have any suggestions of what our laws of marriage would look like in order to allow polygamous marriages? Is one person allowed to have several spouses, even though his or her spouses aren't married to each other? If yes.... polygamy is not a new idea. It's a standard form of marriage, dating back, of course, to Biblical times and before, and anthropologists say that 85 percent of human societies have permitted it. This means we know a thing or two about it. Here's the problem with it: when a high-status man takes two wives (and one man taking many wives, or polygyny, is almost invariably the real-world pattern), a lower-status man gets no wife. If the high-status man takes three wives, two lower-status men get no wives. And so on. This competitive, zero-sum dynamic sets off a competition among high-status men to hoard marriage opportunities, which leaves lower-status men out in the cold. Those men, denied access to life's most stabilizing and civilizing institution, are unfairly disadvantaged and often turn to behaviors like crime and violence. The situation is not good for women, either, because it places them in competition with other wives and can reduce them all to satellites of the man. a 2012 study discovered "significantly higher levels of rape, kidnapping, murder, assault robbery and fraud in polygynous cultures." According to the research, "monogamy's main cultural evolutionary advantage over polygyny is the more egalitarian distribution of women, which reduces male competition and social problems." (source: http://www.eurekalert.org...) The study found that monogamous marriage "results in significant improvements in child welfare, including lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death, homicide and intra-household conflict." And: "by shifting male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment, institutionalized monogamy increases long-term planning, economic productivity, savings and child investment." You might reply with the fact that a polygamous marriage does not necessarily mean a man marrying several women. But this is a very possible outcome in a male dominant world like the one we STILL live in. Men are richer, and why would a man settle for one woman when he could have 10, and why would a woman settle for a low class man when she could live a luxurious life with another? Sorry for the lack of response to your argument, don't worry - the voters are gonna notice that.
Polygamous Marriages

"them just deciding between themselves what happens in these situations, but by legalizing it we provide better avenues for these problems to be solved legally that don't currently exist" Whether or not someone defines marriage being between man and woman, two people or three people is irrelevant to the argument that marriage is designed to make it legally practical for TWO people. Changing the marriage law to allow two of the same sexes did not violate the original law on any matter except the obvious one, that originally it was meant for one man and one woman - that was a moral debate, however this is not just a moral debate, because by changing the marriage to allow more than two people in it, we have to remake the entire law, which would in my opinion not just change the marriage as we know it for religious people, but it would completely change the marriage we know today. The marriage is a legally binding document that gives people certain rights. Its a practical thing that says - if you sign this document you are legally your spouses heir, you have custody of each other's children, blah blah blah. You don't need to figure out all these things because the marriage does it ALL for you. THAT is the point of marriage. However you say "All it takes is a conversation between the family to get them to agree that this is what should happen in this situation, and the fighting becomes a non-issue since they would've already decided." If they need to sit down and discuss, what is the point of them getting the document that was designed to skip that very step? Furthermore, I can get married today if I want - to anybody! If there were three people that got spontaneous and decided to get married today, could they? Because you said there need to be a conversation to settle some things. Then you are discriminating polygamous couples by saying they can't get married today, but a monogamous couple can.
Polygamous Marriages

The way I see it, marriage is something that is practical. For me it's nothing holy or anything, but it is simply a practical thing. Two people who have decided to stay together unmarried usually have more paperwork to deal with. They have to make sure that they write a testament, leaving their belongings to their loved one. If they do not do that, there are legal things that can happen that are easily avoidable. For instance, if they bought a house together in the name of only one, and then this person dies, and if they didn't write a testament, the house will be given to the nearest family of that person. Young people don't plan on themselves dying, so they rarely prepare for it - that is why this happens quite a lot for unmarried couples. This is just one of the problems an unmarried couple may face. That is why it is much more practical for both the couple and the state that they marry each other. All the paperwork they had to be doing otherwise is not necessary then. That is why I am for gay marriage. I am not for polygamous marriages, because these practical things with a marriage are unfortunately non-existent in marriages involving more than two. 1. If one in the marriage of three dies, to whom do his or hers belongings go to? if they were wealthy, there would likely be a lot of fighting over that. 2. Children and divorce - divorce is not easy on children because they can't stand moving around between parents. Imagine what moving around between three parents would do? 3. What if one of the three wants a divorce from the other two? How would they share they're fortune? All in all, it seems like a marriage involving more than two would create more drama than it would be practical, so therefore I am against it.
Grades are detrimental to education

Explanation: As the Pro, My burden will be to show that it is more likely that grades are detrimental to a child's education in more cases than they help them either theoretically or in practice. The con Burden is to show that grades are an integral part of education, and that they are helpful to more students than they detriment. Style: This is meant to be a mainly philosophical debate, and, though direct evidence is completely fine, it is not necessary. Either side may use a philosopher, political thinker etc. as a source to back up part of a claim or contention, but not as the crux of an argument, or validation of a claim. Structure: Round 1: Acceptance (and if you feel it necessary other/counter definitions) Round 2: Introduce All arguments (no con rebuttals) Round 3: Rebuttals, Turns, extensions etc. Round 4: Final Rebuttals and Closing arguments. (No new arguments) Definitions: For the purpose of this round, grades refer to Numerical or other scaled evaluation of a students performance. Grades do not include narratives, or other text based evaluations. Side note: if My opponent wishes to argue that there are certain students to whom this benefit is more important, or that education is utilitarian (and therefore some students are more important than others) they may.
It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domes

Hmmmm.... 2 forfeits in a row.I will post a simple argument to prove my case, as it is getting less likely that Pro will come up with her own arguments.C.1 Two wrongs don't make a right.I'm sure you have heard of this popular saying. It is valid in this case.Just because your assaulter attacks you, does not give you the right to use deadly force in response. Responding with deadly force will not stop your assaulter from attacking, it will simply anger him further to attack you, so it solves nothing.Furthermore, responding with deadly force makes you wrong too. As a result, you can also be charged with assault. Therefore, it is not morally permissible, as two wrongs don't make a right and responding with deadly force simply lowers you to an assaulter as well.Hopefully Pro responds with arguments and a refutation.Otherwise, I win this debate.
It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domes

I accept. As Pro has not provided any analysis to her statements, I will assume round 1 is for acceptance only. I will allow my opponent to further expand her arguments in the second round before posting my own.As Pro has not laid down any definitions, I will.morally permissible: in the general sense, it is morally okay, or right for the victim to retaliate against a someone who has repeatedly attacked them with domestic violencedeadly: Causing or able to cause deathhttp://www.google.ca...deliberate: Done consciously and intentionallyhttp://www.google.ca...response: as in retaliationrepeated: in this case, if the perpetrator has harmed the victim more than three times on seperate occasions, then he has repeated domestic violencePlease PM or comment if you disagree with these definitions.
Marijuana Legalization in Canada

I see you think it makes people more creative, but if your watching TV and eating from a ice cream tub, your "creativity" isn't going to come in good use. I laughed at the end when you said "useful product and ideas," because I imagined a boss walking in to a meeting, and seeing a bunch of 70's style hippies smoking weed trying to come up with a weird product such as a quadricycle with a jet engine. (That's just my humor). Anyways, usually people smoke it because they are influenced by someone else, and they think they won't be on their own. Eventually, it gets to them, and they want to stop. The fact that it isn't addictive, sounds wrong to me, and I found proof on this trusty online article, "Yes, marijuana can be addictive. Over time, overstimulation of the endocannabinoid system by marijuana use can cause changes in the brain that lead to addiction, a condition in which a person cannot stop using a drug even though it interferes with many aspects of his or her life. It is estimated that 9 percent of people who use marijuana will become dependent on it. The number goes up to about 17 percent in those who start using young (in their teens) and to 25 to 50 percent among daily users. According to the 2013 NSDUH, marijuana accounted for 4.2 million of the estimated 6.9 million Americans dependent on or abusing illicit drugs. Marijuana addiction is linked to a mild withdrawal syndrome. Frequent marijuana users often report irritability, mood and sleep difficulties, decreased appetite, cravings, restlessness, and/or various forms of physical discomfort that peak within the first week after quitting and last up to 2 weeks." (http://www.drugabuse.gov...). The article also contains other good points about the drugs affects (I won't site all of them, you'll have to read them yourself). The article uses the word "dependent" and this usually refers to an addiction. It also causes permanent damage to the brain during adolescence, and if we legalize it, than it will allow more adolescents to obtain it more easily. And a concern I have been thinking of is how parents won't be able to stop their children from smoking marijuana when their children grow up. It will be perfectly legal, so the poor parents have to watch their child become an esteemless wreck, and they can't do anything but weep. Is that so great for society? We need to at least consider that. And make sure you read the article, because it has some good points that work great for evidence. (At least for ME!)
Marijuana Legalization in Canada

Okay yeah you make a valid argument saying that we should restrict most substances that can be abused. But the thing is... marijuana is still being abused no matter what we do. Even if we take extreme measures against marijuana use, people will still continue to use it. Also marijuana isn't addictive so it doesn't really affect our decisions when we aren't high. Also another common misconception that is made is that when people smoke weed they go out of the house and get into trouble and put other people in danger. But that's not the case. When someone smokes weed the only thing they want to do is sit at home, eat a lot of food, and watch movies. Yeah that also intrigues the argument that people are much less productive when they're high. When someone's high they are much more creative. They come up with come with some very useful product and ideas.
Marijuana Legalization in Canada

Ok. I know that it seems safer than alcohol and tobacco, but would it still be a good idea to legalize it? I think ( and this is my own opinion) that all substances ( alcohol, tobacco, and other harmful drugs not intended for treatment) should have RESTRICTED uses (not banned) . I know how alcohol and tobacco are easy to get and very well legal, but what if marijuana was of this to? I know it isn't as deadly, but the other two substances are widely accepted. Take for example in the early 19th century, when selling alcohol became illegal in the USA. People where smuggling it left and right and the government eventually just gave up on the law and peace was restored. So that rules out alcoholic substances from being eliminated, but I think more strict laws should be made on the sale of alcohol. And I understand why illegal marijuana is more deadly, but it's not the death that is the only problem (although it certainly is a big one) it is also the fact that people would have another way to lower self esteem. Imagine if it was legalized today? It may stop riots from druggies, but could start ones involving people like me ( who want to stop substance abuse). It could also stop drug dealing, since it would be legal to sell, but it also would allow younger people to hurt there self esteems by being reduced to the level of drug abusers. I'm not saying everyone in the nation would start smoking it, but some people would definitely do so. Why say "we should add it because it isn't so bad", and instead think that "why add another drug people can abuse?" I will wrap this up saying that if you think that it wouldn't be fair not to legalize it, try to see the other side in that it could hurt the picture of our nation (just like alcohol and tobacco do!) Try using the cup analogy for this conflict. Is it half empty, or half full? Is it not fair for it to be legal, or will it just hurt us even further. In reality, it depends on how you look at it in a way. P.S. This debate only concerns the use of marijuana for the public legally, not for medical uses in hospitals.
Marijuana Legalization in Canada

I think that marijuana should be legalized. I currently live in Canada. Justin Trudeau was recently elected prime minister. One of Justin's promises that he made for once he was elected was that marijuana (a very controversial topic) should be legalized. From my brief research I have come to a conclusion. There are obviously dangers to marijuana being legalized, but the same risks are taken with any alcohol intake. Most of the same rules would apply if weed was legalized, because when you're "high" you're in an altered state. You would very strictly not be allowed to drive. Where would you buy it? The local drug store. They would need to I.D you. The marijuana (now legalized) would be grown, and manufactured safely. It wouldn't be laced with any crazy drugs like fentanyl or something dangerous like that. After hundreds of years of use of the marijuana drug there's been a perfect rate of absolutely zero recorded deaths. There are very few (less than alcohol) risk that are taken with recreational use of marijuana.
Rap Battle: God vs. atheism

This fool just accepted a death wish Im bout to lyrically gut you like I would a fcked up catfish Shoulda learned from our last debate when I ate you like Sunday cake Now i'll crucify you then send you to eternal damnation set it to ultra bake in hell I'll still slay you Chop you up and fillet you Don't cry it was all part of biblical Prophecy boy Pay for your sins and sick azz Atrocity still wouldn' be enough be enough to kill you a thousand times Cut your spinal cord with a holy sword of a million deadly rhymes. Too late to confess and digress from your unblessed life Too late to set your wife free like your secret gay life with Robert fife Your a felon of spiritual Morality like a thug with a sentence of Ritual Fatality Fool ill pick you up and drop you. then resurrect PAC and pop you Son you already gave up the holy Ghost. gave up your Power as you got cowered and got devoured like smoldering moldy toast sent a card saying get well. send my regards from hell
Rap Battle: God vs. atheism

What? Did you ever expect that you could rhyme with death? No wonder why you turned a unique book into a complete mess! All you can think about are things lower than your best You judge people like a hypocrite, when you live in a nest! I can play god too, my friend, just see how powerful I can become By changing my tone, turning my energy towards the sun! It's not hard to bluff yourself straight into hole in one, When it's based entirely on a child simply making things up! I am crafty. I am without hate, I need not the heat to create Free from the chains of illusions, insinuated by the primates Ultimately, I let ideas rain, not imprison them to a fate Creating a life requiring you to wait until it's all too late! Keeping truth buried by scaring people into into a lake of fire Yielding all the potential humans let go of for temporary desire Opening loop holes in imagination to manipulate our lifestyles Undertaking reality and our humanity for a make-believe sire!
Rap Battle: God vs. atheism

The Bible does teach love i wasnt expecting an opponent soft as a baby dove I feel like I should apologize with your brittle rebuttal Put your balls back with your little buddy Didn't mean to make your nose stuffy here let me get you a tiny tissue Can't stand your whiny issues so civilized an mannered. You know this is a rap battle? Not mommys slap paddle? its like somebody jackhammered your brain. Your lame son. Your rhymes are latent. go now and pray to the grave of satan. Maybe he won't tolerate a soft lard. Call up your Richard fife. he'll make you hard unlike life with your wife. just start exercising fleshy. stop Telling us about us about Elvis Presley. I pray that your kindness will be redeemed in place of some esteem. Wanna chat about drowning? So hard compared to browning in the flames of hell. Clearly you werent expecting my rap to make you a worthless shell. your Ignorance is blissful . I'll let you be a child beguiled by your own impression that your dissful. Disgraceful is a better way to put it slave to the Ten Commandments for you to behave tastefully I slapped the words from your mouth too demanding like you are to gracefully save Pool of what? You make jokes about stool. A tool too uncool to duel with a rap battle master whacking a fat basterd fool You shown nothing but cowardice just a fly - powerless - in a web of shrouds. Everything you say is ignorance like your brain is tiny, figureless, and in the clouds. Jesus Christ compels you to love in clear diligence, let me illustrate this to you in in dear vigilance: I feel bad for battling you son Just like I would for saddling cattle for branding, couldn't fight back even if you tried Cooked you up an served you steam fried. Prayed to god I could save you like I would a fat cow But that cattle prod just tazed you sorry - chow
Rap Battle: God vs. atheism

You beat the bible senselessly as a father that weaps endlessly. Trying to bring love into a world of slaughter like Elvis Presley But frankly, all you have is brain-dead fans trying to impress thee With God drowning people in a sea; Elvis overdosing on a toilet seat! What are you trying to prove? Besides proving that you need to prove? What proof do you have? All you have is a book telling you what's true! There's no brain left in your head - your life is everything but new You tell people how to get ahead, throughout every lie and ruse! You treat your god like a child disrespects their parent's rules Telling your friends what to do, punching them in their jewels With your entire life being based on attending every cess pool Since when did you ever care about addressing people's ghouls? Your entire practice is based on cowardice and negligence You would not need the power of omniscience, if you had sense Have you no shame in your ignorance? What's left of your penance? It's like you do not even live! Your whole mind is built on quittance!
Osama Bin Laden is not dead

I was really expecting someone claiming that he died a couple of weeks ago but... I guess I'll just summon some reliable website/sourses that will lead you to primary documnet that will disprove your resolution. The site below will lead to proof that osama lived far past 2001.http://news.bbc.co.uk...http://m24digital.com...And the mother of allhttp://en.wikipedia.org...
Osama Bin Laden is not dead

OK, time to get serious.First, my contention is not that Osama died in the recent operation. Rather I contend that he died of Lung failure in late December, 2001. This was compounded by Bin Laden's numerous other health conditions, including diabetes and Hepatitis C.a) Bin Laden is known to have suffered considerable damage at Tora Borab) Bin Laden suddenly stopped being intercepted by the CIA on 13th December - the very day "he" released a new tape suddenly agreeing to involvement with September 11, contradicting his earlier involvement.c) That this and later images of Osama looked subtly different in many respectsd) Osama was widely reported as being dead - Pakistan's and Afghanistan's presidents both said they believed it, and Taliban sources confirmed ite) The FBI agrees with these reportsf) There was a reported funeralI can comment sources if you want them.I look forward to hearing your evidence that the USA HAS NOT been staging a massive cover-up! (