BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It was a great idea for Good Luck Charlie to incorporate a same- sex marriage couple.

As children we are shown the default lifestyle is man and woman and child(ren), but who choses the defaults. The default should be love. Showing same sex marriage is suppose to teach children that it is ok to have same sex couples. However, what should not be taught is that it is wrong. Showing same sex couples has a root to it's purpose. That purpose is that loving somebody should not be a wrong thing, and just because a couple is the same or opposite gender it does not mean that they are wrong for what their heart desires. My opponent mentioned that kids will want to be " just like that cool guy on TV! " a good amount of those kids will become homosexual who obviously will not want to reproduce. It does not entirely make it impossible to have children (ie. Good Luck Charlie). Although it does make it untraditional. How do we know what children are thinking? When children see these things do they truly look immediately towards where babies come from when they see them? Innocent minds, do they understand reproduction in the first place to even qualify to ask such questions? Many fear that the moment a child sees a homosexual couple that it will influence their children right off the bat to also be homosexual. As many can attest, most kids do not have to see the media to wake up one morning and say "Mommy I like this boy" or "I like this girl". Innocent and untampered minds who were taught immediately that love is man and woman. That extreme situation, I would be forced to disagree. Science and doctors have made artificial insemination, not mention as well as adoption. In Good Luck Charlie, you saw to mothers drop off their daughter for a play date. Nothing else to it. No serious signs of affection, unless you want to count the introduction "Amy, this is Taylor's other mom Susan.". Immediately after that the characters showed no sign of discrimination. They treated the situation as if it were normal. In reality, once it's understood for what it truly is, it will be seen as such. Hopefully.
It was a great idea for Good Luck Charlie to incorporate a same- sex marriage couple.

I accept this challenge Firstly, I agree that Disney is not just for children and adults can and do watch it too. However the primary viewers are children and they should not be taught about such things until they are older. Now I am not anti same sex couples but showing such things to kids is not good neither is any of the " "way worse" " stuff as my opponent mentioned. Showing same sex marriage on a predominantly kids TV channel is not good because it is teaching children that it is ok to have same sex couples. And we all know how young minds are influenced by media these days. Since kids will want to be " just like that cool guy on TV! " a good amount of those kids will become homosexual who obviously will not want to reproduce. In an extreme scenario, this can become a trendy thing and eventually the world population will decline. Though this is not likely, it is better not to encourage such a thing to kids in the first place who are, in general, too young to do reasoning and they will just blindly follow whatever is shown on TV.
It was a great idea for Good Luck Charlie to incorporate a same- sex marriage couple.

My opponent has unfortunately forfeited the final round, as well as round 4. I shall use this round to persuade the voters to vote for me. Obviously sources are tied because neither pro nor con used external sources. I have not seen examples of bad grammar in any of mine or my opponent's arguments, hence they are tied. However, my opponent forfeited two rounds, therefore I appeal that the voters vote for me for CONDUCT (since I saw this debate through to the end unlike my opponent) and to vote for me for CONVINCING ARGUMENTS(since pro was obviously convinced by my arguments which resulted in the forfeiting). :)
It was a great idea for Good Luck Charlie to incorporate a same- sex marriage couple.

The TV show itself is not harming anyone, it is a mild form of homosexuality and a brief moment also if I can recall correctly. In any case it is that idea itself that worries me. Other shows might follow the same path as good luck charlie, and maybe even showing the same amount of affection between a Homosexual couple as would be shown with a Heterosexual couple. This is what I do not want (the reason will be explained later in my argument) My opponent mentioned "At a young age, it is perfectly okay to promote guns and violence, but a couple can not be the same gender." I do not condone the showing of guns and violence to young children. This statement has nothing to do with any of my arguments or with this debate since both gun violence and homosexuality should not be shown to young children, in my opinion. Perhaps my opponent was trying to state that the guns and violence receives less controversy than homosexuality, well, again, I do not condone either of them. So as far as this debate is concerned it does not matter I mentioned Homosexuality should be taught in high school, perhaps along with Heterosexuality (in a sex ed class perhaps or psychology class). The differences and similarities can be taught so that the students can make an informed decision on which to choose, this has been explained in the previous round. My opponent speaks about Homosexuality on the same level as Heterosexuality. All said and done. Heterosexuality is the natural way. Let me ask my opponent something. Would you rather be raised by 2 moms (or 2 dads) or by 1 mom and dad? Before answering, do consider this: Females and Males are not perfect parents on their own, they have their own strengths and weaknesses. (this is all general, not every woman is womanly and not every man is manly). Mothers can care for her child better (not that a man cannot be caring but woman tend to be more caring, and this is not sexist this is a fact). A father can teach a child to fend for themselves and survive in the real world (again, a woman is able to do this, but a man can do it better). A child needs a balance of both to be able to succeed in this world. Why are men better at teaching children to be strong and independent? Because they are the hunters in the hunter gatherer society Why are women better at providing a secure caring environment? Because they were the caretakers of children in the hunter gatherer society Almost every evolution we have right now is for adapting to the life of the hunter gatherer (which is what humans were for almost the entire history of our species) But this is not sexist, in the lion kingdom, the women hunt while the men rest and patrol their territory. Is this sexist? Anyway I am getting sidetracked here, the point is that a child needs both a mother and father to have a better chance at succeeding in this world. The reasons are listed above in case the readers forgot the argument due to the sidetracking. So it is better that there are less Homosexuals in the first place, to do that, showing same sex marriage couples on children's TV should not be condoned.
It was a great idea for Good Luck Charlie to incorporate a same- sex marriage couple.

Thank you for clarifying your stance. However, I still feel strongly that the tv show itself is harming no one. Many tv shows say Disney or Nickelodeon show parents raising a family, typically in a comedic sense. In a sense that there be any inappropriate PDA being shown, parents are immediately on it. Meaning they will immediately start to protest the program and probably the company too. If shows follow their appropriate guidelines, the show is enjoyed and watched again. In Good Luck Charlie, the guidelines were met. Two woman who made no contact of any sort, were on the show and the issue at hand is their title. At a young age, it is perfectly okay to promote guns and violence, but a couple can not be the same gender. I ask, which situation is the worst influence? If the case is, as my opponent states, "an adult matter", then what do we call heterosexual relationships in the media? How is one more privileged and the other discriminated against? I would also like to provide more insight into the suggestion of pregnancy. Most if not all lesbians who are aware of their options. Adoption or insemination. They have to be aware of what that means. It has to be obvious that two women, or two men even, are not physically capable of carrying a seed from each other. Yes, that does mean that they are pregnant from someone else, but there is more to that that I wish not to bore anybody with. Then again if the couple love each other they would go through with the options available. That is what creates a true family. Nobody is just going to "turn heterosexual". As I do agree that nobody is born homosexual and nobody is born heterosexual, it all comes from attraction. Homosexuality should not be classified as a subject in school that is "taught". The education system doesn't teach heterosexuality either, that would be awkward for everyone. I do agree with my opponent's statement that "Whether Homosexuality is normal or not, it is a big decision to make and it should never be taken lightly.". That is correct, it should be taken with full force that way it can be understood that it in fact is, but that is just my own opinion. To elaborate on my statement about children, sorry I was a little vague, there are little boys who wake up one day and want to wear mommy's shoes or hang out with girls and eventually have crushes just like them. Some girls are the same way. Not because their innocent minds were exposed to homosexuality, but because they were inspired to be themselves. For example Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt's daughter Shiloh. Isn't Disney's purpose for children to imagine and become inspired? Why do we limit their minds?
Biblical creationism has been debunked by modern science

A very well thought out and expressed argument. However, there are a few points here. 1. There is the hangup on the term "day". The Bible is a translation from the original Hebrew. For example, Hell in the Bible is a translation of the word "Gehenna". Gehenna has a few other translations, most notably a cursed place. More to the point, the word "day" is a translation of the Hebrew word "yom". Among the many translations, yom also means age, or an indeterminate period of time. What does this tell us? It tells us that the literal "6 days" isn't not necessarily correct. However, it opens a little wiggle room for creationism to reconcile with evolution. Taken in this manner, the Bible doesn't segregate the creation into "days", but ages or eras. 2. While Genesis certainly provides for the creation of Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel and Seth, it doesn't say that those individuals were the only ones created. In Gen 4:17, we see Cain "knew" his wife. From this we gather that Cain was married at some point. A literal reading would leave only the conclusion that Cain married Eve, since, logically, she's the only female created by God. So, we are left with two options: Either 1. there's an incestuous relationship with his own mother or 2. A female arose somewhere else. Now, it could be argued that an option three exists, that Adam and Eve had a daughter, to which Cain married. However, that's unlikely. A literal reading of Gen would have mentioned any female children of Adam and Eve. I find it more likely that others were created by God. 3. I find your last assertion interesting. Quote : "I am of the belief that our knowledge of Abiogenesis will eventually fill in to a point where we can understand life as we now know it." The reason I find this interesting is because the term "eventually" implies that it doesn't yet fill in the gaps. Should Abiogenesis be complete, or relatively complete, there would be no need to "eventually" fill in the gaps. Your thesis states that Creationism has been debunked by modern science. All I have to do is prove either 1. the two don't contradict each other, or 2. Creationism is correct. I'm not debating option two. Literal creationism has many flaws. However, science is a long way away from debunking creationism as a whole. 1. What caused the Big Bang? The latest research can trace the origin of the Universe to a fraction of a second after the Big Bang. But what was the impetus that caused the explosion? 2. Evolution doesn't address this. 3. The Bible doesn't go into the specifics of how God created the Universe. Who's to say he didn't do it in the manner that science hypothesizes? 4. Science isn't absolute. It wasn't until a few hundred years ago that man finally determined that the Earth was round. Theories are concocted and discarded everyday in the face of new research and data. Evolution is a theory. It's supported by common sense and science, it still is a theory.
Biblical creationism has been debunked by modern science

I understand what you are saying. One side often does not give merit to the other but I feel apart from the very few areas of total unknowns such as what happened before the Big Bang none of them do have merit. I would argue that everything else has a better scientific explanation and that what you have said actually backs up my argument. Biblical creationism has been debunked by the theories of evolution regarding biological life and the formation of the universe. The time frame is completely wrong to support any notions of creationism. While it is an interesting idea and does have some merit the compression of time in relation to the forces present at the big bang does not sound plausible. I find the idea that all time up until the formation of the universe could be so compressed by forces as to have only lasted six or seven days to be highly unlikely. Biological evolution similarly disproves any kind of Garden of Eden narrative. A species cannot come to be from as small a population as two members. A lack of genetic diversity would be devastating. But as you have said you believe evolution I will think of it from that perspective. At what point did the pre Adamite human beings evolve sufficiently to become accountable for their sins? And if We did evolve how did Adam and Eve fit in? It"s not just problems with humans other species history contradict creationism. Not only was the biblical time frame for the Earth"s history vastly incompatible with the Earths real history we have problems with things like dinosaurs. We could not and did not live alongside such large and dangerous creatures and the biblical time frame forces us to coexist with them. As for the areas where science offers a better explanation, I am of the belief that our knowledge of Abiogenesis will eventually fill in to a point where we can understand life as we now know it. Asides from a decent amount of compelling evidence as to the possibility of abiogenesis, it is the obvious falsehoods contained in the biblical creationist hypothesis that leads me to believe it has been debunked.
Biblical creationism has been debunked by modern science

That is the problem with the major religions of today. You can interpret them in so many ways. I do suppose that day could refer to an age or something but it is still not based in reality. It is not enough to say that it could refer to an indiscriminate period of time to link it to the established time frame we have given our universe. There are also numerous problems raised from an old Earth creation point of view which although I expected to be debunking young Earth creationism but shall do as well. The order of creation as given in the bible is wrong regardless of whether it is referring to days or eras. Oxygen in the water was formed in supernovae but allegedly water is formed before the stars. It implies that day and night are not the results of the turning of the planet in the light of the sun. So to me the difference between days or eras is irrelevant. The problem with how humanity proceeded from just two people is what I consider a major inconsistency in the bible. I fear you are arguing for some kind of theistic evolution argument and not on biblical creationism because biblical creationists are usually pretty insistent on the first humans being Adam and Eve and that we call from them. Which I think everyone of reasonable judgment can discount. It doesn"t make sense and we know that mutation and a lack of genetic diversity would destroy a species that bottlenecked to two individuals and I think it has been thoroughly discounted. If you disagree on that point please tell me. But even if we think about it from a theistic evolution point of view you still have the problem of explaining who Adam and Eve were. If they were simply members of a constantly changing species they were not the first humans. If they were born of mothers and fathers they were not created from the dust of the Earth. Evolution and creation are contradictory. If you believe in both you are disregarding or side-lining serious statements and undermining the authority of several parts of the bible which then completely falls apart. By fill in the gaps I mean when we completely understand it from start to finish and can replicate it. I believe the theory is supported by enough evidence to disregard the creation myth held in Genesis. 1. Doesn"t mean that there is any present evidence for Gods involvement. 2.Evolution doesn"t have too. Evolution answers enough of the other important questions. 3.The bible. 4.You are correct. Evolution is a theory. But it is one of the most well defended theories out there. A theory is not a hypothesis. It has been defended for numerous years and it has made excellent and far reaching predictions that continue to be supported by both science and as you say common sense. I am not crazy enough to say evolution is beyond reproach but it is as close as a theory can get. If you are not suggesting that evolution is false then I feel it is only appropriate to disregard your last statement.
Could Obama have been careful on the decisions he made to take action in Syria

Ill go ahead and knock this out so that its not cluttering the debate section anymore. "Obama should have been more careful on the decisions he made to take action in Syria"How could he be more careful though? I mean f*ck, the Syrian Civil War has been going on for 2 and a half YEARS and counting, Obama has been through dozens, maybe a hundred meetings regarding what is going down in Syria and what his options are, he has more intelligence on the events there then just about any other country nearby (courtesy of Israel), and each day the humanitarian crisis that is the Syrian Civil war takes its toll on other bordering nations that could threaten them to destabilize as well.... What else does he need to do before making a decision? He quite literally has done everything in the book required to make a decision about Syria. Hed be reckless if he began carpet bombing the place the second he found out that chemical weapons were used, yet he held back and continues to cautiously handle Syria. "1) Death of innocent; if there was a strike in Syria, many innocent civilian could have died in any of the attacks. Also, sending soldiers to fight can result in death of the Americans as well."Hence why he explicitly stated that American Soldiers were not being put onto Syrian soil: http://www.wral.com..."2) Could case a WW3; if there was a strike in Syria, It allies such as Russia, Iran and China will take actions against USA for attacking their ally. "Thats f*cking stupid. Syria is not even close to being a vital ally of any of those nations, and their security isnt even CLOSE to being enough of a reason for Russia or China to decide to retaliate through counterattacks.... "3) Obama can be evicted from being a president if he made horrible decisions for the country; people would not like it because this can cause US to lose money for war and increase in deaths. if Presidents were impeached for losing money then every president in the past 50 years except Clinton would have been impeached.... Hell if nobody could get impeached over the Vietnam war then there no way in hell Obama could get impeached for invading Syria, especially since he has absolutely no intention of deploying ground troops there. "If nuclear waepons were used, many cities such as New York City or Los Angeles will be unliveable and will cause deaths of millions of peoples"Thats just f*cking stupid again. Syria in no way would cause America to be nuked.
Could Obama have been careful on the decisions he made to take action in Syria

Yes. Obama should have been more careful on the decisions he made to take action in Syria. There are many consequences that will happen.1) Death of innocent; if there was a strike in Syria, many innocent civilian could have died in any of the attacks. Also, sending soldiers to fight can result in death of the Americans as well.2) Could case a WW3; if there was a strike in Syria, It allies such as Russia, Iran and China will take actions against USA for attacking their ally. 3) Obama can be evicted from being a president if he made horrible decisions for the country; people would not like it because this can cause US to lose money for war and increase in deaths. If nuclear waepons were used, many cities such as New York City or Los Angeles will be unliveable and will cause deaths of millions of peoples
Rap, and rock music does NOT CAUSE VIOLENCE!

I appologize to my opponent for mistakenly calling her a male. This was an honest mistake.All I have to do is show that Rap or Rock music cause violence. I have done so, by showing studies, thus I have shown they cause violence. There may also be other factors, such as free will (as my opponent points out) but as I have shown, Rap and Rock music does influence people in a violent manner.Also, my opponent objects to my using Wikipedia, so I shall give another reference which describes the fallacy of the single cause. (1)In conclusion, I'd like to thank cheeto125 for the chance to debate her on this subject. I've enjoyed doing a bit of research, and have had a good time. :)(1)http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...
Rap, and rock music does NOT CAUSE VIOLENCE!

First, I am a FEMALE. Secondly, I understand that you were didn't mean all violence. But I'm saying all those things didn't start from music lyrics. Yes, rap/rock music have violent, cuss, words in them. The listeners are old enough to know if they do the actions that's in the rap/rock music they'll go to jail. It's just in the listeners nature to be violent. And you should stay off of Wikipedia. Not all the information on there is correct. Any one can change that.