BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Why, Gay/Lesbian People Should Not Get Married

We are not a Christian nation! The reason it says in God we trust is because it is tradition. The establishment clause states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" First amendment states that they won't prohibit your right to worship God. Just because you follow an evil God that hates gays doesn't mean that the whole country does. Also no where in the Constituition does it prohibit gay marriage nor does it explicitly say that a man and a woman can get married. Please, if you debate anything political leave religion out of it. Gay marriage is implied that it's protected with civil unions.
Why, Gay/Lesbian People Should Not Get Married

In the Bible it says that god destroyed a whole city just because there where guys that wanted to have sex with the men in the house hold. So this diffidently plays a part in the gay and lesbian thing. With the thing on how the bible is not part of our gov then why dose it still say "In God We Trust" on the dollar bill if they want to make it clear that we have no association with God then why do they not get rid of that on the dollar bill then if this is true then we still indeed have an association with God and the Bible. That is one reason that i do not think Gay/Lesbian marriage should not be allowed
Why, Gay/Lesbian People Should Not Get Married

I have to argue that gays and lesbians can get married if they would desire to. My reason being is that regardless who you are, the Government of the United States isn't based on the Bible; therefore, you can't use that to defend why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married. That being said, if Gays want to do what they want without bothering others does that matter? The thing is your getting too much in people's personal lives. Not everyone that's gay believes in a religion. Also Adam and Eve were never officially married.
Expired IDs should be accepted to prove DOB

"Human intelligence is a reflection of the intelligence that produces everything. In knowing, we are simply extending the intelligence that comes to and constitutes us. We mimic the mind of God, so to speak. Or better, we continue and extend it."-Huston Smith"When I examine myself and my methods of thought, I come to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than any talent for abstract, positive thinking." -Albert Einstein"A lot of good arguments are spoiled by some fool who knows what he is talking about." -Miguel de Unamuno
Expired IDs should be accepted to prove DOB

First off, I am not interested in "winning" this argument on this web site or getting positive comments or having some "judge" critique the argument or getting points. I am also not interested in using fancy language or citations. I am also not interested in the law or the courts or the constitution. This is a philoosphical question of sorts and I don't care if some judge, politician or even majority of the population supports your side. I want actual original counter arguments, not simply citing a law. I don't care about the REAL ID ACT. This is not about the law, but rather the reasoning behind the law. Your argument must stand on it's own merit, not simply the authority of the government. Secondly, you say we can't accept expired IDs because they are more likely to get discarded and picked up by juveniles. People who want to use IDs improperly are more likely to have their own ID made that has THEIR picture and name on it and not somebody else's or may use a relative's but not some random person who threw it away. Besides, they would have to (or logically should) find somebody who has the same looks, height, age, etc. for it to be reasonably believable anyway. I bet if you poll 100 people who are mis using IDs I bet 90%+ will have obtained it through a method OTHER than digging through the garbage. Give me a break with that concern. Third, I do say the expiration date matters on a drivers license, but only IF that person is driving. The DOB portion is all that matters when one is buying beer. Fourth, I don't accept that a driver's license is the main form of identification in the U.S. There are military IDs, passports, ID card, etc. many of which have expiration dates. Weapons permits are also state issued and many have DOB on them so this not just restricted to Driver's Licenses, but that really isn't the crux of my argument anyway. Fifth, I would not consider using an expired ID to prove your age 'FRAUD' even if I accept your argument that they are not legal or good enough to prove how old you. Fraud involves an attempt to deceive. That is right out of the dictionary. Fraud is using another's ID or making up a fake one. There are IDs that allow the person to keep them after they expire. I have a weapon's permit right here that is expired and has my DOB on it. The government let me keep it and I don't think I am committing 'FRAUD.' Sixth, if the government were to change the law and allow a shopkeeper to accept expired IDs as proof somebody is old enough to buy that beer, it would hardly lead to "SOCIAL DISORDER." give me a break. Social disorder are riots anarchy.
The Red Sox have a weak offense.

Thank you for the challenge, opponent, I look forward to your reply: 1.Flawed rhetoric of the topic. It is incredibly hard to quantify what a "weak" offense is in the MLB. Considering that every batter typically hits less than .350 year after year, with no one ever even hitting .500 by season end, it is fair to vote neg that Boston has a "weak" offense in terms of overall statistics. 2.Comparisons to other teams (thus far in 2010) Considering that the topic is also implying this season, I should only have to prove that the Red Sox are weak as of the four or so games that they've played. It would be unfair to have to take multiple seasons of the club into question because of roster changes/fluctuations with other teams/coaching changes/other tangibles. If I can prove that the Red Sox have a "weak" offense from what they've shown us so far, then you should vote for me. 3.Don't vote on his statistics. Jacoby- He talks about how Ellsbury can hit about .300 for season because he hit .301 last years. This isn't true; he can't see the future, in fact in the realm of professional baseball, typically players that are hyped to do better the year after they have good seasons fall in stock the year after due to hype. Not to mention he's hitting .200, under the league average currently. Pedroia – Dustin is a tougher case to crack. He is pretty respectable around the league at being one of the better players, but look for him to start slacking off this year. He has historically had a bad attitude and lack of work ethic. He has worked on this while in Boston, but who knows, he may relapse. Other than that, he has a TON of pressure on his back this season to do well. It can be fair to assume that he'll blow it and suck this year. He is only hitting .308 right now and that could very well drop considering the schedule they have coming up. He also hasn't hit a home run, so it's fair that his weakness in power hitting proves that the Bo Sox are weak. Youkilis- Youkilis may be the most overrated player in all of MLB right now. Look at my opponent's own evidence that supports this. He is trailing Texieria in every category. This doesn't make him "strong" by any means. In his comparative position to other reams, he's lacking. Ortiz – He's hitting .081. REALLY. I think that proves my point. He's even on steroids and still hitting that. Not to mention he'll hurt himself like every other year. He'll show up in September hit 2 home runs, Red Sox nation will call him the second coming of Christ and the only ones who will be able to see through the lackadaisical player will be people who simply aren't Boston fans. I don't think I need to go on. You get to the bottom of the lineup that is traditionally used for the worse players. So if I can prove that the Sox are weak at what they claim to be "strong" then I shouldn't have to prove what weak is weak. In conclusion, there should be no vote for my opponent because of the flawed rhetoric of the topic and my player by player analysis of why Boston is a "weak" offense. I look forward to my opponent's reply. Thank you.
Gambling for Muslims in Vea

I just noticed something that I for some reason failed to notice before and would like to amend at this time. The argument: ///If the government were to make a law that prohibited only Muslims from entering casinos they would in effect be violating this amendment by making a law that only applies to Muslims./// is now If the government were to make a law that prohibited only Muslims from entering or specifically allowed Muslims entrance to casinos they would in effect be violating this amendment by making a law that only applies to Muslims.
Gambling for Muslims in Vea

I thank my opponent for making this debate and I'll admit that this debate is a bit confusing to read and for the purposes of the debate I am going to assume that you are for the government allowing Muslims into casinos. Therefore the resolution would be: "The U.S. government should allow muslims in our casinos." The above resolution is how I see this and it is how I will be debating and as Con I accept the Burden of Clash. With that said here are a few opening arguments. ~ Contention 1: A vast majority of casinos in America are privately owned and operated, therefore the government should not have a say as to who gets to go in them. This decision should be left to the proprietor of the casino. Currently I am not aware of any laws at all that regulate who can and can not enter a casino and I do not believe that any exist. Contention 2: In the Bill of Rights the First Amentment reads as such: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [1]" If the government were to make a law that prohibited only Muslims from entering casinos they would in effect be violating this amendment by making a law that only applies to Muslims. ~ I look forward to my opponent's response. [1] http://www.archives.gov...
False rape charges should be against the law

I think the courts are in need of a massive over haul if they can't seem to keep their own rules straight. When things like "stare rape" and terms like "rape culture" get taken seriously then I know that society is declining. It's not a widely commited crime, and should be investigated. If she consents and does not voice she wants to stop, then that in itself is a form of consent in and of itself. Now if someone cums in her after she's consented then it's not rape, consenting to sex means you understand the biological consequences that come with it. The law isn't "arrest a woman if a man isn't found guilty" which it seems like that's people think. It's arrest her for the amount of time the defendant would've been given if she's caught lying. The courts will still catch blatant lies and let it slide.
False rape charges should be against the law

Because only a court can decide if the accused is guilty regardless, the system is not in need of improving or change. Perhaps the Judges should be considered unqualified or the lawyers liars and be entirely discredited. First we must acknowledge that: if at any point in time during sex the woman wants you out, you are at the point raping her. If you are disrespectful or rude, you are raping her. if you cum when she requests you do not, or tells you not to, you have raped her. If she does not want the sex, even if she consents, you are raping her. If a woman is raped. Even conventionally (what is widely acknowledged as rape) and she goes to court, and losses, she must then pay a defense attorney, and then would have to pay a Criminal Charge and have a criminal record. THAT law would be absurd. Taking that into consideration, your second quote was meant to suggest that, "a person who is accused is not Charged until proven guilty in court. SO accusing someone is not demeaning, if when the accuser looses she must pay both attorneys.
False rape charges should be against the law

If false allegations of rape are truly against the law why does it not actually get tried in courts and the accusers get a slap on the wrist, and most of the time when it does happen the accused is often thrown in jail with no investigation. Gender plays a bigger role than the actual facts most of the time in the justice system. You make it sound as if the law is always fair, which couldn't be further from the truth. The Court is supposed to be sufficient enough to determine if they are guilty or not, and going through the Court is the only way to determine who is guilty anyhow.I'm sure you've seen a lot of things make it in court, and fall in favor of the side of the bullshitterPeople feeling confident enough to bring false accustations into court, and live television, should tell you something. Even if the person accused is proven innocent, that accustation still sticks. Things like this need to be fixed. As far as I can tell your comment seems to suggest the system is fine, and these issues don't even require to be looked at. Otherwise, one can only stipulate in a realistic debate, that To accuse someone of Rape is to not have them charged,and the negative social effect and monetary effects of accusing someone of Rape are a justified Penalty for the accuser.Are you saying that if someone is said to legally be guilty of a crime by all accounts, even if it's proven to a false charged, that it is deserved?
False rape charges should be against the law

It is already against the Law to sew someone for something they did not commit. I believe this is Fraud. I do not have access to legal texts to make reference to the technical terms, but still, It is already illegal to accuse people of Rape or anything else when it is not true. That is why we need lawyers to bring people to Court, and the winner is rewarded with enough money to pay the lawyer and be compensated. The Court is supposed to be sufficient enough to determine if they are guilty or not, and going through the Court is the only way to determine who is guilty anyhow. So the Guilty is charged either way. Otherwise I would agree with you and not debate with you, but you rationalize it is not a crime to falsely accuse people, and so I argue you are already confused and thus cannot support your end of the debate if It holds itself sufficiently above your head oblivious to your efforts. Unless someone should claim this law should be changed... then, well, I guess this is befuddling. Because you want to say a Rape charge which is against the law should be against the law, I could equally argue in redundancy, that I think Rape should come to an end and the charges removed from consideration. Otherwise, one can only stipulate in a realistic debate, that To accuse someone of Rape is to not have them charged, and the negative social effect and monetary effects of accusing someone of Rape are a justified Penalty for the accuser.
False rape charges should be against the law

If you will take this debate put "ACCEPT" and then make your argument. If not simply put "DENIED" and just leave it there. Now for the rules:ROUND 1:ARGUMENT PHASE this round isn't worth any points, but it will start things up. We're not making any rebuttals, but we are making our own argument. ROUND 2:REBUTTAL STAGE this round is worth 2 points for whoever refutes more points.ROUND 3:ARGUMENT PHASE(2) this round IS worth points and it's all about execution, and whoever makes the more compelling argument in this round.ROUND 4:REBUTTAL STAGE(2) this round the same as 2 refute the arguments from the previous round, whoever refutes more 2 points, who can ever make the most compelling argument without having to use some source and explain in their own words 2 points. Good grammar 1 point. GENERAL RULES:Sources are allowed but only in argument rounds, and you're only allowed 3 sources, anymore and points will be deducted. (-3) No ad hominem attacks, and eluding to personal attacks. (-1)No fallacious arguments(-2 points) THANK YOU________________________________________________________________________________________________ARGUMENT:I think anyone making false allegations should be held accountable. It's an offense to call the police and have nothing to report, so falsely accusing someone should also be punishable, this way the accuser would be less inclined to make false reports. This would not stop the many, but if this law WAS passed and was proven effective then less accusers would feel inclined to report false charges and true victims would probably feel more inclined to report it.
False rape charges should be against the law

Um, considering we said come in her. If he does not go into her with cum, then he did not come in her. Hence a condom is not even regard able as a statement in an argument form. You are off topic and incompetent as a debtor. My conduct: accusing men. Is not in any way a suggestion only men can rape** that is another rash conclusion you have come to without any regard for common sense. ( nonsense not being sense, sense is always being the common form of sense. ) when a man gets raped by women who can over power him, or by groups it does not get thrown out. Hence, you are incorrect in this assumption that women raping men are disregarded by the court. " it is incompetence to even engage in the act if you know you're not going to voice your discontent. " exactly, making it rape. in addition, You should not have to see her face to know she is uncomfortable. Sounds, body language, intimate connectivity. And the risk of coming is only that the man has no self restraint. There is no other risk other than his incompetence. He sees it coming for a time long enough to secure his dignity. it's not like a balloon popping. Rape has everything to do with biology: the penis entering a vagina is a coherent action taken with great regard and consideration. YOU YOUR BRAIN WHEN YOU DEBATE >< YOU ARE AN INCOMPETENT DEBTOR. you react rashly without considering anything prior to responding. Your conduct has been absent, as you disregard logic prior to responding and spout nonsense which is off topic.
False rape charges should be against the law

You know there's a thing called contraception. If he puts on a condom and cums, is that still rape? If you can voice your discontent at any moment, then you should do so, what if the man can't see her face? With all your arguments it seems as if you were implying only men can rape. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're not, but I would like to add that whenever a woman makes rape charges it gets investigated, when a man does it gets thrown out. a lot of these women are false accusers who make it difficult for the real victims. If it's incompetence to cum when she has said not to, it is incompetence to even engage in the act if you know you're not going to voice your discontent. A man cumming is a risk anyone with basic sex-ed should understand, rape accustations have nothing to do with biology.
Biblical Debate: Abortion

~~Defense~~D1: My opponent has misinterperated the scripture. By saying ' When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm'the passage means that neither the baby nor his/her's mother is unharmed then the men would be just fined. It is an obvious fact that pregant women can be forced into early labor and still give birth to a healthy child. So, the whole scripture means that if a man/woman hits (or rather forces a woman into early labor) and the baby and the mother are both alright then he/she would be subjegated to whatever fines the father mite demand however, if the mother or the baby are harmed then the penalty would be death. So, this clearly states the unborn is just as human as the born. D2: My opponent is wrong yet again. Even though this particular verse that I have stated is toward Jeremiah the Prophet, Acts 10:34 states that ' God is no respecter of persons'. This means he does not show partiality to anyone. If he has a specifit plan for Jeremiah and consecrates him before he was even formed, then God also does the same with everyother person. So my next case is for personhood still stands. ~~Rebuttels~~Ok so, before I state my first rebuttel I would like to point out the problem of his first case. He basically states that since God killed fetuses then we can too. However, if this were true then since God destroyed the world and extermintated two cities then we should too right? No! Because God is the master and we are merely servents. If God has a reason for doing something then He can however, His reasoning and ours are totally different. Now my first rebuttel:R1: My opponent brings up numbers 31:15-17. However if He were to take a look at the rest of the chapter (and the other chapters of the book itself) he would see that the people that the Israelites were ordered to kill were a people who had been harrassing the Israelites for years so, in order to rid themselves of the threat they had to 'erase' them (exterminate them). Do take a look at that it wasn't the fact that people were fetuses or the preganant woman didn't want their babies it was a military strike. As for the next verse, this merely is a rhetorical question being asked to the Lord. Thus, this contention is refuted. R2: My opponent now states that since the Jews didn't put a money value on a baby that was before a month old. However, anyone who knows about the state and pregnancies will know that a bbay that has not been born yet or has been proven to be able to survive is of no use to the state so that is the reason for the money value. Also, I would like to point out that Adam was only a clump of dirt until God breathed life into him and Fetuses do breath oxygen just not through normal ways until their umbilical courd is cut. Therefore, this contenion is also refuted. I will now await my oppoennt's response.