BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Legalize gay marriage.

Now to my answer: There have been some changes about whether marriage should be extended to same-sex marriage or just be the "normal" marriage between a man and a woman, and only 19 states had allowed same-sex marriage. Now there are 36 states that allow it. You mention that "a heterosexual man would be prohibited from marrying another heterosexual man, and a woman would be prohibited from marrying another heterosexual woman" if legal gay marriage became a law. If a heterosexual man wants to marry another heterosexual man, then I would not consider him "heterosexual". He is attracted to another man which could result in a same-sex marriage. I cannot see how a same-sex law would discriminate heterosexual marriages. We see heterosexual marriages as regular and normal so these marriages are working without a law, because it has always been seen as "the right way to do it". Right now, due to all the arguments against gay marriage, I would say that gay marriage is being discriminated. In a lot of countries homosexual people are being beaten and raped by family members to become straight. Homosexual people are seen as disgusting and not normal and they are certainly not being treated equal. Homosexuality is not a choice someone makes because they think that would be better off marrying a person from the same sex as them. We could try the thing with "a black man is born black". This is not something he can change that he is born like this. A homosexual person is also born like this, it just takes some time and experience to discover it. Also, if homosexuality was a choice, try to turn gay right now. You cannot do that, right? At last, you mention pedophilia. I understand your concern, but pedophiles have a mental issue. Pedophiles and homosexuals have nothing in common at all. Pedophiles think it is all right to have sexual relations to children where homosexuals are attracted to people of the same sex. There is nothing bad about being together with a man or a woman of the same sex, unless the other person does not want a relationship like that. A pedophile is doing it for pleasure, where same-sex couples are doing it for love. There is no love in pedophilia and i agree with you that a pedophile should be punished. Thanks. Sources: . http://www.ncsl.org...
USA is world's best country

Our politicians are fond of telling us that America is the greatest country that's ever existed. And with elections coming up this year, we can expect to hear it even more. Can we be honest for a second? It's an obnoxious thing to say. How would you respond to someone at a party who talked this way about himself? But more than that, it's confusing. Greatest how? The ambiguity gives fodder to both sides of the political spectrum. To progressives, it's a challenge, an exhortation to fulfill our commitments to our children, etc. (This is the "We're not the greatest, but we could be" sentiment we see throughout Aaron Sorkin's Newsroom.) To conservatives, it's often a license for passivity. Yes, our education system is wildly dysfunctional and confused, and our health care system isn't much of a system at all. But still, somehow, underneath it all, we remain number one. And that's the key point: notions about American greatness aren't rooted in evidence. You see this when Americans get interviewed about the topic. Why is America number one? "We have freedoms that they don't have." Well, lots of Europe seems awfully free as well. "You can start a business really easily." Yes, but because businesses often go unregulated, you can also be screwed when the government lets shady operators frack poison into your groundwater or steal your pension in a trillion-dollar Ponzi scheme. "But we were first -- we gave this democracy thing a shot before anybody else in modern history, and we have this beautiful Constitution that's helped us weather some pretty turbulent changes." Our history contains real achievements, it's true, but what does that have to do with where we are today? Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone, but I suspect you prefer the iPhone in your pocket.
Star Wars VII is the worst film out of the current main 7 movies.

Challenge accepted, with two additional criteria suggested for judging the films: 6. Battles (including space dogfights as a Star Wars staple) 7. Themes (i.e., use of symbolism, central concepts of the film, etc.) (I similarly enjoy most Star Wars films, and don't particularly think The Force Awakens was the best, but I enjoy seeing what people do or don't like about a film.)
Star Wars VII is the worst film out of the current main 7 movies.

Star Wars, Episode VII: The Force Awakens was the first Star Wars movie that I'd seen in theaters, and so when I first saw it, of course I thought it was amazing. Then I got the movie on DVD and watched it a few more times, and the more I saw it, the more I disliked the film. Now I'm willing to say that Star Wars 7 is the worst movie out of I-VII, not counting Rogue One or The Clone Wars. You might be saying, what, the Prequel films are much more terrible, but hey, the Prequels are actually my favorites because I grew up with them. But this is not just a subjective debate on which I like more, this is on which movie is better/worse. I will be arguing that Star Wars 7 is the worst for several reasons. These reasons/categories are what Star Wars movies are usually graded on: 1. Story 2. Characters 3. Effects 4. Locations 5. Music 6. Battles (namely the lightsaber fight(s)) Feel free to add more categories to judge the movie on. The con can choose a movie they think is worse than 7 and state why, then refute my points. The first round is for acceptance, and Round 2 is for stating why you think YOU'RE Star Wars movie is the worst. Rounds 3 and 4 are for rebuttals. (*note* I like all Star Wars movies and still enjoy watching Star Wars 7. I just think it is the worst of the Star Wars movies, it is not necessarily bad.) *draws DC-15A laser blaster*
A middle class president would be more efficient than a wealthy one

We have had many businessmen serve as president in the last couple of decades and yet they have continuously driven the country into debt by an order of magnitude. Clearly having a businessmen in charge is not the answer. We are at 17.2 trillion dollars of debt and George W. Bush contributed more debt that any other president before him until Obama came along. Bush and his father (also added to the national debt) were businessmen though not entrepreneurs. The wealthy have had their shot at running the country and proven to be highly inefficient. The ruling class create laws and policies that do not affect them so they cannot possibly know how it would affect someone else's life. Billions/percent added 77"78 1941"1945 Roosevelt +203 +67.1% 79"80 1945"1949 Roosevelt, Truman -8 -24.4% 81"82 1949"1953 Truman +13 -21.7% 83"84 1953"1957 Eisenhower +6 -11.0% 85"86 1957"1961 Eisenhower +20 -5.2% 87"88 1961"1965 Kennedy, Johnson +30 -8.3% 89"90 1965"1969 Johnson +43 -8.3% 91"92 1969"1973 Nixon +101 -3.0% 93"94 1973"1977 Nixon, Ford +177 +0.2% 95"96 1977"1981 Carter +288 -3.3% 97"98 1981"1985 Reagan +823 +11.3% 99"100 1985"1989 Reagan +1,050 +9.3% 101"102 1989"1993 Bush Sr. +1,483 +13.0% 103"104 1993"1997 Clinton +1,018 -0.7% 105"106 1997"2001 Clinton +401 -9.0% 107"108 2001"2005 Bush +2,135 +7.1% 109"110 2005"2009 Bush +3,971 +20.7% 111"112 2009"2013 Obama +6,061 +18.5% http://en.wikipedia.org...
A middle class president would be more efficient than a wealthy one

Sorry, my laptop had a little breakdown, but its fixed now. And i completely agree with you about the Obamacare law. It is a horrible thing. and Also i don't want someone who was rich by birth. Let me clarify, i Think a businessman would be better. An entrepreneur. They understand the value of a dollar, but they also have much business experience. that is my point. We need a president who knows about business, not just politics. i think I agree with you on much of the points you stated. Im no some rich elitist. Im in the middle class myself. I am a strong advocate of entrepreneurship in America. The government is too involved in the everyday life of an American. An upperclass businessman understands of value of independence more than a middle-class person. I think someone like Mitt Romney would have been a good president. He practically saved Sports Authority, The Winter Olympics, and others. The last thing we need is an elitist person, but we need someone who can make he tough decisions.
A middle class president would be more efficient than a wealthy one

Precisely what my point was going to be, America is over 16 trillion dollars in debt and more of that debt has been accumulated by the business type presidents more than any other. Problem is they were all wealthy to begin. In 2012 nearly 50 million people or 16% of Americans live below the poverty line. Nearly 49% of Americans consider themselves to be middle class which has an average income of $51k per family. Not individually but a family. The average family has at least 1 child. That is barely getting by and now with the new Obamacare being put into effect these people are being forced to purchase health insurance that many people couldn't afford in the first place. This is going to have severe consequences on the youth as well. Especially those trying to work their way through college since the majority of them live in poverty as it is. There has not been a president that has grown up living in poverty or even the middle class in the last 80 years. Since there is a debt trail going on today we are in desperate need of a president that knows the value of a dollar. Those that grew up wealthy literally cannot understand what it is like to worry about the electric being shut off or your children going to be hungry. They don't have to worry about providing health care for their family or repairing the family's only car. Every day problems do not cross the mind of the wealthy therefore they cannot understand the life of the average American. They may be faced with financial troubles but they are not the kind the middle class would face. For example: Michael Jackson was one of the richest celebrities around and yet he was buried in debt because his spending habit was out of control. He bought a theme park for his property and all kinds of fancy cars. These are by no means necessities these are spoils of a lucrative life. The same can be said of every celebrity who encounters financial woes. So a middle class president who knows what it means to be middle class, who knows what it means to have to budget would be the ideal candidate to deal with such a debt. They would be far more likely to deal with these debts and keep the best interests of the middle class in mind when doing so. The lower and middle class know better than the wealthy how policies can affect the people. The middle class is shrinking, the national debt is growing exponentially and we have had a long line of wealthy businessmen like presidents to get us where we are today. Its time for a real change! http://money.cnn.com... http://aspe.hhs.gov... http://www.npc.umich.edu... http://www.theatlantic.com...
A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased.

Resolved: A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased.This is a (now) former LD topic. The debate will be done in such a manner. If you do not know what LD is or are not familiar with the ins and outs of LD debate, I HIGHLY RECCOMMEND YOU DO NOT ACCEPT THIS DEBATE. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.Round structure will be as follows:Round One: Affirmative Presents their case, yes THIS ROUND IS NOT JUST FOR ACCEPTANCE. PRESENT YOUR CASE.Round Two: Neg case + rebuttals, Aff rebuttals.Round Three: Neg rebuttals, Aff RebuttalsAnd, in honor of halloween (a week late, oops), my case shall be HALLOWEEN THEMED! which means it'll probably suck but screw it SO PREPARE TO BE BOMBARDED WITH TRUTH FOOLS!Good luck to my opponent!
morality=right+intent

Alright, Vi, since you were nice enough to unlock me I'll try to take you seriously. So here we go, I'm going to present a definition of morality from the Standord Encyclopedia of Philosophy. My opponent would agree with at least the normative version, since it's basically a much more precise way of saying morality is a right action that any rational person would decide upon. "The term "morality" can be used either 1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or, some other group, such as a religion, or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or 2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specifies conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons." http://plato.stanford.edu... So now that we have these definitions, I'm going to explain a couple issues I have with the resolution. 1) The resolution is incorrectly absolute. While my opponent may agree with the second definition, to say that morality=right+intent means that's the only definition of morality we're ever going to have. Morality can also be a descriptive term used to evaluate the actions of people or persons by moral systems accepted by their society. So it's not just the normative description, morality can also be subjective. In fact, I'd argue that the position that appoints a moral system to everyone is still just a subjective moral system that people can agree on sometimes. 2) Disney was right. Sorry I said I'd be serious. 2) Following personal interests is the true way to unlocking morality. If giving a kid a poisonous Apple is fun, then give the kid the poisonous Apple. There's no higher power or upper moral system judging you for your actions. My opponent implies that this is my true. For example, he would probably argue that killing innocent people is wrong. But what is it that makes an action right? And why does that reason matter? The only thing we know for sure is that we have personal interests, and we want to follow them. If killing an innocent person furthers your goals as a person, then go for it. Thank you for reading.
morality=right+intent

morality is subjective, not an object math is subjective how is it immoral to feed your kid an apple that dosnt exist? try a poisonous apple is right wrong because wrong is reason? stupid question when is it healthy for you to punch the innocent defenceless baby in the throat? logical is right, wrong is illogical.. it can be logical to lie to a person that has gun to my head anti social means no kids, no progress.. natures prime operate is progress, anti force being preservation right is right.. not wrong, is absolute maybe the equation 1+3=4 reminds you of something positive about puppies and so its true to you.. killing is bad because it has no end, like love for money.. and evil has consequences.. any true example of morality is sufficient to define it
morality=right+intent

there is no choice to make on what is moral and immoral morality=reason+intent=right+intent=contrasting self with others using thought and emotion 1+4=2+1+1+1=6-1=5 right is right morality is subjective, but like math absolute, guided by objective is it right to give kids poisonous apples to keep them healthy? and even if you dont want a kid to be healthy, is it right to feed the kid a poisonous apple? reason is not matter, but what does math matter? killing is anti social
is barbie a negative influence on women

I don't think that barbie has an effect on women of all ages. "The ubiquitous Barbie doll was examined in the present study as a possible cause for young girls' body dissatisfaction. A total of 162 girls, from age 5 to age 8, were exposed to images of either Barbie dolls, Emme dolls (U.S. size 16), or no dolls (baseline control) and then completed assessments of body image. Girls exposed to Barbie reported lower body esteem and greater desire for a thinner body shape than girls in the other exposure conditions. However, this immediate negative impact of Barbie doll was no longer evident in the oldest girls. These findings imply that, even if dolls cease to function as aspirational role models for older girls, early exposure to dolls epitomizing an unrealistically thin body ideal may damage girls' body image, which would contribute to an increased risk of disordered eating and weight cycling." (http://psycnet.apa.org...) Furthermore it seems to be disconnected from Barbie (and race) entirely and effects children of all sexes (http://books.google.com...) so it seems baseless and more or less only effective on children which could be assumed to be the natural discourse of anything you show to children since children are easily effected by things.
is barbie a negative influence on women

i strongly think that barbie......the plastic campaign model to this idea of perfection is a very bad influence on women and girls of all ages.....the perfection of this doll like every other picture perfect model on your tv screen projects unrealistic ideas to women.....the perfect skin...blonde haired blue eyes has way more power than anyone would think.....this piece of plastic can generate more envy and jealousy than people realize.......i would know when i had barbies i only dreamed that someday i would be able to be just like her yes a pice of plastic that seemingly was intended for play for a long time was the sprout of my envy...her perfect ken doll bf....her long beautiful hair the cheekbones that most girls would kill for barbie is a problem
TROLL DEBATE: Cats are better than dogs

R1: "If they do not have opposable thumbs, as you said, then how are they supposed to conquer the world?" Ever hear the term "strength in numbers"? R1: "But where do you put it? and how do you know your neighbors won't be driven away at the smell of dog crap?" I put it in the far left corner of my shed. and I don't like my neighbors anyways.
TROLL DEBATE: Cats are better than dogs

R1: "All they think about is taking over the WORLD!!!"If they do not have opposable thumbs, as you said, then how are they supposed to conquer the world? R2: "I use a crap scooper and keep it all in a pile so that I can put it in my yard when it needs it. I've got the greenest grass on my block."But where do you put it? and how do you know your neighbors won't be driven away at the smell of dog crap?
TROLL DEBATE: Cats are better than dogs

I can't put up much more of a fight than I already have, BUT I WILL NEVER GIVE UP!!!!!! R1: "That might be true of Grumpy Cat, but can you prove it true of other cats?" Here's some proof. All they think about is taking over the WORLD!!! https://www.debate.org... R2: "Oh, it's annoying to your neighbors when your dog takes a dump on their lawn, but it improves the soil when it does the same thing on your lawn? That's called a double standard. Plus, it's just as smelly as cat litter. Instead of having it on your lawn, you can just dispose of cat feces." I use a crap scooper and keep it all in a pile so that I can put it in my yard when it needs it. I've got the greenest grass on my block.
TROLL DEBATE: Cats are better than dogs

R1: "First off you are an evil person. Second off cats can't hold lighters or weapons of mass destruction because they DO NOT have opposable thumbs."I never said that cats could use weapons of mass destruction. R2: "With cats you have to clean a litter box, but with dogs you just let 'em outside they do their business and BOOM! your whole yard is now covered in brand new, luscious soil." Oh, it's annoying to your neighbors when your dog takes a dump on their lawn, but it improves the soil when it does the same thing on your lawn? That's called a double standard. Plus, it's just as smelly as cat litter. Instead of having it on your lawn, you can just dispose of cat feces.R3: "With a dog you don't have to worry about it getting stuck in a tree like, Ahem, CATS!!"Cat's aren't stuck in trees. They're just looking for birds to kill and refuse to come back without a duck or some other kind of bird for you to cook and eat. They're in a suck-up contest with dogs.R4: "Cats are evil and they plan how they'll destroy you every night until the time comes that it needs to be done"That might be true of Grumpy Cat, but can you prove it true of other cats?
TROLL DEBATE: Cats are better than dogs

First off you are an evil person. Second off cats can't hold lighters or weapons of mass destruction because they DO NOT have opposable thumbs. All right now it's my turn: With cats you have to clean a litter box, but with dogs you just let 'em outside they do their business and BOOM! your whole yard is now covered in brand new, luscious soil. With a dog you don't have to worry about it getting stuck in a tree like, Ahem, CATS!! Cats are evil and they plan how they'll destroy you every night until the time comes that it needs to be done
TROLL DEBATE: Cats are better than dogs

R1: "Dogs are loyal and follow you wherever you go and you get to have fun wrestling when it's time to go to the vet"Cats will do that, and better. They'll let you wear them as hats when it's chiily. R2: "They'll poop in your neighbors' yards and get them back for their annoyingness"NOTHING compared to cats setting your neighbors' garden on fire. R3: "They warn you when there's someone approaching the house so you have time to pretend you're not home."Cats will eliminate the need for that. They'll just offer them a flower as a false peace offering. Then they'll beg the person not to go when they leave. Then the person will die of cuteness overload, allowing your cat to eat the person.
Soup is not a meal. Jerry Seinfeld was supposed to buy Kenny Bania a meal.

Attempting to define the "chief attribute of a meal" as simply "the company of the other person" is nothing more than an attempt to exploit a technicality. Common sense says that Bania's Armani suit in exchange for a "meal" means that Bania gets a main dish, at a nice restaurant, with Jerry's company. Why was Jerry in such a hurry to get the "meal" out of the way with a guy who was nice enough to pretty much give away a brand new Armani suit? I find this morally wrong and eccentric. A decent human being would have said "It's ok if you're full from your hot dog Kenny. We can get you the meal another time when you're really hungry."
Soup is not a meal. Jerry Seinfeld was supposed to buy Kenny Bania a meal.

Let us be clear that the question on the table is whether or not going to a resaurant for a bowl of soup constitutes a meal or not. The topic as to whether soup is a fair repayment for the suit could be the topic for another debate but I believe we should restrict our arguments as to whether to event that Jerry and Kenny were a part of is a meal or not. I firmly believe that the event that occured between Jerry and Kenny was a meal. There are a few reasons for this. First of all, I believe that a "meal" in the sense it was used is the actual physical act of going to a restaurant and eating together. It does not matter what is consumed because it is the company of the other person that is the chief attribute of the meal. Soup is also certainly filling enough to be a meal on many occasions. The only constraint on a meal is that it consist of food, since soup is food, soup would count as a meal.
Soup is not a meal. Jerry Seinfeld was supposed to buy Kenny Bania a meal.

Kenny Bania gives Jerry Seinfeld a brand new Armani suite and tells Jerry that they can call it even if Jerry takes him out for a meal sometime. Armani suites run somewhere between $1,000 and $2,000. Nobody could ever find a better deal than that. Jerry accepts the offer and then takes Kenny out to a restaurant called Mendys a couple days later. Kenny, who is full from a hot dog he ate earlier, orders a bowl of soup. After that, in an unbelievably unappreciative moment, Jerry tries to cheap shot Kenny and say that a bowl of soup is a meal when soup is clearly a side dish. Even Elaine Benes, who is one of Jerry's friends, says that Kenny's order was not really a meal.